Now Global Warming is Racist

House Majority Whip: Climate Change Hurts Blacks More - By Jeff Poor, Business & Media Institute
7/29/2008 2:14:30 PM

Speaking before the National Press Club, House Majority Whip James Clyburn stated “It is critical our community (African American) be an integral and active part of the debate because African-Americans are disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change economically, socially and through our health and well-being,”.

Note to Congress: That Apology Is Not On My Behalf

H. Res. 194 - Passed by the House of Representatives of the United States of America July 29, 2008.

This resolution passed by the House specifically states that the House of Representatives "(3) apologizes to African Americans on behalf of the people of the United States, for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow;".

On behalf of myself, I explicitly remove my name from that apology.

And now the explanation.

To begin with, not a single person alive today either owned or lived as a slave in the United States of America. An apology is required to be delivered of a wrongdoer to the wronged. Neither party exists in the case of slavery, and therefore no apology is valid. While so-called Jim crow laws are substantially more recent, the parties involved are for the most part nearing the end of their days.

It is also not valid for a branch of the Federal government of the United States of America to offer an apology for slavery as the US Government never actively created or furthered slavery and discrimination. The constitution acknowledged the fact that slavery pre-existed the Union. It even shrewdly accorded the "other Persons" (slaves) a value equal to three-fifths that of a "free Person" (primarily whites) - not as a means of demeaning or lessening the stature of blacks but to prevent the southern slave-holding states from amassing even greater power and representation in the Congress and federal government. The federal government did nothing but take an active role in the abolition of slavery and race-based discrimination. From the Emancipation Proclamation to the 13th Amendment to the Civil Rights laws of the 1960s the national leaders took the appropriate actions to negate the efforts at sate and local levels of government. The Supreme Court decision of 1896 in Plessy v. Ferguson can be viewed as a thinly veiled affirmation of discrimination - or it might charitably be construed as a sincere, if misguided, notion that separate but equal truly was just that. In either case, the Court corrected itself and removed any doubt concerning its position when rendering the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954.

The resolution additionally states "Whereas slavery in America resembled no other form of involuntary servitude known in history, as Africans were captured and sold at auction like inanimate objects or animals;". This assertion alone calls into question the competence of the framers of this resolution and its overall legitimacy. Slave auctions are hardly a uniquely American or even caucasian practice. Peoples and races from around the globe can point to their pasts and acknowledge that particular distinction.

Portuguese Prince Henry established a slave market and fort in 1445.

The Siberian region, Slavic peoples and Vikings are just a few examples with an ancient historical slave trade.

Arabs didn't want to be left out of the game.

China, Korea, and India all got in on the act.

So to proclaim that slavery as practiced in the US was uniquely horrific is ridiculous and completely undermines the premise of the resolution.

Let there be no misunderstanding: Slavery is a despicable and completely indefensible practice. In an ideal history it never would have happened, and the vestiges of those events would preferably not still taint the world today. However slavery is an historical human failure, one that has at one time or another negatively impacted and been visited upon all races. The twisted logic is that their ancestors having been victimized in the past, blacks today are inheritor victims and owed recompense by inheritor perpetrators (whites). Following that rationale to its absurd conclusion, all human beings owe reparations to all other human beings. So let's just call it even and look to the future.

As has been pointed out elsewhere in this blog, history teaches what has gone before - if we have the collective courage to study and learn from the lesson. History - taken in its totality rather than in self-serving snapshots - can be a highly effective guide to future behavior. No amount of reparations, whether monetary, tangible property, or affirmative action, is going to eliminate the atrocities of the past. Offering up a collective "White Man's burden" mea culpa and throwing in a handful of guilt money, both tangible and metaphorical, will not alleviate the sins of the past nor will it place the aggrieved parties on an equal plane with the oppressors. The history will still be there, attitudes both individual and collective will remain fundamentally unchanged, and human nature will compel the beneficiaries of those handouts not to strive for a greater future but rather to strive for a future even greater handout. Human beings who get something for nothing inevitably want to get more something - and are always willing to contribute more nothing. Anyone who has raised a child can attest to that universal truth.

I fully regret this particular aspect of the past and the pain and suffering caused. Baptizing in the blood of collective guilt will not however make it go away, and so I choose not to take part in this self-serving exercise in political grandstanding that is H. Res. 194. The sins of the past are expiated not by tossing an offering into the plate and moving on to happier thoughts, but rather by learning from the mistakes that were made and consciously choosing not to perpetrate them in the future.

"'Wrong bras' can damage breasts" - Oh Really?

The headline writers at BBC online did their job well. As a typical male human being, how could I possibly consider passing up a story that promises breasts?

It seems that poor support can lead to "fragile ligaments" in the breasts being stretched, no doubt leading inevitably to the dreaded sag. The article goes on to report that during exercise the breasts can move over eight and a quarter inches - up and down, in and out, side to side - and that most bras only handle the vertical movement. Makes one want to seriously reconsider the wisdom of not taking full advantage of that gym membership.

Apparently, women are collectively a bunch of fools who won't consider a bra that doesn't match up with preconceived notions about what the "right" kind of bra should look like. The thing doesn't like like the sports bra they've been told about all their lives? Then it clearly can't be one. Next! The story also claims that most women are so beholden to Project Runway that they will only wear bras for everyday use that are too big or too small in order to appear to have some mythical "proper size" equipment depending from their chests. And to top it all off, the Women's Collective is also apparently too stupid to realize that over time such things as pregnancy (and the subsequent breast feeding), weight gain and loss, and menopause change the size of the breasts and requires a corresponding adjustment in bra size.

Now, I'm just a male, afflicted with the biological imperative to appreciate all the entertaining possibilities a pair of soft squishies has to offer. That same biological imperative also diverts blood flow from critical organs - such as the brain - making it difficult at best to give due consideration to the learned study reported in this article.

However, I do have a few thoughts on the subject.

First, I'm going to go way out on a limb here and make the wild guess that breasts were invented months if not entire years or perhaps even decades before the whole bra concept came along. Back in the day, I'm guessing early human females actually ran around without any supportive structures whatsoever. It would seem that somehow we managed to not just survive but actually thrive as a species - with the whole breast thing not only intact but flourishing.

Second, I'll grant that there probably is some well intentioned and even serious science behind this research. That the research was likely conceived by a bunch of mid- to late-twenties men who are unquestionably brilliant and well endowed (financially) by their universities yet incapable of getting a date outside the red light district is no doubt purely coincidental. The results of the research however have more likely been co-opted by those who sell bras to further their own personal aims of financial success.

The only lifting and separating going on here will be my wallet from my pocket and my money from my wallet. No doubt my wife is going to require 57 different types of bra (multiple copies of each), much as she needs 157 different pairs of shoes. All these different bras will need a place to live while not being worn, hence the need to purchase a brand new dresser dedicated to lingerie storage. The new dresser will need a place in the bedroom - she's unlikely to agree to getting into the lacy underthings while standing in the middle of the living room - so in order to have a larger bedroom I'll need to acquire a larger home as well.

It's a cleverly disguised financial stimulus package on a scale that absolutely dwarfs anything congress could imagine even on a good day.

My how far we've come since the advent of the simple "over the shoulder boulder holder".

What Goes Around Comes Around

In a Breitbart story posted July 25, it is lamented that poor Danny Glover can't get investors to pony up funding for his proposed movie about Haitian independence in 1804. It seems all the producers and money types he approached in the US, Great Britain, and Europe are of the opinion that there aren't enough white heroes in the movie for it to do well in Europe and Japan. Poor Prospects for ticket sales rationally mean poor prospects for funding.

Spike Lee went ballistic when Clint Eastwood didn't include black soldiers in "Flags of Our Fathers". That selfish, racist bastard apparently felt that the fact there were no actual black soldiers in the battles depicted was justification for excluding him from the movie.

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suggest that rewriting the script to include a band of Anglos fighting side by side with their Haitian brethren to help create the Republic would be a bit of a non-starter. Creating sympathetic white characters to promote sales would be an affront to black pride around the planet, especially when it flies so completely in the face of historical fact.

And that's okay. The movie deserves to be made, and to succeed or fail on its own merits. History should never be rewritten to solicit an audience, nor should historical fact be changed or ignored to soothe the feelings of those who might not be comfortable with the past.

Adolf Hitler, The Crusades, the invasion of the Mongol Hordes, the Persian Empire, the White Man's Slaughter of the Indians - all of these are historical incidents. It would be difficult to find someone who would point with pride to any of these who would not be soundly derided by the majority of his or her peers.

History is not improved by giving it a fresh new coat of paint and slapping a few smiley face stickers on it. History simply is. And it only has value when it is examined in all of its stark, sometimes unpleasant, reality. Learning from mistakes and emulating successes should be the lessons that history teaches.

Not that the liberation of Haiti from French rule was a multicultural kumbaya moment.

Every Day Is Earth Day!

As I was waiting at the four-way stop sign, I couldn't help but notice the car in front of me. It was a rather new looking Prius, that not-quite silver color that isn't gray, either.

There was a "Save the Planet" type bumper sticker in place, almost as predictable as the three piece pinstripe suit on the stereotypical banker of days gone by. Between the car and the bumper sticker, it was clear that the long-tressed wispy blond (no doubt a Clairol Nice'n Easy Perfect 10) was a far more dedicated acolyte of AlGore than I ever fear I might become in even my worst nightmares.

The baby in the back seat - where did that brown hair come from? - was buckled in to what appeared to be a top of the line car safety seat.

Why, then, was this socially conscious, ecologically humble specimen of über humanity seen disposing her cigarette butt out the car window before accelerating onto the highway?

WTF?!

(The linked web page in general is NSFW - though the video itself is not necessarily so.)

Right around the thirty second mark in this video, what could possibly justify shooting a man who is bound, blindfolded and standing still?

A)
B)
C)
D) All of the above.

The correct answer is D) All of the above. There is no way to justify this.

Even if your mother really is that phrase Don Imus made famous, once you put on a uniform, any uniform, you need to show far more restraint than that. I certainly hope Obama doesn't see this and get any great ideas for crowd control in Denver . . ..

I'm An Asshole . . . And I'm Proud of It!

(Story Linked in title.)

To begin with, Sarah E. Muller of Summerfield, Florida, is an idiot. She should be aware that as a general rule it cannot help your cause to refer to a judge in his own courtroom as an "asshole". Just as it can't be considered very good practice to refer to the officer who has just pulled you over for driving eighty in a school zone in less than flattering terms while he's asking for your license, registration, and current location of your common sense.

However, upon reading the tale as recounted online at ocala.com from the Star-Banner it would seem that Ms. Muller's assessment of Judge R. James McCune Jr. (what exactly is it with those people who feel compelled to be known as "First Initial Middle Name" anyway?) is completely accurate if somewhat less than politically correct.

After initially expressing herself, Judge R. James asked her to clarify her remark. Perfectly following the instructions given, Sarah repeated her character assessment of the jurist.

For doing exactly as instructed the judge charged her with "direct criminal contempt of the court".

Applying logic like that, anyone who is pulled over on the highway and asked to exit the vehicle is in a tough spot. Comply, and you stand to be charged with being a pedestrian on the highway. Refuse, and your stuck with failure to obey an officer. Certainly seems like an opportunity for less than fully scrupulous jurisdictions to engage in a bit of revenue enhancement if nothing else.

Back to our friend the judge though. Clearly no one enjoys being referred to as a solid waste transfer orifice. Particularly if they are one. That aside, the offense is so trivial that at most is merits no more than a stern admonishment about how one should properly comport oneself in public venue. Certainly three days in jail and $233 in fines, fees, and court costs (not to mention the theoretical maximum of six months in jail and a $500 fine!) is beyond excessive.

Any person with the authority to mete out such punishments should be a big enough person that they don't actually need to do so.

There are only two possible messages the actions of the Right Honorable Judge R. James McCune Jr. sends to Ms. Muller and to the community at large. Neither of those messages is positive.

The first is that good ol' R. Jimmie is an outwardly pretentious self important snob who feels nothing but contempt for the little people, while inwardly he is a craven, insecure little twit who has no business holding the bench he sits upon.

The second possible message is that he stands in front of the shaving mirror every morning singing Dennis Leary's paean "I'm An Asshole". I suspect I'm right, Jimmy, in thinking that Carly Simon would be dead on in accusing you of thinking this song is about you.

And you're proud of it.

Hey, I'm Just Asking Here . . .

World Net Daily on Sunday posted a report that an Israeli Jew had been arrested for taking part in a failed rocket attack on a Palestinian village.

The question is, will Israel act honorably and equitably in this matter or will a double standard be applied in the case of Mr. Gilad Herman? Whenever a Palestinian is arrested for acts of terrorism against any Israeli interest, that individual's home is destroyed. Sometimes on top of aged parents and others who may or may not have had anything to do with or even been aware of the incident. The arrest itself is generally used as proof of the terrorist act and thus justification for the destruction.

Will Mr. Herman's home also be destroyed after an exhaustive thirty second investigation? Or is it impossible for an Israeli Jew to be a terrorist, just as no minority in this country is capable of committing racist acts?

Double standards do not make very effective moral shields.

An Impossible Standard

Today's glimpse of insanity is linked from the Orlando Sentinel. The outrage this time surrounds a 1930's era photograph hanging on the wall at a public golf course.

As can be seen in the picture at left, a white golfer is lining up a putt while the barefoot black caddy grasps the flag.

Daisy W. Lyman is a commissioner on the Orlando, Florida, City Council. The Orlando Sentinel story does not mention her heritage, but at the risk of perpetuating racial stereotypes a quick review of her image at the City Council web site suggests that Ms. Lynum may be of African-American ancestry. As images may apparently misrepresent fact (just ask Rodney King, among others) I do not claim as fact that my interpretation of her racial background is accurate. That belief could simply be an unfortunate result of my white middle class upbringing.

Commissioner Lynum does not believe the photograph belongs at a city-owned golf course where many blacks might find it degrading. She claims not to object to the fact that the black youth is a caddy, but rather that he is shoeless - that being a factor that "harkened [sic] back to more discriminatory times".

Yes commissioner, denying history has always been an effective means of making the unpleasantness of the past go away and never repeat itself.

Lynum is quoted in the article:

"There are different types of black folks, just like white folks. What offends one might not offend another," she said. "I still feel that if anyone finds it offensive, it should not be displayed."

It is the last sentence in that quote that addresses the huge problem that Political Correctness run amok has thrust upon this country. Indeed, a casual reading of the global headlines suggests this is a problem that threatens the entire western world.

If the standard is to be that if anyone finds it (whatever "it" might be) offensive, what then can possibly be displayed anywhere? For virtually any image or narrative you can conceive, there is someone who can claim grounds for being offended by it.

Ground beef at $1.99 a pound? Setting aside how offensive the price alone is to most of us, there are those justifiably disturbed that their scared cows are being defiled.

Pork chops on sale? Same story, different religions.

How about the bikini ad in the weekly sales circular that displays more flesh than can be commonly found on the cover of the average men's magazine? Certainly many groups can claim the right to be offended by that.

You see that woman driving the city bus? Shameful!

The list goes on and on and on, and some examples could even start edging towards slightly ridiculous.

There needs to be a return to the common sense standard that prevailed until fairly recent times. If you don't like it, don't look at it/read it/promulgate it. Accept that what is important to you and held dear may disturb others, and grant them the courtesy of pursuing their interests unrestrained just as you want the opportunity to follow your own preferences without restriction. Disagreement is fine, and can and should be addressed by civilized discourse. Trying to convince you to see my point of view is not a hate crime, regardless of how far beyond the bounds of reality that particular pendulum has swung of late.

Are there some restrictions that a moral and functioning society need to impose for the general well being? Certainly. Some are obvious, while others are a bit more difficult to pin down. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in 1964 neatly summarized the difficulty of objectively defining pornography while stating a nearly universal truth - "I know it when I see it". Yes, there is going to be some audience somewhere for almost anything the human mind can conceive. When that audience can only be measured in minute fractions of one percent of a given population, it can be reasonably argued that that particular material is not suitable for or in concordance with the best interests and prevailing sentiments of the society at large.

For the most part, we need to live and let live. Denying history, or going out of the way to find that one individual who didn't take their meds this morning and so is offended by the sun rising in the east is not a functional way to manage any society.

Everything Is Bigger In Texas - Including Idiocy

I first came across the story linked in the title from the "SciGuy" column in the Houston Chronicle (http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2008/07/is_black_hole_a.html).

Quoting the article on a Dallas County Commissioners meeting about traffic ticket collections:

Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield, who is white, said it seemed that central collections "has become a black hole" because paperwork reportedly has become lost in the office.

Commissioner John Wiley Price, who is black, interrupted him with a loud "Excuse me!" He then corrected his colleague, saying the office has become a "white hole."

That prompted Judge Thomas Jones, who is black, to demand an apology from Mayfield for his racially insensitive analogy.

The author of the "Go Play In The Street" blog you are now reading, who is white, is sick of the overwhelming effort by many in this country to go out of their way to find or, if necessary, manufacture out of whole cloth racial or other insensitivities where they do not exist.

Memo to Commissioner Price and Judge Jones: Anyone who has successfully escaped the first half of a public school education in this country is more than passingly familiar with the concept of a "black hole". Not just the term itself, but the properties of the phenomenon. Anyone who does not comprehend the meaning of the term, nor its vernacular usage in common American English is not competent to wander the streets unsupervised, let alone hold public office.

Many terms in our language employ color, and while with tremendous effort could be construed as doing so do not actually posses any racial overtones whatsoever. "Red tape" is not a slur against Native Americans. "Brown out" does not implicate Hispanics. "Yellow anything" is not intended as denigration of all things Asian. To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a color is just a color.

In 2007, Bo and Luke Duke (John Schneider and Tom Wopat) from the "Dukes of Hazzard" television series had their participation in a Cincinnati Pops Orchestra presentation canceled. Indeed, the entire concert was canceled over their proposed participation. Why? Because a local NAACP representative opined that the actors' participation in the series thirty years ago, in which the General Lee had a Confederate flag boldly emblazoned upon it, might indicate tacit support of the racism that flag promotes in the minds of some by the Cincinnati Pops.

Yes, the most dedicated practitioner of mental yoga can find insult in almost anything if they try hard enough. Wouldn't it be better though to assume insult is not intended until the one giving insult makes it inescapably clear that insult is indeed intended?

Approaching most of life with a positive mindset just might make much of the bovine fertilizer medium we find ourselves compelled to trudge through daily disappear forever down a black hole of common sense.