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.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
"'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".
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".
Friday, July 25, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
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?
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?
Monday, July 21, 2008
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 . . ..
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 . . ..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)