Hate crimes didn't exist prior to the 1960's. In truth, it wasn't until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that the country began to penalize racist or discriminatory behavior. After that, with the rise of gay rights in the 70's, 80's and especially 90's, civil rights protections were extended to gays as well as members of racial minorities. Considering that the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had been with us since 1868, it's surprising yet sad that it took so long for every American citizen to enjoy those freedoms and protections.
Since hate crimes have been used over the last couple of decades, it's been axiomatic that the perpetrators of such crimes were white and male, sometimes white and female. Yet the Equal Protection Clause doesn't distinguish between genders and races when establishing the coverage. When it mentions equal, that should be extended to anyone, regardless of who the victim is.
Unfortunately, that isn't the case at all. Far too often, the minute a minority is the victim, the suggestion that a hate crime -- which only adds an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing; the underlying crime stands irrespective of the inclusion of a hate crime charge -- could possibly have been committed by a minority against a white person is ludicrous. Well, it's treated as such. Police officers seem constitutionally incapable of suggesting such to the district attorneys, and district attorneys shy away from bringing such charges. It's laughable.
Yet there are plenty of good examples where crimes committed against whites by minorities at least raise the specter of a hate crime. Not every crime committed by a minority against a white person qualifies, by any means. But the converse is also true: Not every crime committed by a white person against a minority is a hate crime, either. Supporters of Trayvon Martin might be surprised to learn that.
Recently, outside Detroit a white man who drove the same route every morning on his way to work hit a young boy who darted out into the street. There's actually footage from a gas station security camera that shows the boy running out so closely to the truck that there's no doubt it was a tragic accident. As he was liable to do, legally, the man, Steven Yutash, stopped his vehicle to check on the boy, who is black. He was set upon by a gang of black youths and young adults who beat the man into a pulp. Mr. Yutesh is now in an induced coma fighting for his life. Only two people have been arrested, and they ain't talking. It's more important not to be a snitch and keep one's street cred than to do the right thing, as Mr. Yutesh did.
Last year, a World War II vet was killed by a couple of young black men. Officials were quick to note that this wasn't a hate crime, but a simple robbery that escalated to murder.
In Oklahoma last year, an Australian exchange student was murdered -- shot in the back as he jogged -- because his teen assailants were bored. It was later discovered that one of the youths posted racist tweets saying that 90% of white ppl are nasty. #HATE THEM and Ayeee I knocced [sic] out 5 woods since Zimmerman court!:) lol shit ima keep sleepin shit! #ayeee. Woods is apparently a derogatory term for white people. Officials declined to pursue hate crime charges, saying that the teens made those posts for effect.
If those posts were only for effect, why was everyone so quick to suggest that George Zimmerman acted out of racist motives, when he made no such comments and in fact had a history of positive interaction with black people?
It is a certainty that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson can find a hate crime in anything. Just look at Tawana Brawley or the Duke lacrosse players cases. To be sure, there are racists and skinheads and Aryan Brotherhood members among us. But not every crime involves a racist element. At the same time, not every crime committed by a black person against a white person is the result of a lack of opportunity or a shortcoming of education.
There are black people who ran to rescue Mr. Yutesh. There are good black people all over the country. But there are evil black people as well, people to whom Sharpton and Jackson pander with their well-tuned Forever Selma campaigns. Sensible black leaders combat this neverending drama, noting that to find civil rights violations in every crime lessens the value and importance of such crimes when they really happen.
Black leaders must also, instead of simply descrying the violence, advocate for those people who commit true hate crimes to be charged with them instead of having them explained away with convenient totems. If in fact we're going to heed Dr. King's dictum, those black criminals who commit hate crimes must be charged with them the same way white criminals are. Otherwise, Dr. King's dictum is not being followed, because the color of the criminal's skin is being used as an excuse not to charge him with a hate crime, and that's no more fair than charging him with a crime he didn't commit because he's black.
Something has to change, soon.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Monday, April 7, 2014
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Political Correctness in Education and the MSM
Lately, there have been some stories floating around the internet -- because the MSM will never report on them -- about the rising tide of political correctness in our nation's elementary and secondary schools. I'd be hard-pressed to invent these stories because they're so absurd. Yet these stories happen with unnerving regularity...and still the MSM ignores them.
Let's start with Jesus. In January, a California grade schooler was told not to mention Jesus's name because it might offend other students. There are just a couple of problems -- constitutional ones at that -- with this. First, the First Amendment doesn't allow infringement on free speech, with certain time, place and manner restrictions, none of which would apply in this case. Although the teacher isn't the government, per se, because she works for a public school, she's the school's agent, and that makes this a case of government suppression of free speech. That the child is a grade schooler doesn't render the constitutional guarantee null and void. If anything, it should magnify it.
The second infringement with this is that the girl was obviously invoking the First Amendment in expressing her religious views. That mention of Jesus might offend a fellow student is irrelevant. If anything, the teacher should instruct other students to be tolerant of differing viewpoints and religions. Again, rather than us to teach tolerance, suppression of religious freedom is the answer. An obvious question is what would happen if a Muslim child invoked Allah in a paper or speech. Would the teacher ask the student to refrain from mentioning Allah, and if he or she did, would the MSM cover the story?
Next, a grade schooler in North Carolina cited Jesus Christ as his hero. The teacher -- never having gone to law school, obviously -- wrote: Do you need to mention Jesus? Again, the double standard with Islam rears its ugly head. Perhaps it's atheism. But as in the first case, there are clear First Amendment issues that transcend someone's discomfort with no time, place or manner issues. Constitutional rights are not just for adults.
Then, in Michigan, the Department of Justice has ordered a school to tear down seating that was put up at the high school's baseball field. Why? Because the seating -- paid for with money earned from private funds earned at bake sales and other private fundraisers and installed with labor provided by volunteers -- was superior to the existing bleachers at the softball field and therefore resulted in an inequitable facility. Equal protection mandated, according to DoJ, that it be torn down.
Lunacy, thy name is political correctness.
It makes little sense to tear down something that was bought and installed by private means. If anything, the backers of the softball team should imitate the baseball set, raise the necessary funds, volunteer their time and services and build comparable seating. That the seating built by the baseball field must be torn down because of some twisted reading of Title IX makes no sense whatsoever. That someone got her panties in a bunch because another person outworked her and built something because of the sweat of her brow does not mean that equal protection has not been afforded.
Political correctness has run amok. There needs to be a correction that replaces it with common sense. Not every resulting inequality is the result of unfairness. I wish I were 6'6", but I'm not. I wish I had the body of a movie star, but I don't. I wish I had the wealth of anyone but me, but I don't. But there is no violation of my constitutional rights in either situation.
Alexander Hamilton said it best more than two hundred years ago:
Ah, this is the constitution. Now, mark my words. So long as we area young and virtuous people, this instrument will bind us together in mutual interests, mutual welfare, and mutual happiness. But when we become old and corrupt, it will bind us no longer.
Apparently, we are now old and corrupt.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Let's start with Jesus. In January, a California grade schooler was told not to mention Jesus's name because it might offend other students. There are just a couple of problems -- constitutional ones at that -- with this. First, the First Amendment doesn't allow infringement on free speech, with certain time, place and manner restrictions, none of which would apply in this case. Although the teacher isn't the government, per se, because she works for a public school, she's the school's agent, and that makes this a case of government suppression of free speech. That the child is a grade schooler doesn't render the constitutional guarantee null and void. If anything, it should magnify it.
The second infringement with this is that the girl was obviously invoking the First Amendment in expressing her religious views. That mention of Jesus might offend a fellow student is irrelevant. If anything, the teacher should instruct other students to be tolerant of differing viewpoints and religions. Again, rather than us to teach tolerance, suppression of religious freedom is the answer. An obvious question is what would happen if a Muslim child invoked Allah in a paper or speech. Would the teacher ask the student to refrain from mentioning Allah, and if he or she did, would the MSM cover the story?
Next, a grade schooler in North Carolina cited Jesus Christ as his hero. The teacher -- never having gone to law school, obviously -- wrote: Do you need to mention Jesus? Again, the double standard with Islam rears its ugly head. Perhaps it's atheism. But as in the first case, there are clear First Amendment issues that transcend someone's discomfort with no time, place or manner issues. Constitutional rights are not just for adults.
Then, in Michigan, the Department of Justice has ordered a school to tear down seating that was put up at the high school's baseball field. Why? Because the seating -- paid for with money earned from private funds earned at bake sales and other private fundraisers and installed with labor provided by volunteers -- was superior to the existing bleachers at the softball field and therefore resulted in an inequitable facility. Equal protection mandated, according to DoJ, that it be torn down.
Lunacy, thy name is political correctness.
It makes little sense to tear down something that was bought and installed by private means. If anything, the backers of the softball team should imitate the baseball set, raise the necessary funds, volunteer their time and services and build comparable seating. That the seating built by the baseball field must be torn down because of some twisted reading of Title IX makes no sense whatsoever. That someone got her panties in a bunch because another person outworked her and built something because of the sweat of her brow does not mean that equal protection has not been afforded.
Political correctness has run amok. There needs to be a correction that replaces it with common sense. Not every resulting inequality is the result of unfairness. I wish I were 6'6", but I'm not. I wish I had the body of a movie star, but I don't. I wish I had the wealth of anyone but me, but I don't. But there is no violation of my constitutional rights in either situation.
Alexander Hamilton said it best more than two hundred years ago:
Ah, this is the constitution. Now, mark my words. So long as we area young and virtuous people, this instrument will bind us together in mutual interests, mutual welfare, and mutual happiness. But when we become old and corrupt, it will bind us no longer.
Apparently, we are now old and corrupt.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Random Reactions
It's Opening Day in baseball, at least in this town, so I'm not going to focus on any one thing as I listen to the game on the radio. Instead, it's going to be short reactions to stories in the news and odds and ends from the weekend:
-- The FLOTUS went to China with her daughters. I don't begrudge her and them that trip, as I think it's a wonderful opportunity for them. But could they just lighten the golf trips to Hawaii while people are struggling to comply with Obamacare?
-- For once, I may actually pay attention to the mid-term elections. This could be fun.
-- I don't know where flight 370 is and at this point I no longer care. We had three citizens on that plane, and we've dedicated more than enough resources to finding it. The Chinese have many more people on that flight, it's closer to them and they own our debt. Let them find the darned thing.
-- So Piers Morgan went out defiantly last week. Good riddance. This is what happens when you put a yappy, snobby, self-absorbed know-it-all Brit in charge of discussions about American culture.
-- Meanwhile, Bill Maher had a surprise segment on racism and how kneejerk reactions are often wrong. It's either a full moon phase or Earth is spinning off its axis.
-- Nick Cannon appeared on something called Instagram in whiteface to promote some project. Reacting to criticism of the move, Mr. Cannon said there's a difference between humor and oppression. Apparently, blacks can decide for whites what's offensive, but white's can't find something humorous that could offend blacks. I feel a blogpost on double standards coming.
-- I'm not sure which Redbox offering was more confusing: the latest Thor installment or The Counselor.
-- Aaron Burr was a genuine jackass.
-- Never was I happier to have a faulty olfactory sense than yesterday when I picked up thirty pounds of bulldog ordure left over from our long winter.
-- While in Costco Saturday, some guy actually tried to run me over with a shopping cart. I'm not sure if that made me madder than the same problem I have finding parking at that store, but someone almost had a problem that required a trip to the hospital, and it wasn't me.
-- I still don't understand the attraction of the Insane Clown Posse. But their followers are no more gangsters than are college football fans.
-- Some attorney has asserted a unique defense for his client accused of rape: He's too handsome to rape a woman. I wonder if Ted Bundy had tried that he'd have been acquitted of murder.
-- Mudslides, brushfires, earthquakes and flash floods. Worse still, Hollywood is located there. Why would anyone want to live in California?
-- I really don't get the fuss about zombies. Between them and superheroes, Hollywood never has to write a thoughtful script again. Just trot out the make believe monsters and heroes and watch the cash come in.
-- The Department of Justice made a school take down bleachers for the baseball field that were paid for and put up by the parents and not the school because they were better than the ones at the girls' softball field. There is a blogpost coming on political correctness in the near future, with this as its centerpiece.
-- How can anyone want defend the Brits after a hospital there used upwards of 15,000 fetuses to heat the building? Is Godwin's Law going to forbid comparison of this with the concentration camps crematoria?
-- Lately, there have been some very, very immature and shortsighted children on Facebook laughing at our servicemen and the injuries they've suffered to let twits like them continue to utter their inanities. It's time mandatory military service were reestablished.
-- Jonathan Pollard must never be let out of prison. Treason deserves a life sentence without chance or parole, if not death.
-- I can't figure gas prices. One day it's $3.43 a gallon, the next it's $3.85, then a couple of days later it's down to $3.63. Are prices fluctuating every time Vladimir Putin has a bowel movement?
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
-- The FLOTUS went to China with her daughters. I don't begrudge her and them that trip, as I think it's a wonderful opportunity for them. But could they just lighten the golf trips to Hawaii while people are struggling to comply with Obamacare?
-- For once, I may actually pay attention to the mid-term elections. This could be fun.
-- I don't know where flight 370 is and at this point I no longer care. We had three citizens on that plane, and we've dedicated more than enough resources to finding it. The Chinese have many more people on that flight, it's closer to them and they own our debt. Let them find the darned thing.
-- So Piers Morgan went out defiantly last week. Good riddance. This is what happens when you put a yappy, snobby, self-absorbed know-it-all Brit in charge of discussions about American culture.
-- Meanwhile, Bill Maher had a surprise segment on racism and how kneejerk reactions are often wrong. It's either a full moon phase or Earth is spinning off its axis.
-- Nick Cannon appeared on something called Instagram in whiteface to promote some project. Reacting to criticism of the move, Mr. Cannon said there's a difference between humor and oppression. Apparently, blacks can decide for whites what's offensive, but white's can't find something humorous that could offend blacks. I feel a blogpost on double standards coming.
-- I'm not sure which Redbox offering was more confusing: the latest Thor installment or The Counselor.
-- Aaron Burr was a genuine jackass.
-- Never was I happier to have a faulty olfactory sense than yesterday when I picked up thirty pounds of bulldog ordure left over from our long winter.
-- While in Costco Saturday, some guy actually tried to run me over with a shopping cart. I'm not sure if that made me madder than the same problem I have finding parking at that store, but someone almost had a problem that required a trip to the hospital, and it wasn't me.
-- I still don't understand the attraction of the Insane Clown Posse. But their followers are no more gangsters than are college football fans.
-- Some attorney has asserted a unique defense for his client accused of rape: He's too handsome to rape a woman. I wonder if Ted Bundy had tried that he'd have been acquitted of murder.
-- Mudslides, brushfires, earthquakes and flash floods. Worse still, Hollywood is located there. Why would anyone want to live in California?
-- I really don't get the fuss about zombies. Between them and superheroes, Hollywood never has to write a thoughtful script again. Just trot out the make believe monsters and heroes and watch the cash come in.
-- The Department of Justice made a school take down bleachers for the baseball field that were paid for and put up by the parents and not the school because they were better than the ones at the girls' softball field. There is a blogpost coming on political correctness in the near future, with this as its centerpiece.
-- How can anyone want defend the Brits after a hospital there used upwards of 15,000 fetuses to heat the building? Is Godwin's Law going to forbid comparison of this with the concentration camps crematoria?
-- Lately, there have been some very, very immature and shortsighted children on Facebook laughing at our servicemen and the injuries they've suffered to let twits like them continue to utter their inanities. It's time mandatory military service were reestablished.
-- Jonathan Pollard must never be let out of prison. Treason deserves a life sentence without chance or parole, if not death.
-- I can't figure gas prices. One day it's $3.43 a gallon, the next it's $3.85, then a couple of days later it's down to $3.63. Are prices fluctuating every time Vladimir Putin has a bowel movement?
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Surreality and Hollywood
The ever-annoying Gwenyth Paltrow announced her separation from her Brit husband this week. For once, I'm siding with a Brit, although in truth, he should have known what he was getting into years ago. Ms. Paltrow is one of the most conceited, superficial and insufferable people out there. That she and her husband are separating is sad for her children, of course, and I really don't have any comment beyond that...other than to congratulate her husband on his newfound freedom. I just hope he chooses better the next time, assuming he wasn't so traumatized by the experience of being married to Ms. Paltrow that he's not sworn off women entirely.
No, the axe I want to grind on Ms. Paltrow has to do with some incredibly stupid comments she made about her profession. So as to avoid leaving her to twist in the wind alone, we can bring in a fellow member of the uninformed Hollywood elite, Tom Cruise, also known for the inanity of his self-pity.
Ms. Paltrow apparently said that mothers with office jobs have it easier than she does. Before picking oneself up off the floor, realize that Ms. Paltrow really believes this. She also believes that she is more thoughtful than most people, that she has an elevated sense of style and a firmer grasp on reality than the rest of us.
Not surprisingly, my disenchantment with Ms. Paltrow began when she compared American men to British men and found us lacking. I'll put up with constructive criticism from just about any angle, but I will not take that. As an otherwise educated American man with some travel under his belt, I'm perfectly comfortable with the way I am, willing to acknowledge my shortcomings but unwilling to denigrate my attributes because I don't have an Etonian education and don't use the redundant U in spellings. For her to make such a blanket statement was the first inkling that Ms. Paltrow was a few apples short of a full peck. That may explain her choice of name for her daughter.
Her recent statement, however, suggesting that her multi-million dollar lifestyle, with jet-setting across the globe to be feted in luxurious accommodations with a staff provided by production companies with plenty of time off to do as she wishes between projects is just ridiculous. Her assertion that working mothers can get things done in the morning before they go to work compared to her hectic life on set is beyond crazy. I'd love to see her switch places with a working mother for a month and see how she holds up. She wouldn't last a week.
That people actually like this woman amazes me. She's the most pretentious, self-centered and clueless celebrity I can remember.
These people imitate people for a living. They get paid gobs of money to pretend. And the public eats it up, praising them unduly and listening to them like they're latter-day Delphic oracles. When something stupid like this is uttered, the public recoils with disgust as if it's just learned that the sun doesn't really come up in the east. Very few of these actors have discernible skills that would be useful in the workplace. They rely on genetic gifts and learned charm to get what they have in life. When a Ms. Paltrow or a Jamie Foxx -- our lord and savior Barack Obama -- make comments that would qualify them for a strait jacket in real life, the public is turned off for a bit, but eventually forgets about it and gives them a pass.
Perhaps the foremost example of this is Jane Fonda, otherwise known as Hanoi Jane. Here are some pictures from Ms. Fonda's past activisim that is largely forgotten today:
For the younger set, that's Ms. Fonda visiting a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft battery during the Vietnam War. An anti-aircraft battery that was used to shoot down American planes piloted by American servicemen. Ms. Fonda went on to dismiss American allegations of torture in the Hanoi Hilton as POW's. Of course, those same airmen were defending her right to exercise her First Amendment rights that allowed her to make these ridiculous allegations, but that's a nit to be picked at another time.
So Ms. Paltrow's legacy for inanity can be traced back to Hanoi Jane. The American public has largely forgotten Hanoi Jane's treachery, rewarding her twice with an Oscar for her art. She has earned countless millions with workout videos and sundry other projects, forgiven by the American people and rarely taken to task for her treason. Ms. Paltrow's stupidity pales in comparison to Hanoi Jane's actions, but she can trace its roots to Hanoi Jane's conduct.
Perhaps, just to keep the connection alive, we should christen Ms. Paltrow London Gwenyth.
She likes the British more anyway.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
No, the axe I want to grind on Ms. Paltrow has to do with some incredibly stupid comments she made about her profession. So as to avoid leaving her to twist in the wind alone, we can bring in a fellow member of the uninformed Hollywood elite, Tom Cruise, also known for the inanity of his self-pity.
Ms. Paltrow apparently said that mothers with office jobs have it easier than she does. Before picking oneself up off the floor, realize that Ms. Paltrow really believes this. She also believes that she is more thoughtful than most people, that she has an elevated sense of style and a firmer grasp on reality than the rest of us.
Not surprisingly, my disenchantment with Ms. Paltrow began when she compared American men to British men and found us lacking. I'll put up with constructive criticism from just about any angle, but I will not take that. As an otherwise educated American man with some travel under his belt, I'm perfectly comfortable with the way I am, willing to acknowledge my shortcomings but unwilling to denigrate my attributes because I don't have an Etonian education and don't use the redundant U in spellings. For her to make such a blanket statement was the first inkling that Ms. Paltrow was a few apples short of a full peck. That may explain her choice of name for her daughter.
Her recent statement, however, suggesting that her multi-million dollar lifestyle, with jet-setting across the globe to be feted in luxurious accommodations with a staff provided by production companies with plenty of time off to do as she wishes between projects is just ridiculous. Her assertion that working mothers can get things done in the morning before they go to work compared to her hectic life on set is beyond crazy. I'd love to see her switch places with a working mother for a month and see how she holds up. She wouldn't last a week.
That people actually like this woman amazes me. She's the most pretentious, self-centered and clueless celebrity I can remember.
These people imitate people for a living. They get paid gobs of money to pretend. And the public eats it up, praising them unduly and listening to them like they're latter-day Delphic oracles. When something stupid like this is uttered, the public recoils with disgust as if it's just learned that the sun doesn't really come up in the east. Very few of these actors have discernible skills that would be useful in the workplace. They rely on genetic gifts and learned charm to get what they have in life. When a Ms. Paltrow or a Jamie Foxx -- our lord and savior Barack Obama -- make comments that would qualify them for a strait jacket in real life, the public is turned off for a bit, but eventually forgets about it and gives them a pass.
Perhaps the foremost example of this is Jane Fonda, otherwise known as Hanoi Jane. Here are some pictures from Ms. Fonda's past activisim that is largely forgotten today:
For the younger set, that's Ms. Fonda visiting a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft battery during the Vietnam War. An anti-aircraft battery that was used to shoot down American planes piloted by American servicemen. Ms. Fonda went on to dismiss American allegations of torture in the Hanoi Hilton as POW's. Of course, those same airmen were defending her right to exercise her First Amendment rights that allowed her to make these ridiculous allegations, but that's a nit to be picked at another time.
So Ms. Paltrow's legacy for inanity can be traced back to Hanoi Jane. The American public has largely forgotten Hanoi Jane's treachery, rewarding her twice with an Oscar for her art. She has earned countless millions with workout videos and sundry other projects, forgiven by the American people and rarely taken to task for her treason. Ms. Paltrow's stupidity pales in comparison to Hanoi Jane's actions, but she can trace its roots to Hanoi Jane's conduct.
Perhaps, just to keep the connection alive, we should christen Ms. Paltrow London Gwenyth.
She likes the British more anyway.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Wisconsin and the Mainstream Media
As a former Illinoisan, I poked a lot of good-natured fun at Wisconsin and their citizens, known locally as Cheeseheads. In truth, Wisconsin has beautiful parts and its cheeseheads are nice people, by and large, so long as one isn't driving a car with Illinois license plates through Racine County.
But that's another story.
Recently, Governor Scott Walker announced that the state had realized a surplus of nearly $1 billion. He announced at the State of the State address various measures designed to lighten the tax burden on Wisconsinites. Money would be put away for a rainy day. In short, this was positive news that benefited the state and its residents.
Yett you probably didn't hear about it.
The MSM doesn't want to publish success stories emanating from Republican-run states. Certainly, it doesn't want to run a story praising a governor who stood up to unions in his state. Nevermind the fact that this positive story arose not from any chicanery but from the imposition of policies, including busting the unions, that many people either oppose or don't understand.
The fact of the matter is that no matter whether there are people that disagree with how Governor Walker got there, he brought solvency to Wisconsin. There are those who say this solvency is chimerical, and they might be right. Even so, were this a liberal governor, this achievement would be trumpeted from ABC to NBC to CNN. The View would have the the governor on, Rachel Maddow would offer to switch teams and Piers Morgan would find constitutional support to make the liberal governor king for life of the country. But because a conservative governor opposed to unions accomplished this, it merits their disdain and their ignorance of the achievement as if it never happened.
This supports my view that the MSM is not a journalistic monolith but an editorial one. This is news, pure and simple. Instead of being as earth-shattering as the Paltrow-Martin split, this affects real people in real time. It deserves some treatment, perhaps even some investigative journalism, not being totally ignored. What the MSM engages in is not journalism, but editorializing. It's shameful and harmful to the country.
By publishing this news, it might occur to liberals that liberalism isn't what they thought it was and cause them to switch. It might harden their resolve to be liberals. But the job of the MSM isn't to mold the public but to provide it with materials with which it can make up its own mind. By deciding not to publish such stories, the MSM is shaping public thought. That isn't its role in society.
I don't know whether Governor Walker's surplus is what he claims it to be; critics claim otherwise. But I do know that the MSM has, once again, abdicated its responsibility. That is shameful if not downright wrong.
For an industry that claims such widespread protections under the First Amendment, it certainly does a disservice to the country that provides those protections.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
But that's another story.
Recently, Governor Scott Walker announced that the state had realized a surplus of nearly $1 billion. He announced at the State of the State address various measures designed to lighten the tax burden on Wisconsinites. Money would be put away for a rainy day. In short, this was positive news that benefited the state and its residents.
Yett you probably didn't hear about it.
The MSM doesn't want to publish success stories emanating from Republican-run states. Certainly, it doesn't want to run a story praising a governor who stood up to unions in his state. Nevermind the fact that this positive story arose not from any chicanery but from the imposition of policies, including busting the unions, that many people either oppose or don't understand.
The fact of the matter is that no matter whether there are people that disagree with how Governor Walker got there, he brought solvency to Wisconsin. There are those who say this solvency is chimerical, and they might be right. Even so, were this a liberal governor, this achievement would be trumpeted from ABC to NBC to CNN. The View would have the the governor on, Rachel Maddow would offer to switch teams and Piers Morgan would find constitutional support to make the liberal governor king for life of the country. But because a conservative governor opposed to unions accomplished this, it merits their disdain and their ignorance of the achievement as if it never happened.
This supports my view that the MSM is not a journalistic monolith but an editorial one. This is news, pure and simple. Instead of being as earth-shattering as the Paltrow-Martin split, this affects real people in real time. It deserves some treatment, perhaps even some investigative journalism, not being totally ignored. What the MSM engages in is not journalism, but editorializing. It's shameful and harmful to the country.
By publishing this news, it might occur to liberals that liberalism isn't what they thought it was and cause them to switch. It might harden their resolve to be liberals. But the job of the MSM isn't to mold the public but to provide it with materials with which it can make up its own mind. By deciding not to publish such stories, the MSM is shaping public thought. That isn't its role in society.
I don't know whether Governor Walker's surplus is what he claims it to be; critics claim otherwise. But I do know that the MSM has, once again, abdicated its responsibility. That is shameful if not downright wrong.
For an industry that claims such widespread protections under the First Amendment, it certainly does a disservice to the country that provides those protections.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Friday, March 21, 2014
Diversity
Recently, there have been a couple of incidents that have cropped up on the issue of diversity. Apparently, diversity doesn't mean what we thought it meant.
At Puget Sound Community College, a group known as Staff, Faculty and Administrators of Color publicized an event in an email that read:
If you want to create space for white folks to meet and work on racism, white supremacy and white privilege to better our campus community and yourself, please feel free to do just that.
When some people objected, a woman who had a hand in drafting the email, Karama Blackthorn, defended the decision, saying that people of color would be able to have a more honest discussion without the participation of white people.
More on Ms. Blackthorn and her perspective, anon.
Next, the irrepressible Reverend Al Sharpton, he of the Tawana Brawley hoax, declared that Rand Paul had no business commenting on civil rights, as if civil rights only applied to minorities. That it's the Reverend Al sometime diminishes the importance of the statement, given his proclivity for making outrageous comments and championing ridiculous civil rights cases. But since the lunatic fringe that runs MSNBC saw fit to give this tool his own show, he has a strong pulpit from which he can spew his brand of reality, and to that extent requires attention.
Both Ms. Blackthorn and Reverend Al are misguided, and not innocently so. They seem to have bought the fallacy that because of past injuries suffered by minorities in general and blacks specifically, unto them and them alone has the right to decide what is right been given. In a sense, this is an extension of the concept that blacks use to justify the use of the execrable term nigger, disallowing its use among whites (no matter how benign) while seeing no problem with it being tossed around among themselves. Since we were harmed by this (nigger, racism, discrimination), only we can use it/decide how to remedy it.
There are a couple of problems with this approach. First, the remedies to discrimination, although prompted largely by the NAACP and other similar groups, relied upon an all-white Supreme Court for the Brown v. Board of Education decision that rendered separate but equal obsolete. Without a largely white Congress, the Civil Rights Act, supported by millions of whites, would never have gotten passed. Abolitionists both at home and abroad were overwhelmingly white. So to discount white involvement on the subject of diversity is ludicrous.
Beyond that, there's the simple idea that by excluding whites from discussions, diversity loses its meaning. One can no more exclude a group and declare diversity than he could close all the drapes and blinds in a house at noon and declare it night. There is no doubt that this country was largely racist at its birth, and that racists -- both overt and closet -- exist to this day. But to deny white participation in a discussion about race makes the participants in such a discussion racist themselves. Of course, they wouldn't see it this way, because according to them, only people in power can be racist, and blacks aren't in power.
Well....
...check that. They weren't in power when the discrimination was at its height....
The point is that a serious discussion about ways to resolve racism necessarily involves whites. As shown above, there are plenty of well-intentioned and kind-hearted whites who earnestly wish to see an end to discrimination. Barring them from the discussion serves little purpose and in fact may harm efforts to do away with it.
What is to be done with a white person married to a black person? Is it simply because of the pigmentation that the person is to be excluded? Shouldn't that person be presumed to share the goals of the group? If not, then is it fair to brand all blacks as rappers, or athletes, or artists, or, worse yet, criminals?
The position Ms. Blackthorn and her ilk take is antiquated at best and racist itself at worst. They can employ all the sophistry they want to justify their beliefs, but they're simply wrong.
As for the Reverend Al, he's just whack.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
At Puget Sound Community College, a group known as Staff, Faculty and Administrators of Color publicized an event in an email that read:
If you want to create space for white folks to meet and work on racism, white supremacy and white privilege to better our campus community and yourself, please feel free to do just that.
When some people objected, a woman who had a hand in drafting the email, Karama Blackthorn, defended the decision, saying that people of color would be able to have a more honest discussion without the participation of white people.
More on Ms. Blackthorn and her perspective, anon.
Next, the irrepressible Reverend Al Sharpton, he of the Tawana Brawley hoax, declared that Rand Paul had no business commenting on civil rights, as if civil rights only applied to minorities. That it's the Reverend Al sometime diminishes the importance of the statement, given his proclivity for making outrageous comments and championing ridiculous civil rights cases. But since the lunatic fringe that runs MSNBC saw fit to give this tool his own show, he has a strong pulpit from which he can spew his brand of reality, and to that extent requires attention.
Both Ms. Blackthorn and Reverend Al are misguided, and not innocently so. They seem to have bought the fallacy that because of past injuries suffered by minorities in general and blacks specifically, unto them and them alone has the right to decide what is right been given. In a sense, this is an extension of the concept that blacks use to justify the use of the execrable term nigger, disallowing its use among whites (no matter how benign) while seeing no problem with it being tossed around among themselves. Since we were harmed by this (nigger, racism, discrimination), only we can use it/decide how to remedy it.
There are a couple of problems with this approach. First, the remedies to discrimination, although prompted largely by the NAACP and other similar groups, relied upon an all-white Supreme Court for the Brown v. Board of Education decision that rendered separate but equal obsolete. Without a largely white Congress, the Civil Rights Act, supported by millions of whites, would never have gotten passed. Abolitionists both at home and abroad were overwhelmingly white. So to discount white involvement on the subject of diversity is ludicrous.
Beyond that, there's the simple idea that by excluding whites from discussions, diversity loses its meaning. One can no more exclude a group and declare diversity than he could close all the drapes and blinds in a house at noon and declare it night. There is no doubt that this country was largely racist at its birth, and that racists -- both overt and closet -- exist to this day. But to deny white participation in a discussion about race makes the participants in such a discussion racist themselves. Of course, they wouldn't see it this way, because according to them, only people in power can be racist, and blacks aren't in power.
Well....
...check that. They weren't in power when the discrimination was at its height....
The point is that a serious discussion about ways to resolve racism necessarily involves whites. As shown above, there are plenty of well-intentioned and kind-hearted whites who earnestly wish to see an end to discrimination. Barring them from the discussion serves little purpose and in fact may harm efforts to do away with it.
What is to be done with a white person married to a black person? Is it simply because of the pigmentation that the person is to be excluded? Shouldn't that person be presumed to share the goals of the group? If not, then is it fair to brand all blacks as rappers, or athletes, or artists, or, worse yet, criminals?
The position Ms. Blackthorn and her ilk take is antiquated at best and racist itself at worst. They can employ all the sophistry they want to justify their beliefs, but they're simply wrong.
As for the Reverend Al, he's just whack.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Potpourri of Political Perspectives
There's a lot going on out there, but not enough on any one issue to motivate me to speak at length on the subject. So today is a potpourri of political perspectives. You're welcome for the alliteration.
The crisis in Ukraine is interesting from a historical perspective, what with its echoes of the Sudetenland in 1938. Sure, Mr. Putin's playing chess while Mr. Obama is twiddling his thumbs. But is there any realistic response that the world can make that would get Russia to back off/
For an election result of 95% in favor of joining Russia to be credible, absolute transparency is required. There was no such thing, and the election was held so fast there couldn't be absolute transparency. It would appear that Russia seeks to reassemble the old Soviet Union.
Militarily, there is little the West can do. Moscow has superior interior lines which would make military intervention logistically challenging at best and at worst a disaster in the making. Unfortunately, the only real solution to this lies in the ballot box without Chicago-style politics. Unfortunately, the old Soviet regime taught Richard J. Daley everything he knows, and Mr. Putin descends from that tree.
Ukraine, unfortunately, is on his own.
Listening to the empty threats made by the Three Stooges -- John Kerry, Joe Biden and Barack Obama -- only confirms that.
--------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, Mr. Obama is preoccupied with the disaster of his own making, Obamacare. Only eleven days remain for sign-ups for the program, and at this date, the stated goal of seven million enrollees is far short by about 2.8 million. So now the White House is going to its Hollywood connections for help.
It's comforting to know that we had to wait to pass the bill before we could find out what was in it. Now that we know what's in it, and people aren't comforted by all the broken promises, higher premiums and lost or unnecessary coverages, it's amazing anyone signed up for it at all. Then again, considering all the partisans who comprise most of those 4.2 million enrollees, perhaps the only amazing thing is that there aren't more of them signed up. After all, there were many more than 4.2 million people that reelected Mr. Obama.
--------------------------------------------
Recently there was an announcement that the government was reducing the size of our military. There were a number of things wrong with this.
First, from a historical perspective, anytime we announce we're cutting our military, flare-ups occur around the globe. After World War I we downsized, and there were brush fires in Latin America and Eastern Europe. As a result, we were woefully unprepared for World War II. Then, after World War II, we downsized again, only to be met with the Korean Conflict. After that, we downsized just in time for the Vietnam War to take off. After Vietnam, there was about a decade of relative peace until the Gulf War. Since we've been engaged since then in various conflicts. Now Mr. Obama sees us withdrawing from Afghanistan, despite the fact that a vacuum will result and the inevitable cycle will be revisited.
Second, is it any surprise that Mr. Putin initiated his Ukrainian incursion mere weeks after the announcement?
Third, doesn't anyone in Washington realize that the one thing Islamofascists respect is might?
---------------------------------------------
There is a need to cut waste across the board with government spending. Certainly, there is waste in the military. But why are we only going to give military families a one percent raise when Mr. Obama wants civilians working as contractors with the military to get almost a thirty-three percent raise in the minimum wage? What does that tell our men and women in uniform? Does anyone realize how many Democrats voted in favor of this?
---------------------------------------------
That nitwit Eric Holder wants convicted felons to regain their voting privileges upon their release from jail. I'm actually on the fence about this. On the one hand, if the goal of incarceration is to rehabilitate convicts, what does it say about our system that we don't trust them upon their release to vote? By the same token, do we want convicted murderers and rapists voting? I think we should hold with our word when it comes to those who have paid their debt to society and allow them to vote. The only convicts who shouldn't be allowed to vote are those convicted of treason, but most of those felons are in for life anyway.
---------------------------------------------
I thought Dana Perino got off a great line on a recent The Five episode where liberals' criticism of CPAC was discussed. She noted that liberals just had two such meetings of their own that go by the names of the Golden Globes and the Oscars.
How true that is.
---------------------------------------------
States are enacting legislation requiring registration of guns. Gunowners are balking, as are sheriff departments and even state legislatures, such as Idaho. It's going to be interesting to see how Mr. Holder's dictum to states attorneys general about choosing to ignore enforcement of certain of their laws comes back to haunt him. In the case of Idaho, if the state's attorney general decides to enforce the state law requiring him to ignore a federal registration law, will this go to the Supreme Court? Quite probably. And if it does, that may very well be the death knell for the gun control movement.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
The crisis in Ukraine is interesting from a historical perspective, what with its echoes of the Sudetenland in 1938. Sure, Mr. Putin's playing chess while Mr. Obama is twiddling his thumbs. But is there any realistic response that the world can make that would get Russia to back off/
For an election result of 95% in favor of joining Russia to be credible, absolute transparency is required. There was no such thing, and the election was held so fast there couldn't be absolute transparency. It would appear that Russia seeks to reassemble the old Soviet Union.
Militarily, there is little the West can do. Moscow has superior interior lines which would make military intervention logistically challenging at best and at worst a disaster in the making. Unfortunately, the only real solution to this lies in the ballot box without Chicago-style politics. Unfortunately, the old Soviet regime taught Richard J. Daley everything he knows, and Mr. Putin descends from that tree.
Ukraine, unfortunately, is on his own.
Listening to the empty threats made by the Three Stooges -- John Kerry, Joe Biden and Barack Obama -- only confirms that.
--------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, Mr. Obama is preoccupied with the disaster of his own making, Obamacare. Only eleven days remain for sign-ups for the program, and at this date, the stated goal of seven million enrollees is far short by about 2.8 million. So now the White House is going to its Hollywood connections for help.
It's comforting to know that we had to wait to pass the bill before we could find out what was in it. Now that we know what's in it, and people aren't comforted by all the broken promises, higher premiums and lost or unnecessary coverages, it's amazing anyone signed up for it at all. Then again, considering all the partisans who comprise most of those 4.2 million enrollees, perhaps the only amazing thing is that there aren't more of them signed up. After all, there were many more than 4.2 million people that reelected Mr. Obama.
--------------------------------------------
Recently there was an announcement that the government was reducing the size of our military. There were a number of things wrong with this.
First, from a historical perspective, anytime we announce we're cutting our military, flare-ups occur around the globe. After World War I we downsized, and there were brush fires in Latin America and Eastern Europe. As a result, we were woefully unprepared for World War II. Then, after World War II, we downsized again, only to be met with the Korean Conflict. After that, we downsized just in time for the Vietnam War to take off. After Vietnam, there was about a decade of relative peace until the Gulf War. Since we've been engaged since then in various conflicts. Now Mr. Obama sees us withdrawing from Afghanistan, despite the fact that a vacuum will result and the inevitable cycle will be revisited.
Second, is it any surprise that Mr. Putin initiated his Ukrainian incursion mere weeks after the announcement?
Third, doesn't anyone in Washington realize that the one thing Islamofascists respect is might?
---------------------------------------------
There is a need to cut waste across the board with government spending. Certainly, there is waste in the military. But why are we only going to give military families a one percent raise when Mr. Obama wants civilians working as contractors with the military to get almost a thirty-three percent raise in the minimum wage? What does that tell our men and women in uniform? Does anyone realize how many Democrats voted in favor of this?
---------------------------------------------
That nitwit Eric Holder wants convicted felons to regain their voting privileges upon their release from jail. I'm actually on the fence about this. On the one hand, if the goal of incarceration is to rehabilitate convicts, what does it say about our system that we don't trust them upon their release to vote? By the same token, do we want convicted murderers and rapists voting? I think we should hold with our word when it comes to those who have paid their debt to society and allow them to vote. The only convicts who shouldn't be allowed to vote are those convicted of treason, but most of those felons are in for life anyway.
---------------------------------------------
I thought Dana Perino got off a great line on a recent The Five episode where liberals' criticism of CPAC was discussed. She noted that liberals just had two such meetings of their own that go by the names of the Golden Globes and the Oscars.
How true that is.
---------------------------------------------
States are enacting legislation requiring registration of guns. Gunowners are balking, as are sheriff departments and even state legislatures, such as Idaho. It's going to be interesting to see how Mr. Holder's dictum to states attorneys general about choosing to ignore enforcement of certain of their laws comes back to haunt him. In the case of Idaho, if the state's attorney general decides to enforce the state law requiring him to ignore a federal registration law, will this go to the Supreme Court? Quite probably. And if it does, that may very well be the death knell for the gun control movement.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)