White Privilege Conference

Say what you will about Fox News -- referred to in some parts as Faux News --  but it has the testicular fortitude to report stories that would never appear in the MSM.  For example, check this out:

http://www.whiteprivilegeconference.com/wpc.html

Yes, there is actually a conference called the White Privilege Conference.  Its goal, as stated on its website, is:

What is the White Privilege Conference?

1. WPC is a conference that examines challenging concepts of privilege and oppression and offers solutions and team building strategies to work toward a more equitable world.


2. It is not a conference designed to attack, degrade or beat up on white folks.


3. It is not a conference designed to rally white supremacist groups.


4. WPC is a conference designed to examine issues of privilege beyond skin color. WPC is open to everyone and invites diverse perspectives to provide a comprehensive look at issues of privilege including: race, gender, sexuality, class, disability, etc. — the ways we all experience some form of privilege, and how we’re all affected by that privilege.


5. WPC attracts students, professionals, activists, parents, and community leaders/members from diverse perspectives. WPC welcomes folks with varying levels of experience addressing issues of diversity, cultural competency, and multiculturalism.


6. WPC is committed to a philosophy of “understanding, respecting and connecting.”

What's particularly interesting is the self-righteous tone that the WPC -- as it calls itself -- assumes.  It's not a conference designed to attack, degrade or beat up on white folks.  It's designed to examine issues of privilege beyond skin color and the ways we all experience some form of privilege, and how we're all affected by that privilege.  The WPC is committed to a philosophy of "understanding, respecting and connecting."

Well.

Let's start with the title of the group.  The White Privilege Conference.  Unless we're talking color palettes here, is there any doubt who or what the focus of the group is?  I mean, can there possibly be any confusion who the target is of this group?  I'm curious:  Would minorities calmly accept something called the Black Privilege Conference?  I'm sure there would be no uproar over that.

The WPC is organized, I'll give it that.  Just what do these people discuss at the conference?  Here's the list of workshops that might be of interest:

http://www.whiteprivilegeconference.com/pdf/WPC15-workshops.pdf

I'll cherry pick some of the more interesting monstrosities:

10 Myths of Social Justice (Beginner) 

Active Listening For Social Justice (All Levels) 

Against the Tea Party Movement (which includes this nugget in the description:  Rather than simply a reactionary movement around economic, budget and tax issues, at their core Tea Partiers believe themselves to be the “newly oppressed white victims of black dominance.” And white attitudes about black people have declined measurably during the Tea Parties ascendancy, according to recent poll data. The Tea Parties are a dire and immediate threat.)

Beyond Kumbaya: Promoting Privilege Discussions on College Campuses (All Levels)

Death of the Strong Black Sista (Beginner) (You mean there is more than one level of this??????)

Hair Me Out ! (All Levels) (as if it couldn't possibly get any sillier:  Intentionally inclusive and non-judgmental, this workshop deconstructs hair to explore the intersection of identity--gender, race, religion, ethnicity, class and sexual orientation-- and the billions of dollars that hair maintenance generates for big business in the United States. Participants engage in critical personal work around the metacommunication of hair language-blond, brunette, weave, nappy, red hair , hijab, 

pelo bueno, relaxers, gay hair , butch, fag hair , etc-- with the goal of heightening 

awareness, adding an additional lens when considering multiple perspectives and 

ultimately impacting behavior.)  (What does that even mean?????)

I could go on ad nauseam, but my nausea prevents me from adding more.

I'm sure these people take this stuff quite seriously, but for the life of me, I can't decide whether I should be amused or offended.  Part of me cracks up while reading this pap; it smacks of people with nothing better to do than invent totems at which they can tilt to justify their existences.  But on the other hand, it frightens me that there are people out there that take this stuff seriously.

This is hardly in keeping with what Martin Luther King dreamt.  This is more divisive than inclusive, no matter what their stated goal is.  Who calls white people white folks?  And since they're examining privilege irrespective of race, where are the workshops dedicated to privilege that accrues to those people in the athletic and entertainment fields whose parents provided them with lives of privilege?  What of the immigrants who came here and gained untold wealth with their inventions and innovations?  If this isn't about white folks only and is supposedly transcendent of race, where are those workshops?

That this is going on on college campuses is to be expected.  But for liberals to insist that the colleges themselves aren't hotbeds of liberalism is a crock.  What college campus today can be termed a purely conservative campus?  We can point to plenty of liberal campuses, or campuses that have predominantly liberal bents, but where are the stridently conservative faculties, the privileged white campuses that maintain the racial hegemony over this country?  

If the Tea Party -- to which I do not belong and only barely understand as a political entity -- is so racist, what is the WPC?  Are we to believe that this is well-intentioned and inclusive?  From what I've read, this is more divisive than inclusive.  This is not the America that I grew up knowing and loving.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Tuesday Ramblings

Since I am Tuesday's child, albeit graceless by and large, I am going to post random ramblings today:

--  Talk radio is hilarious in this town.

-- Sunday the boys are going to be paraded at a rescue event.  Custer is going to lose his mind.  Sherman will look at us scornfully.

-- On the topic of Sherman and Custer, Sherman hates water -- I mean he hates water.  Custer only hates when it rains.

--  Our apartment has become a part of the animal kingdom.  Apart from the resident bullies, a robin has taken up residence to hatch her little ones, another bird has built a next under the upper awning and when I was bringing the boys in at lunch from doing their business, I found a very small turtle trying to sneak into the apartment.  Just call us the Doolittles.

--  I just love inclement weather.

-- Rumors are swirling that Earvin Johnson has someone set up the racist Donald Sterling to further harm himself publicly.  Not that it would matter; Mr. Sterling has to go.  But Mr. Johnson would have been well advised to have no contact with Mr. Sterling at all.  If one lies down with dogs one's going to get fleas.

-- So far, the return of 24 isn't too bad.  I still don't like Kiefer Sutherland though.  It figures:  He was born in London, England.  And he has a twin sister...poor girl.

--  Liberal intolerance has reached new lows.  Condoleeza Rice withdrew as the commencement speaker at Rutgers after students protested.  Apparently, they oppose her involvement in the Iraq War as Secretary of State.  Funny, they'd welcome President Obama with open arms and palm fronds despite his use of drones.

--  What's the over/under on when Alec Baldwin kills himself or goes to jail?

--  Did Richard Dreyfus have a lobotomy?  And what's with Bill Maher?  Is this the apocalypse?

--  As expected, the MSM is ignoring the latest developments on Benghazi.  I should have bet that would happen.  I'd be rich.

--  I repeat, in case anyone missed it:  The Stanley Cup playoffs are the best professional sports playoffs of any kind on earth, bar none.

--  I apologize to Mr. Dreyfus and Mr. Maher (well, sort of...):  The sign of the apocalypse occurred at the 2014 Eurovision contest when something called Conchita Wurst of Austria won the contest.  Here's a photo of the winner (do not adjust your computer settings, but hide the children):

Austria, with its well-known reputation for tolerance, must be so proud.

-- Normally, I don't give a rip about politics, but the mid-term elections this November ought to be interesting.

--  Woot. The Cubs clobbered the Cardinals in St. Louis.  When one is a Cubs' fan, one takes his victories when he can get 'em.

--  So allegedly Eric Holder is coaxing banks to refuse to open accounts to those in the porn industry.  Censorship much?  By what authority can Mr. Holder enforce this?

--  After we move this summer I'm going to enjoy at least one night reading a book on our porch while the sun goes down.

--  My girl is the best person I know, the prettiest woman I've ever known and more fun than a guy can shake a stick at.  You have my permission to be jealous.

--  It's definitely tricky, but those people who are fortunate to have children should be a little more aware around those of us who, for whatever reason, were unable to have children.  Those who chose not to have children have no room to complain.

--  I like that Cheerios biracial couple commercial.  I'm astounded from where some of the bigotry is coming.

-- OK, now that the NFL draft is over I can ignore pro football for another year.

-- Listening to George Will is an educational experience every single time.

--  I can't help it:  I like The Five.  I wish Greg Gutfeld would quit trying to be funny.

--  Packing, moving and unpacking will be our summertime activities this year.  I really don't mind it, especially since we won't be doing this again anytime soon.

--  Kathleen Madigan is positively hysterical.  I heartily recommend attending one of her concerts.

--  I look forward to the next time the family sabelotodo tries to school me.  As they say, don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

--  I can't wait to unpack my books if for no other reason than I'm running out of books to read that I kept aside when we moved last week.

--  I really, really want a sniper rifle.  For the time being, a varmint gun will have to suffice.

--  Face it, I enjoy teaching.  And I'm good at it.

--  Face it, Part II:  I really stink at anything involving computers.

And with that, I'm off to buy my girl some Honeycomb.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Playing Politics

With the recent votes in Congress to have a special committee for Benghazi and the IRS scandal and to ask the Department of Justice to appoint a special prosecutor in the Lois Lerner IRS scandal, the gnashing of teeth, rending of garments and screams of anguish are being heard coming from Democrats throughout the land.  How dare they, the Democrats proclaim, politicize the Benghazi attacks and thereby gain advantage for the upcoming mid-term elections.  Drowning out the Democrats umbrage is the sound of hypocrisy hovering over all of this.

To an extent, I have no doubt that Republicans in particular and conservatives in general are anxious to make hay over the next six months.  By no means are conservatives of any stripe pure and chaste when it comes to playing politics.

At the same time, there are legitimate questions that remain unanswered.  For Benghazi, questions of ultimate authority and judgment exist, and with the IRS mess, in addition to the same questions existing, so too are there questions that may give rise to criminal charges.  With four Americans killed in Benghazi and our one of our most basic freedoms threatened in the IRS scandal, serious issues need to be resolved.  Not incidentally, politics is involved.  There is no way for politics not to be involved.

What's interesting about this is that Democrats are descrying the Republicans' moves as being political.  They may or may not be entirely political, but for a party who covered up the real reason behind the attack on our consulate in Benghazi to win an election and used the IRS to target groups that were opposed politically to the administration to complain about issues being used politically is laughable and hypocritical.  It's akin to a child hitting his sibling behind his parents' back, get retribution from the sibling he hit and then complain about being hit by the sibling whom he attacked first.

But this is part and parcel of the Left's mantra;  Do as we say, not as we do.  Heaven forfend that an opponent use a strategy that was successful against the party that used the strategy first.  That would violate the Left's mantra.

It's important that the Republicans don't overplay their hand on this.  Benghazi is important not so much to figure out what happened in Benghazi -- since everyone pretty much agrees on those facts -- as to find out what happened stateside during that fateful night.  As with Watergate, which also involved dirty tricks to win an election, we need to know who knew what and when they knew it...and what was ordered by whom when.  Democrats, especially Cankles herself, are wrong about whether it matters:  Judgment, integrity and honesty are involved here, just as they were in the Watergate scandal.  This goes to the very heart of whether these people are fit to lead.  That they oppose these measures so strongly indicates to me that they have something to hide and know how harmful revelation of the facts will harm them.

Four Americans died needlessly in Benghazi.  Four American families are grieving without being given any concrete answers.  Americans were violated by their government for expressing their political views.  These are not things that should happen in this country.

Unless we get answers on both issues -- and a few more -- this country's slide to mediocrity will only accelerate.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Judicial Miscarriages

Over the past few months, there have been cases decided by judges in different states that have caused more than one person to wonder whether there is any justice in the justice system.  Having reviewed the reports, I can't say I disagree with the lay people's anger.

The first case is the notorious Affluenza Defense from Texas.  There, a wealthy teen killed four people while driving impaired with a blood alcohol level three times the legal limit.  A sympathetic judge sentenced the boy to ten years' probation instead of a twenty years' jail term.  The defense successfully argued that because of his privilege, he had what the expert termed affluenza, meaning that he was incapable of associating the consequences of his bad acts with those acts.  Needless to say, outrage was the principal reaction to the sentence.

Meanwhile, in Montana, a teacher who had unconsensual sex with a fourteen-year-old who later committed suicide was originally sentenced to three years of sex offender treatment but after he was tossed out of the program for consorting with young people, thirty-one days in jail.  As with the affluenza case, there was, correctly, righteous indignation.  Upon appeal, the Montana state supreme court remanded the case (to a different judge) to calculate a different sentence.  At least the higher court undid a travesty.  It remains to be seen whether the Texas courts will do the same.

Lay people see outcomes like these and wonder, rightly, about our judicial system.  What's interesting to note is that in these cases, both victims and offenders were white or Latina (in the Montana case, the victim was a young Latina), as were the judges.  No blacks were involved.  So at least insofar as theses cases were concerned, there was no overt racial bias in favor of the defendants.

Part of the problem that lay people don't understand is that with most state court judges, elections are used to fill the slots.  Irrespective of various ratings from bar associations, usually less qualified candidates are elected who belong to the more powerful party.  In Illinois, there have been several elections wherein the far less qualified candidate was elected simply because he was backed by the all-powerful Democratic Party, which controls the state.  In Cook County, Republicans are almost nonexistent.  It's not that Republicans, per se, make better judges.  But where there's no competition, there is a dilution of the talent pool.

Montana has non-partisan elections, whereas Texas and Illinois have partisan elections.  Either way, voting, not merit, decides who wears a robe.  Sometimes the voters get it right; more often than not, they vote for the Irish surname, or the more monied candidate, or the person they know, rather than demonstrated legal capacity.  Incumbent judges win an ungodly percentage of the time, meaning that incompetence is not only rewarded, it's entrenched.  Although state judicial positions are not lifetime positions, they become such because of the ignorance of the electorate.

Federal judges are nominated and then appointed.  The vetting process is much more stringent than that used to slate candidates for state courts.  To be sure, not every federal judge is competent, but compared to the state courts, federal judges are much, much better.  It stands to reason:  Where choices can be made and have to be approved, they chances that they will result in better quality are greater than a largely uninformed electorate voting in what is essentially a popularity contest.  Voting for representatives is one thing, because those positions result in a more immediate and telling impact on the lives of voters.  Judicial decisions like the ones cited here only affect those people involved in the cases themselves.  It's only when the broader questions are litigated that the lives of the hoi polloi are affected...and those decisions are reviewable by federal courts for constitutionality.

Other than courts in the Ninth Circuit -- that seem to decide cases by using Ouija boards, astrology and dice -- most federal courts are simply superior to state courts.  As a result, outcomes like those in Texas, Montana and Illinois are subject to ridicule.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Benghazi Revisited

What difference does it make?

The answer to that question would depend on whether political goals were still in play by the person answering the question.

News reports have surfaced that a group called Judicial Watch sued under the Freedom of Information Act to get the unredacted emails from the White House to Susan Rice explaining the talking points she was to use in the round of Sunday talk shows after the September 11, 2012, attacks on the Benghazi.  The emails were generated by Ben Rhodes, a national security official, to then-Ambassador Susan Rice, trying to skew the focus of the questioning from a terrorist attack to a spontaneous demonstration regarding a tasteless video made by some whack-job in Los Angeles.

Here's the link to the Judicial Watch story:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-benghazi-documents-point-white-house-misleading-talking-points/

There are several interesting angles on this new information.  First, of course, the MSM is only haltingly addressing these emails.  The reasons for this hesitation are unknown, but they may range from sheepishness for swallowing the White House's version of events to fear that there may be no story that the American public is interested in revisiting.  If the latter's the case, the administration successfully kicked the can down the road to let the steam go out of the potential devastating news that the administration knew the real reason behind the attacks.  If it's the former reason, the MSM should be ashamed for not standing up and admitting that it blew it.

A truly interesting angle involves the connection between CBS and Ben Rhodes.  Apparently, the head of the CBS News division is none other than David Rhodes, the brother of Ben Rhodes.  When the recent story about the unredacted emails broke, the CBS Morning Show had a segment on the story, but the CBS
Evening News didn't mention it at all.  Granted, airing anything at all qualifies as news reporting, but by putting the news on the much less watched morning program instead of the much more watched evening program is the functional equivalent of burying a story in the classified ads; it's still in the paper, but not in a section that's read much.

Jonathan Karl of ABC and Sharyl Attkisson, formerly of CBS, have been the lead reporters on this email chain.  They are being vilified by the left wing media who claim that nothing new has surfaced in the emails. This despite the fact there is language in the emails showing that Ben Rhodes clearly wanted former Ambassador Rice to steer the discussion to the video and away from the failed foreign policies of President Obama.

Perhaps the funniest yet saddest occurrence in this new round of investigation has been the performance of Jay Carney, the White House press secretary.  His job is a thankless one, no doubt, but to watch Mr. Carney contort himself as if he were on a vertical Twister mat trying to answer questions and at the same time defend the President while denying the emails say what they say takes cognitive dissonance to new lows.  I can't remember seeing anyone lie so baldly as Mr. Carney is lying.  Besides denying the essential meaning of the emails, he's condescending to his inquisitors and shameless in his attempts at manipulation. The horrible truth is that there are still some people out there that believe him.

And where is Cankles in all this?  She's been as silent as can be on the subject.  Why are no news outlets seeking her out for questioning?  Isn't it also telling that the President was out of the country when this story broke?  Doubtless, he'll have to face questions eventually, and it'll be very interesting to see how he handles them.

What will these revelations do to Cankle's presidential aspirations?  What will they do to the mid-term elections, since Democrats have marched in locked step with the President?  Will the American people finally wake up and realize that this administration will do or say anything that will allow it to keep power?

The next six months ought to be interesting.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Donald Sterling and Double Standards

Donald Sterling is still the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers of the NBA.  Mr. Sterling was a closet racist until his girlfriend outed him a couple of days ago.  Mr. Sterling's wife says he's not a racist (I know, I still haven't figured this out yet; Mr. Sterling's in his eighties, his girlfriend is in her twenties, so I doubt this is an open marriage...but that's another point altogether).  Today, the commissioner of the NBA permanently banned Mr. Sterling and is strongly recommending that the other owners force Mr. Sterling to sell the team which, apparently, is allowable under the bylaws of the NBA.

First, before anyone starts in about Free Speech, this isn't the government infringing Mr. Sterling's rights. This is a private institution whose rules, presumably, Mr. Sterling agreed to abide.  Second, once the girlfriend made the statements public, they were no longer private.  The girlfriend may herself be facing actions for taping Mr. Sterling and then publishing his comments, but that's not germane to this discussion.  Third, plenty of people from different segments of the country are outraged, rightly, by Mr. Sterling's comments.  But there are some problems with this.

To begin, Mr. Sterling should lose his franchise.  The problem is that he's long been known to be a racist. Why other owners tolerated his conduct for this long is unanswerable.  To act with high dudgeon now is a little disingenuous.  Unfortunately, the sale of the team will only serve to enrich Mr. Sterling more, so he gets to ride into the sunset with one heck of a payday.

Next, this casts more aspersions on other whites.  Despite never having uttered a racist word in private, blacks will continue to view us with a jaundiced eye.  It's not entirely forgivable, but it is understandable, to a degree.

That blacks might be suspicious of other whites is one thing, but what took the local chapter of the NAACP so long to recognize it?  From what I've read, Mr. Sterling has been taken to task several times in the past for his racism, has been revealed to be a racist by other whites and was even fined for his conduct, yet the NAACP of Los Angeles already gave him a lifetime achievement award for his support and was about to give him another lifetime award (as with the girlfriend/wife issue, this repetitive lifetime award business begs explanation).  Since the kerfuffle became public, the chapter has rescinded its award, but what was it thinking offering him another award?

Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, rightly worries about a slippery slope.  Say someone voices his opinion in private against gay marriage -- not gays, but gay marriage -- or abortion, or any other controversial topic that is a minority opinion.  If public outrage ensues, at what point does the NBA say enough is enough and respect the opinion of an owner no matter how detestable a majority finds the opinion. In this instance, there is no question Mr. Sterling has to go, when the totality of the circumstances is examined.  I still think that letting market forces determine the sale is better, but given the bylaws provide for this remedy, it's fine with me.

There is a double standard, however, that no one is discussing.  When the likes of Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson make offensive comments, are they going to be taken to task?  Supporters will quickly point out that neither employs a majority of whites who could be offended by the comments.  They'll say that unlike Mr. Sterling, neither has the kind of wealth he has.  Even so, Mr. Jackson has substantial holdings and runs a couple of companies, and Mr. Sharpton, with the help of MSNBC, has had his image laundered and probably has sizable holdings himself.  Will there be calls for their expulsion when they make similarly offensive comments?

Make no mistake:  Mr. Sterling is wrong and doesn't deserve to own an NBA franchise.  He must go. Greater scrutiny must be kept on public comments that are patently offensive.  But it should be a blanket scrutiny combined with a blanket approach to punishment.  Like Mr. Sterling, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton have uttered horribly offensive comments without being taken to task on them.  That's wrong and completely contradictory to Martin Luther King's dictum to which I have referred several times before.

With any luck, the commissioner's stern and swift action on this will prove to naysayers that whites are serious about rooting out racism and not tolerating it.  Blacks should do the same thing with their own racists.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Call for a Constitutional Convention

Article V of the United States Constitution allows for amendments to the Constitution and the ways in which amendments can be effected.  The first is the way with which most Americans are familiar: The House and the Senate, with two-thirds majorities, pass resolutions that are then sent to the states for ratification.  Lately, however, individual states have been calling for a Constitutional Convention for a variety of reasons, chief among them the need for an amendment that requires a balanced budget.

I'm not sure that a balanced budget amendment is a partisan goal.  At least verbally, both sides support the idea.  Each, however, plays accounting games that tend to turn the idea of a balanced budget into a mockery.  More on that anon.

The problem with the call for the Convention is that numerous states have called for and then rescinded the call for a Convention.  Others have called for, rescinded and then renewed their calls.  The benchmark for a Convention is that two-thirds of the states must call for the Convention, and a few weeks back it appeared that Michigan's call for a Convention made it the thirty-fourth state to do so, thereby meeting the mandate that two-thirds of the states make calls.  But there seems to be some uncertainty as to whether the number has been met.

What will happen is anyone's guess.  But the notion of a balanced budget is, I think, a good thing.  Why it's so difficult is beyond me, but of course, I'm neither a CPA nor a member of Congress.  Still, for me the whole idea was wonderfully distilled and lampooned in my favorite political movie, Dave.  Charles Grodin played Dave's best friend, and he's smuggled into the White House to help the president figure out how to cut out some of the pork so that he can fund one of the FLOTUS's pet projects.  The scene is priceless:

If it weren't for all the entitlements that really weren't necessary, like funding studies of why people buy pickles and how bees mate, we might be able to afford the truly important things, like the military, securing our borders and universal health care.  But where politicians lambaste the other side for their silly spending, they remain silent on the projects that bring pork back to their districts and almost certainly assure their reelection.  It's a vicious cycle that could be broken with an amendment to balance the budget.

I fear, however, funny bookkeeping that would allow Congress to skirt the amendment.  The SCOTUS would ultimately be called in to untangle the mess, and then Congress could pass laws that would allow it to vitiate the SCOTUS opinion, thereby beginning another vicious cycle.

It's truly senseless.

I could never be a politician.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles