Tag Archives: Media

Shut Up, Mr. Man!

Let me issue a trigger warning. I am about to embark on a circular argument, because I am about to explain something while being a man. This act has been labeled by the liberals as a derogatory term, since for a man to explain something is evidently a microaggression. They have lumped this microaggression into a grouping designed to address what many feminist perceive as an affront to humanity: Mansplaining, manspreading and, here’s a new one, manterrupting. These are terms that feminists are using to promote the “gender inequality” argument that has been catching traction the past few years, so much so that CBS correspondent Faith Salie did a segment on the phenomenon on CBS Sunday Morning.

Mansplaining is the tendency for a man to “talk down” to a woman by way of explaining the man’s position “in a condescending manner.” Unfortunately, a condescending manner appears to be any time a woman doesn’t want to hear the argument, which, most men who are or have been married know, is all the time. But the label doesn’t really cover the gamut of condescending explanations. My kids condescend all the time. I have had enough eye rolls and heavy sighs from my granddaughter and women friends as they try to explain something to me to know that condescending is not a gender specific trait. Men explain things to other men. As an instructor, my whole day is spent explaining things. Is this mansplaining? Or is it only mansplaining when a man explains something to a woman? So if I teach a class of both men and women, am I only committing half a crime?

Manspreading is the masculine tendency to sit with the knees far apart supposedly to expose the genitals in some sort of sexual power display. This particular faux pax is a well-earned one, but maybe misunderstood. I know I tend to spread my legs when sitting, as many men do. Unfortunately, this has less to do with sex or power than with comfort. Men have certain physical accoutrements that occupy the space between the legs and those attributes can be in a position to cause discomfort with sitting with the legs together. The only remedies are to sit with the legs slightly apart, or to manually adjust the affected parts. Neither option is socially accepted and thus men find themselves between a rock and a hard place, or more to the point, stones and timber. That is not to say that some men don’t go overboard and stretch out to an excessive point. This is not exclusively a male trait though. Many larger people of both sexes can occupy more space that is appropriate. These people are simply douchebags. Again, not sexist. Just asshats.

Manterrupting is the tendency to interrupt a woman who is talking, presumably to do some mansplaining. This is a new one, because evidently, only men interrupt. Women are far too civilized to engage in such a rude activity, and it is only when a man interrupts a woman does the crime rise to the level of manterrupting. Women interrupt other people all the time. Both of my Ex-wives were quite ready to interrupt me in any discussion. Why is it manterrupting only if I interrupt them? Faith Salie threw out some statistics that during the presidential debates, Donald Trump interrupted Hillary Clinton 55 times compared to the 11 times she interrupted him. The wonderful thing about that debate was that Donald interrupted everyone, including the moderators. It is just a Donaldism. Perhaps the term should be Donterrupting or Trumpterrupting.

One of the more tried and true rhetorical strategies that have been employed throughout the history of human interaction is that of undermining the authority of opposing views. This is no more evident that the current argument that men cannot have a voice in the abortion issue because men have no uterus. This is also evident when a feminist labels a male argument as “mansplaining.” Once the label has been applied, the man’s argument can be dismissed in its entirety with no more consideration to the content of the argument. So, when a label like mansplaining or manterrupting is thrown out in a discussion, it is merely another way for a woman to say “shut up, Mr. Man.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Humor, Media, Society

Plenty Of Blame To Go Around

The riots in Charlottesville, Virginia Saturday have been the topic of discussion all week, but most of the media discussion has been focused on President Trump’s response to it. The riots flared when a scheduled rally by several different organizations who planned to protest the removal of a statue of General Robert E. Lee, a confederate general in the Civil War, was met with counter protesters from the Black Lives Matter movement and the Anti-facist (Anti-Fa) movement. One woman was killed when someone drove a car into a crowd of protestors. The driver was arrested and identified as James Fields of Ohio, who had come to Charlottesville to join in the protest. The media was quick to single out the alt-right as the sole source of the trouble and blame them for the death. This is a complete propaganda campaign of the worst sort trying to control the public consciousness with lies and misdirection. Fortunately, President Trump isn’t playing along.

According to reports, the facts are that several groups clashed in the streets and began to argue and shout at and shove each other. Small skirmishes erupted all over the area around the demonstration which devolved into more serious violence as the day wore on. Police posted units all along the area, but according to witnesses, the police did not actively interfere until the car crash. The governor declared a state of emergency and the police cleared the area, making several arrests.

From the reports, this looks like a standard public disturbance issue with a tragic outcome culminating in the death of the young woman. Two additional deaths occurred when a police helicopter that was supporting the event crashed in the woods. The details of the cause of the crash have not been reported yet, but it is not likely the result of any action from any of the protestors since it happened away from the demonstration.

So, while this is tragic, to be sure, it is not worthy of the media coverage or social media coverage it has garnered. The reason it has gotten so much traction is that many of the groups protesting the removal of the statue are what the news media has labeled “Alt-Right” or neo Nazis or KKK. The socialist left is raising the volume on this in order to try to paint all conservatives as neo Nazis and KKK members. As if the mere presence of these groups is the sole reason for the violence that occurred.

I would never suggest that the Neo Nazi party, or the KKK embrace the true spirit of America. I do not condone any of these radical ideologies. By the same token, I do not condone the BLM or Anti-Fa movement either. Groups like the KKK and the BLM are the flipsides of the radical ideology coin. Unfortunately, the news media and the left (one in the same) favor the BLM/Anti-fa crowd and are portraying them as the victims in this melee.

They seem to forget that it takes two to fight.

Sarah Bosner, a blogger for Rolling Stone magazine mentioned observing a white man punch a black woman as though that was an example of the whole ordeal.

Shortly before the car ramming, I see a man marching with the National Socialist Movement, a neo-Nazi group, punch a black woman who had thrown ice from her cup at him. Bystanders intervene, but the police do not respond.

Her point seems to be that a big bad Nazi beat up a poor defenseless black woman. She glosses over the fact the woman assaulted the man first by throwing her drink at him. I can imagine that prior to that, she had probably already peppered him with plenty of vitriol to raise his boiling point that level. In that regard, maybe it is indicative of the whole ordeal. A lot of people got insanely angry and acted like fools. Everyone involved should be held accountable…on both sides of the issue. In fact, BLM organizers deliberately bussed in demonstrators to counter the protest. The only reason to do such a thing was to foster a conflict and in doing so, they had to know that violence would erupt. In fact, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that the violence was the expectation. They wanted a conflict to promote their leftist message and to try to paint the right in as bad a picture as they could.

President Trump seems to have a handle on this concept. His initial condemnation said that people on both sides were to blame for the violence, which is clearly true. The BLM movement already has a history of violence and killing police officers, so they clearly bear some of the blame for the violence in Charlottesville. Trump addressed the incident on Saturday:

“We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides,”

This covers not only the violence from the Alt-right, but also from the BLM and the Anti-Fa, who also bear equal responsibility for the violence. But this wasn’t good enough for the left-leaning media or the neo socialist on the hill, who circled the wagons to roast Trump for “supporting Nazis.” Trump’s advisors quickly coerced him into revising his statement and singling out the “Nazis” because they are so vile they must be to blame for all the problems that happened. Trump did so, but then backtracked to his original “both sides” statement, much to the frustration of the left.

Here’s the thing: He’s right about that. Sure, Nazis are bad. Sure, KKK is bad. Sure, we had a war to stamp out the Nazis in 1945. And, sure, it is terrible that people try to align themselves with that movement today. But here’s the rest of the thing: They have every right to do that. It’s called the first amendment. Citizens of the US have every right to think however they want to, never mind how stupid that think may seem. After all, so many people still think Obama was a good president. They have a right to think that. The government cannot do anything about it. The government similarly cannot do anything about stopping people from joining the Nazi party or the KKK, no matter how repugnant it may be. Just because people align themselves with the Nazis or the KKK doesn’t mean they are criminals or terrorists or that their planning to murder people. It just means they are idiots.

Where these people, Nazis, KKK, BLM, what have you, go wrong is when they commit crimes like assault or vehicular homicide because of their beliefs. On Saturday, everyone there, from all of the different groups, are to blame for the carnage and all of them should be held accountable.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Society

Hail to the Chief

Ok, I can admit when I’m wrong. I’ve never had a problem with that. So, here goes. I was wr-wr-wr-wr—wr….ahem….I was wr-wr-wr-wr-wr….(I can do this)…uh, I was….not exactly right. (apologies to the Fonz).

So, Trump won after all. I didn’t expect that. But it’s all good. At least Hillary didn’t win and that was the real issue. All my concerns about her machinations to ensure her presidency are now moot. The good news is that America has a chance to have a conservative justice to replace Scalia and any judges who retire in the next 4 years, which was one of my biggest concerns with a Clinton presidency. That, and with a Republican controlled house and senate, we should have no worries about infringements on our second amendment rights for the next four years.

For these reasons, I am happy.

But now we have the Donald as president. That is…unpredictable. Granted, Obama demonstrated that the presidency can be shackled by a recalcitrant congress, so if Trump goes too far afield, congress should be able to rein him in, but the real concern will be his mouth and how he interacts with world leaders on that stage. He is used to making multinational business deals, but politics is a bit different. Hopefully, he will surround himself with competent advisors to council him on protocols for dealing with politics on a world stage and he won’t embarrass himself or the nation.

To those who bemoan this missed opportunity to have a woman in the Oval Office: please do not take this election as a reaffirmation that America won’t allow a woman to be president. This election merely asserted that America won’t allow Hillary Clinton to be president. By all means, select a more qualified candidate next time. If she is not completely crazy and an elitist, ultra leftist/neosocialist who cannot identify with mainstream America, she has a chance. Having a vagina should NEVER be a criterion upon which a president is chosen. The president should represent his or her constituency, not describe them as deplorable when they do not agree with him or her.

I am glad I was…not exactly right. It means that our election system is not totally corrupted and run completely by the media and businesses (Soros), and that citizens can determine their governance which is as it should be. That, my friends, is democracy in action, even if we don’t agree with the outcome. I was pleasantly surprised as the election results ticked in on my browser last night. I refused to watch the media’s reports as they worked feverishly to predict and direct a Clinton win.

Speaking of the media, they have been lamenting the loss of their golden child all morning, trying to explain Hillary’s loss in terms they can understand. One pundit said it was because many more white voters went to the polls that they anticipated. Another claimed it was “Whitelash” as white voters cast ballots against Obama, rather than for Trump. Really? Now it’s racist? The media spent way too much time and energy trying to sway voters to vote for Hillary, they are having fits trying to figure out how to go on in the wake of the Trump victory. If only there was a way Americans could vote the media out of office, that would be a true victory at the polls.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Society

The Fix Is Still In

Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary. How can anyone be surprised by this? Of course he did. His whole campaign was a farce from the get-go; just a dog and pony show to convince the democratic voters that they had a real choice in the election even though the Democratic National Convention had already chosen Hillary eight years ago. The only way she would drop out of the democratic primary in 2008 was if she got the party’s assurance that she would be the candidate this year. It was a done deal and all the media and all the commercials and all the hype of the Sanders’ campaign was smoke. I know the true Sanders supporter will rail at the suggestion that Bernie was not a real candidate and those supporters will trot out poll numbers showing that he did in fact have more popular votes than did Hillary, but that is irrelevant. Sanders was never going to be the Democratic Presidential candidate. I doubt he will even be the running mate.

The only reason Sanders did as well as he did is that Hillary is so damn toxic that even her party faithful can’t abide the idea of her presidency. Only the militant feminist block who would elect typhoid Mary solely on the fact that she possessed a vagina are truly supporting Hillary. Them, and the DNC financial backers, that is. The media will spend the next three months trying to convince us that she is the only person that can lead our country and they will spend millions on media to hide the truth of her misdeeds and minimize her scandals, much the same way they did for Bill in his day.

One interesting tactic that has made an appearance in social media lately is the notion that the media is anti-left. I literally laughed out loud when I read that. There is a headline where Hillary says that the media is undermining democracy, as if there is a machine driving the media against the democrats. The truth is that the leftist media recognizes the problems with a Clinton presidency and are doing the best they can to hide the crimes, but the truth is too big to whitewash over. It’s like painting a blue room white with one coat of paint. The blue is still obvious. So Clinton will smear the media to make it look like they are against her. This is lunacy. The media are the left’s lapdogs. The statement is actually true, but in reverse. Rather than undermining the democrats, the media is undermining the conservative right. Another story claimed that the democrats need to get more control of the media, because they don’t favor the left enough. This is the environment in which we the people find ourselves. We can no longer trust the fifth estate to keep government in check, especially with regard to elections.

So, Sanders is backing Clinton. No surprise there. He is actually on the short list to be her running mate, though I doubt he will get the nod. The only reason he is supporting her nomination is that she publicly stated that she will support his initiatives—free college, free healthcare, etc—on her platform, for what that is worth. Of course, it will only matter if the Dems can regain the house and senate. The scariest thing about a Clinton White House is the potential to fill not only Scalia’s seat, but others who retire from the Supreme Court over the next four years, not to mention her desire to gut the first and second amendments to the constitution.

Be scared America. We’re not out of the woods yet.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

The Fantastic Failure

Reading audiences have been fascinated by fantastic flights of fancy since the beginnings of literature. Jules Verne gave the world the adventures of Captain Nemo on the Nautilus and H.G. Wells produced amazing journeys that took heroes to unimaginable lands far away. For younger audiences, comic books brought forth heroes who were set apart from normal people by extraordinary abilities of super strength or flight or invulnerability. These comic heroes have been part of pop culture for more than 50 years. The abilities of these heroes have been so fantastic that the technology to depict them visually has only recently been developed. This is why the super hero has become the big box office draw for the past 20 years or so. With every new movie, the public’s appetite for fantastic visual effect-laden comic based movies has only grown and every movie has satisfied that appetite. Until now.

The Fantastic Four opened Friday to tepid public response. Expected to fetch $50 million on its opening weekend, the film barely made half that, only garnering $26 million. Public reviews have given the film a low C, the lowest score for a major Hollywood backed superhero film franchise. Even the dismal Green Lantern scored higher.

While many “experts” will offer their ideas on why this latest reboot of the Fantastic Four, one of Marvel Comics’ most famous titles, I doubt anyone will lay the blame where it really belongs: squarely on the shoulders of those who think that by reimagining the franchise, it will increase its appeal. This is sorely incorrect thinking.

The story of any of these heroes is one that was born on the pages of the comic book. Writers labored over the back story, the origin of the hero, the birth of the super to make them engaging to the audiences. They succeeded. Not every time, though. Garbage piles are full of failed comic book titles that didn’t connect with audiences, much the same way that, over in the next garbage heap, is a pile of celluloid from bad movies. No, the titles that have lasted for decades work for the audience. Now, if you have a successful franchise, why mess with it? Why try to fix that which is not broken? Why reimagine it?

Some have said that the first two Fantastic Four films were not as successful as they could have been, so the studio felt a change was needed. They probably went to their consultants, people who probably never opened a Fantastic Four comic book in their lives, and asked them how could they make a more successful film. These consultants probably opened an issue of the comic and said “Oh! Look! There are no black people in the team! You can’t have that. Statistics have shown that X number of audience members self-identify with being African American. You should really have one person on the team represent that demographic.”

They probably followed that up with, “Oh, look! These characters are too old! You can’t appeal to the younger audiences by having heroes in their 30’s and 40’s (Reed Richards, leader of the Fantastic Four, has always had graying temples). No, these heroes need to be high school aged. Yes! That’s the ticket. Make them younger.”

So what we end up with is a movie based on a successful story that was consulted to death. In defense, the movie was purportedly based not on the original Stan Lee comic book, but on the revamped title “Ultimate Fantastic Four,” part of the Ultimate series that Marvel foisted on the public in 2004. But then again, the ultimate series was a mistake for the same reasons.

The original story of these heroes begins with Reed Richards, one of the most respected and established scientists on Earth, building a rocket ship to explore space. Along with his crew, Sue Storm and her biological brother Johnny, and Ben Grimm, a mechanical engineer, they are accidently subjected to cosmic radiation that alters their bodies, imbuing them with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. They are all adults. They are all capable of rational thought, and they are all respected professionals. Not kids. Sue and Johnny are brother and sister. There is no need to create some convoluted back story of how a black man adopted a girl from Kosovo just to explain how Johnny Storm is black. Johnny Storm doesn’t need to be black. The character was introduced in 1961 as white. Even in the Ultimate series, he is white. Why change it? Unfortunately, this isn’t the only super hero character getting a historical makeover either. The comics have introduced other racial identities for some heroes, but those heroes are different people. While the new comic version of Captain America may be black, Steve Rogers is still white. While Spiderman may be Hispanic, Peter Parker is white. While Green Lantern may be any number of races, Hal Jordan is white. This is consistent.

Marvel’s hands are not entirely clean in this debacle either. Several years ago, Marvel needed cash so they sold the rights to some of their most famous titles to other studios. Spiderman went to Sony, X-Men and the Fantastic Four went to 20-Century Fox and the Hulk went to Universal. Because of these deals, multiple studios can develop multiple production teams to develop any number of movies based on the characters involved in the deal. Disney bought Marvel outright in 2009 and set to developing what has become known as the Marvel cinematic universe. This has led to the highly successful series of films with the Avengers, Iron Man, Thor and Captain America. Marvel got the rights to the character of the Hulk back in 2008, and Spiderman is now a shared property with Sony, so both of those characters can also appear in the Marvel universe. 20-Century Fox has decided that they don’t need to play nice, however. Since their X-Men films have been so wildly successful, they don’t see a need to work with Marvel in developing their properties. This is why none of the Marvel studios movies mention mutants, X-men or the Fantastic Four.

Marvel has developed their titles using material developed from the original comic books. Stan Lee, the progenitor of almost every title in print, had a hand in the development of the cinematic universe and more to the point, the creative people he hired at Marvel are working on these movies. This is the biggest reason why they are so successful. Even a little known minor character in the comic books, Ant-man, had a successful movie. I don’t even want to think of how Fox would have tried to make that one work.

So, Fox, listen up: Sell the Fantastic Four back to Marvel, or at least partner with them. You don’t know how to make that movie. They do. Besides, those characters can be important to the upcoming Infinity War series of movies and you know you will want a piece of that action.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Reviews, Society

Still Waiting for the Evidence

CBS Sunday Morning this week covered the Cosby allegations again and again slanted their coverage under the assumption that Cosby committed the crimes of which he stands accused. I have avoided talking about the rigmarole surrounding Bill Cosby because I feel all the evidence has yet to be uncovered. It is folly to offer a judgment in absence of all the facts. This is a primary principle of our criminal justice system and has served us well for more than two hundred years. Yet the media and many in society keep trying to dodge the issue of innocent until proven guilty in an effort to prove themselves correct in their assumptions on any given issue. This happened in the Michael Brown case so badly there that even once the justice system did weigh in, the media and the masses rebelled, declaring their judgment more sound than the law. Now Bill Cosby is facing allegations of sexual abuse spanning his entire career. More than thirty women have come forward to accuse the man once referred to as America’s favorite dad of one of the most heinous of crimes.

Let me predicate the rest of this as saying I do not know if Cosby is guilty. There is not enough evidence to prove his guilt, therefore there is no way to know. All we have is the word of several women who have waited in some cases more than forty years to come forward with these charges. That fact alone makes the charges suspicious. Add that none of them came forward until this year and all of the sudden there are thirty accusers makes the whole scenario suspect.

If a woman wishes to charge someone with rape, that woman—via the state—must have proof beyond the shadow of a doubt that the crime did take place and that the accused committed that crime. Not one of these women has any proof. None. No evidence exists that any crime even occurred. Only one accusation claims the crime occurred within the statute of limitations, so even if the accusations were true, no prosecution can be filed.

All that exists is the word of thirty or so women. Now, for many people, that is enough. One person making an accusation in the absence of evidence can be dismissed. Thirty people making the same accusation gives the accusation more weight. Unfortunately, the multiple accusers are not referencing the same incident, therefore they are not corroborating each other’s testimony. They are all making their own accusations of actions on different occasions at different locations under different circumstances.

I find it difficult to believe that a man, no matter how famous, could be a serial rapist and not have been discovered at the time he commits the crimes. Everyone who hears the allegations automatically believes them, however, because in our modern politically correct society, everyone is expected to defer to the perceived victim in these cases. The Rolling Stone magazine published an account of a self-proclaimed rape victim without investigating the claims. This supported a narrative of “America’s Rape Culture” that is permeating the media, and was too juicy and too salacious to bother checking the facts. There are many men and boys who have their lives ruined by false accusations because of society’s rush to judgment concerning rape. The crime has risen above other crimes in that its very mention evokes anger and a rush to judgment that larceny, embezzling, blackmail, fraud and even murder to not engender. The only crimes that are on parity with rape for such automatic belief is parental kidnapping—which I do not view as a crime in most cases—where the accused is automatically presumed guilty.

I don’t know Bill Cosby. I’ve never met the man, even though I always thought I’d like to. He has always seemed so approachable. What I know of him comes from the media and his vast repertoire of work. He dropped out of school, attempted the military, went back to school and got a degree in physical education. He started his show business career as a standup comic and quickly amassed a following in a day and age when black artists found it all but impossible to break into the limelight. He made money. He garnered praise. He became famous. Now, call me misogynistic, but those three traits alone are enough to attract any number of women, especially in the 60’s with the drugs and sex that permeated the club scene.

Did he have sex with several women? Almost assuredly. Again, I don’t know, there is no proof, but it seems very likely. Did he have to drug the women? I seriously doubt it. Again, with all he had going for him, it seems unlikely he would have to resort to such nefarious tricks to get satisfaction. Did he anger the women he slept with? Again, almost assuredly; and again, I don’t know for sure. Many of the women who clustered in his orbit did so hoping to ride his coat tails into fame and fortune as well. When that didn’t happen, it is not a hard stretch to imagine they developed a grudge; a grudge that festered for almost forty years.

Whether or not he had sex with any of these women is not the issue. The question of whether the women were willing participants is the question for the courts. The real question is why wait forty years to file a complaint, when the statute of limitations has made a criminal case moot. The answer to that is easy, though. Criminal cases mean jail, while civil cases mean money. Which one will appeal to most of these “victims?”

Now Cosby is trying to make a living and finding an increasing challenge in doing so. His TV projects have been cancelled by the networks. He is trying to do the job that we as a nation have supported for more than forty years. Yet now his shows are picketed by rape activists. As if watching a comedian is supporting rape. Some patrons have reported being verbally assaulted by the picketers both going in and coming out of the theater. Media personalities have spoken out against Cosby as if they were a judge passing sentence. All of these actions are grossly unfair.

Even if the women are telling the truth and Bill Cosby is a serial rapist unlike the world has ever seen, or even if they are all liars and trying to carve a bit of cash out of a man whose career is almost over like a bunch of vultures picking over a wildebeest, the biggest crime is not either case. The biggest crime is how we as a nation are abandoning the principles upon which our nation was founded to engage in a media-driven frenzy. We are throwing out due process in a rush to judge a man without all the evidence. In the absence of evidence, we are compelled by justice to presume innocence, even if it galls us to do so.

2 Comments

Filed under Media, Society

Look For the Label

I have really been wrestling with blogging lately. It seems as though there are a million leftist blogs supporting every issue that I find either disagreeable or downright offensive, but there are also a few conservative blogs that I can find some agreement with, but they get some issue wrong, or they espouse a middle-ground mentality that appeases the left in efforts to try to please everyone. I am long past trying to make people happy, and I have come to the conclusion that no amount of logic can sway a die-hard leftist from adopting the force-fed media blitz ideology that inundates all of us. That is why I don’t blog as much anymore. That, and I am still working on my academic assignments and trying to finish my novel before the new year.

Having said all of that, my wife said something to me the other evening that got my hackles up. She works for a school district and said her district is labeled “majority-minority.” This because their student demographics are diverse; so diverse that Caucasian children are outnumbered, or underrepresented, in the student body. Now let that percolate for a minute. I realize that not everyone is a writer and the nuances of the English language might escape them, but as a writer, words are important to me. I like to use the best word to effectively convey the idea I am trying to communicate. If one group of students is smaller than the other groups, that group is the minority. Think about it. Minority, according to Merriam-Webster, is the smaller in number of two groups constituting a whole. Therefore, a smaller group cannot be a majority, even if one hyphenates it with the word ‘minority’. Conversely, a minority is the smaller number. So if the smaller group is white, that group is the minority. If the larger group is Hispanic, or any other non-white race, then that group is the majority. Period.

The leftist school board, not wanting to admit that Caucasians no longer have larger numbers, need that minority label on all non-Caucasians in order to get federal funding for their programs, or promote their socialist agenda. If Hispanics or blacks outnumber whites, that means whites are now the minority and should, God-forbid, qualify for those same programs. But that cannot happen. It would fly in the face of 40 years of affirmative action and social justice programs designed to help those races held down by centuries of white-dominated society. Or so they say.

What needs to happen is the school board, and the state board of education, and the federal Department of Education all need to come to the realization that after 40+ years of civil rights, mixed race breeding, natural migration patterns, and forced bussing, the whole race issue needs to be put to bed. Stop prioritizing children based on the color of their skin. Stop assuming that just because a child’s skin is white, they are “majority” and because another child’s skin is not white they are a minority. Those labels are not accurate, not beneficial and not worthwhile, but they are demeaning, insulting and erroneous. It only serves to perpetuate and reinforce the racist ideologies that the left purports to oppose.

Far be it from me to hold up a celebrity as an example, but actress Raven Symone recently spoke in an interview with Oprah wherein she eschewed these labels, to the chagrin of Oprah and other Hollywood liberals. The Cosby Show actress told the host that she did not wish to be identified as an African-American. “I want to be labeled a human who loves humans. I’m tired of being labeled. I’m an American. I’m not an African-American; I’m an American.”

Needless to say, this didn’t sit too well with Oprah. “You are going to get a lot of flack for saying you’re not African-American. You know that, right?”

I don’t know why she would. She’s from Georgia, not Africa. While I do not agree with everything the young actress espouses, I give her props for hitting this nail squarely on the head. Racism can only stop when everyone stops looking for it. If anyone of any race defines a person, or group of people, by the color of their skin for ANY REASON—beneficial or not—racism continues and thrives. If the left truly wants equality, they must stop lumping people together as a majority or minority and take people as one label…Human.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Society