"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the defense of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
(Second amendment to the U.S. Constitution, proposed September, 1789, ratified December 1791.)
In the final decade of the 18th century, when this amendment was ratified, our new nation was a veritable house of cards. We were under attack from within and without. The day to day possibility of looking up and seeing foreign warships closing in was very real. Add to that, colonies and states actually attacking each other. Then there were the Indians, posessed of the unmitigated gaul to believe they had a right to try to repel the invaders who were bent on forcing them, at gunpoint, (how's that for irony) from their ancestral lands. The temerity! But I digress...
In those days, organized, Government controlled armies were highly suspect since such armies had often been used as a means of suppression against their own people. It was deemed necessary, and many states passed laws making it so, that every able bodied man maintain in his home weapons, ammunition and sundry other related supplies. The thinking at the time was that it might, at any moment, become necessary to call forth these men to join the militia, operating under the training and supervision of local officers, to repel an invasion by another state, foreign nation, even those pesky Indians mentioned earlier. The reason it was the thinking at the time is because it was true. At the time.
We no longer live under those conditions. Although we are clearly not immune from attack, we no longer realistically face the threat of full scale invasion, the likes of which might once have been effectively repelled by the armed (and supervised) man on the street. In addition, we now have law enforcement personnel, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard and National Guard to protect us. We also, (if we choose to use it, that is) have common sense. It is really pointless to believe that the wholesale bearing of arms by the general public will render us safe.
Gun advocates put forth the following arguments:
Everyone who is legally allowed should own a gun. Everyone who is legally allowed should carry a gun, on their person, in public.
There should be only one restriction regarding gun ownership, that being the presence of a criminal record.
It is their contention that this would make our streets safer and that freedom of gun ownership is guaranteed by the second amendment.
Let us examine the last point first. The eagerness of gun lovers to recite by rote the second half of that amendment while deliberately avoiding any reasoned debate regarding the meaning of the first half or how the two halves might have been connected in the minds of the framers is disingenuous, to say the least. Unless you intend to submit yourself to the training and supervision of an organized, government sanctioned and controlled militia, then the second amendment doesn't give you the blanket permission to own or carry a firearm.
Now, regarding limiting gun ownership to law abiding citizens. That is a two part issue. First, "law abiding." The only thing proven by the absence of a criminal record is that the person in question has not been convicted of a crime. Yet. It does not mean that he is not a criminal. It does not mean that he is mentally or emotionally stable. It does not mean he is non- violent. It does not in any way prove or even suggest that this person should be trusted with the awesome, life and death responsibility of gun ownership. Many people who are shot to death, in situations that do not involve legitimate self defense, are shot by people with no criminal record. Many also have no history of violence. Carrying a gun changes you. It makes you bolder. One becomes less likely to back down from a confrontation. Less likely to avoid escalation. With that gun in your pocket, you are less motivated to seek peaceful resolution to conflict. One of the leading motivations for seeking peaceful coexistence is the fear of potential harm. This fear is dramatically reduced when you know that if the other guy tries anything, you can just whip out your iron, Dirty Harry style, and pump him full of lead. This completely natural feeling does nothing to make our streets safer. Personally, I don't want to get caught in the crossfire between you and the guy who stole "your" parking space. And be honest here. Do you really want me to whip out my Magnum and start shooting at both of you because I'm afraid one of you will hit me with a stray? Minor things can get out of hand quickly. Successfully using a firearm for self defense is a two-fold process. First, one must be able to, in a split second, assess whether or not it is appropriate to open fire. Is the threat real? What is the potential for innocent non-combatants to be injured or killed? What about the possibility that a third party might start shooting at you when you start shooting at someone else? After all, we do live in a very frightened society. That's why everyone wants the right to pack heat, remember?
The second part of the process is based on skill. Few average citizens have experienced the depth and consistency of training in firearm usage that your average police officer might undergo. The police are constantly being drilled in proper maintenance and usage of firearms. Ongoing training in threat assessment, use of firearms in uncontrollable public environments, etc. This training is comprehensive and never ending. A far cry from the weekend course taken by most applicants for concealed weapons permits. By comparison, the common gun-toting citizen is completely untrained. Think about that while you ponder this:
How many times have you heard about the police opening fire on a suspect and firing dozens of shots, at point-blank range, and only hitting him once or twice? Or not at all? Or shooting each other in the process?
They have far more training and experience at this kind of thing than your average pistol packin' Bubba. Feel safer now?
Another point. We have all heard it said, or said it ourselves, that if you use drugs you are contributing to the violent criminal enterprises of those who traffic in such drugs. We say it because it is true. Well, think about this. When you use guns, you are contributing to the violent criminal enterprises of those who would use guns for illegal purposes. Why? Simple. Criminals can't buy guns legally. There are only three places for a criminal (a convicted one, anyway) to get his hands on a gun. Burglarize a gun store that sells to people without records, steal it from someone without a record, or buy it from someone who stole it from one of the other two. By making guns available to "law abiding" citizens, you make them more readily available to felons as well. I love the old saying, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Reality check! "Until guns are outlawed, outlaws will easily have all the guns they want." Thanks to law abiding citizens like you. Most guns used by criminals to commit crimes once belonged to a law abiding citizen. I'm sure if they could do it without fear of arrest, they would send you all thank you cards for providing them with a nice weapon when they needed it most. The federal government keeps records regarding how many guns are stolen from people who legally own them every year. Look it up sometime. It's chilling. Way to help cut back on crime. Kudos.
Okay. We've talked about the "law abiding" part. Now, about "citizens."
You will find no shortage of gun lovers who believe that unrestricted gun ownership in an American right. To them, this means that immigrants, whether legal or not, should not be allowed to own guns. Look at the Virginia Tech tragedy. For many patriotic Americans, the only thing they wanted to know about this whole mess was what country was the guy from? They don't want to discuss any other aspect of this event. His national origin is all that they need to know in order to determine why this happened. There is a word for that attitude. Bigotry. Charles Whitman was an American. The Columbine shooters were American. The sap who shot up the Amish school was American. And on and on and on. Nationality has nothing to do with how likely one is to commit a crime, with or without a gun.
What it all boils down to is this: We are a frightened society. We live in constant fear of crime, terrorism, the Black man, illegal aliens, etc. For those of us who walk the streets without fear, who bravely leave our homes each day and face the world unarmed, let me offer this plea to those of you who can't.
If you are too scared to leave the house without a gun in your pocket, please stay home. The streets are not safer with more guns out there any more than our coastal waters would be safer with more sharks. If you are truly macho, then you don't need to hide behind a gun. Be brave, little buckaroo, and face the world the way we do. Your fear is no excuse for the danger you create for the rest of us.
I know. You are about to ask me how I will feel when some gun-toting hoodlum robs and shoots me. Well, since he probably stole that gun from you, I'll just go ahead and thank you now for making it so easy for him.
The only way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, children and angry boyfriends with no criminal record is to severely limit the number of guns in circulation in society as a whole. Just because it cuts into your fun time doesn't make it any less true. If anyone has a viable method by which we can have guns for all who feel they simply must have them, while effectively keeping them out of the wrong hands, I'd love to hear it. We've been waiting for a solution to this conundrum for more than 220 years. Who knows? Maybe you'll be the one.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Rebel Yell
Treason as defined in the U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
The formation of the Confederacy and secession from the Union, together with the audacious expediency of actively seeking and accepting support, both political and material, from European nations still hoping to crush the Union, is undeniably a clear act of treason as plainly defined in the Constitution of the United States, set forth nearly 80 years before. Yet, in a sustained act of self delusion arguably unmatched in this nation's history, Confederate supporters have , for the past 150 years, steadfastly denied this basic truth, much the way a petulant child might deny having smeared his feces on the wall, even as the noxious substance still coats his tiny hands.
Turning your back on your own country, engaging in war with that country, even going so far as to, in 1861, ratify your own Constitution, joining with European nations unfriendly to that country, killing it's citizens and plotting the death of it's President are acts of treason so plain as to make any denial thereof nothing short of laughable.
White Southerners also claim that their act of treason had nothing to do with slavery. To this assertion I offer this scholarly rejoinder: Yeah, right!
From Article 1, Section 9, Constitution of Confederate States of America,
March 11, 1861: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in Negro slaves shall be passed."
You can always divine the importance of an issue to any cause by how early it is mentioned in their manifesto. ARTICLE ONE! Now, maybe I'm just stupid but I have never been able to understand the human (or perhaps inhuman) ability to both defend and deny a position.
Up until the authorship and ratification of this document, nearly identical to the original U.S Constitution save for this one point of contention, the Confederacy had enjoyed the support of certain European nations who, suffice it to say, would not have been crestfallen to see the demise of the Union. One can only imagine the shock and awe experienced by the Confederates when these same nations, so supportive until now, quietly began to distance themselves from support of the rebellion, lest that support be construed as a support of slavery.
The South gave up all pretense regarding the rebellion/right to slave ownership connection when, in 1862, after the Union victory at Antiedam, President Lincoln drafted and had passed into law the Emancipation Proclamation. "They's tryin' to rob us of our Nigras!" finally became the honest, unabashed rallying cry of the rebellion. It also became their death knell. Aghast at having their barely secret feelings so baldly declared, anyone of any influence began to lose passion for the fight. Within two and a half years it was over. Almost.
To this day, much of the South still seethes at the failure of their forebears to properly secure their inalienable, God- given right to subjigate and enslave an entire race of people for fun and profit. Southerners, by and large, define themselves as some sort of uber-patriots. This seems like just a stubborn continuation of the transparent denials of the secession/slavery connection that so clearly formed the thesis of their original discontent.
The Confederate flag, confederate currency, even the "rebel yell" itself are all symbols of treason and oppression. How can anyone who calls himself a patriotic American celebrate, admire or display such a symbol of evil and deeply held prejudice born of a false, twisted sense of entitlement? Even the Germans took the swastikas off their flag. It is time for us to do the same.
If you aren't the type to walk down Main street waving a flag bearing the image of Osama bin Laden, maybe you aren't the type to proudly wave a flag that represents nothing but treason, hate and the misguided belief that these positions are somehow defensible.
Just because one of America's most despicable enemies came from within does not mean that they should be celebrated or revered.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
The formation of the Confederacy and secession from the Union, together with the audacious expediency of actively seeking and accepting support, both political and material, from European nations still hoping to crush the Union, is undeniably a clear act of treason as plainly defined in the Constitution of the United States, set forth nearly 80 years before. Yet, in a sustained act of self delusion arguably unmatched in this nation's history, Confederate supporters have , for the past 150 years, steadfastly denied this basic truth, much the way a petulant child might deny having smeared his feces on the wall, even as the noxious substance still coats his tiny hands.
Turning your back on your own country, engaging in war with that country, even going so far as to, in 1861, ratify your own Constitution, joining with European nations unfriendly to that country, killing it's citizens and plotting the death of it's President are acts of treason so plain as to make any denial thereof nothing short of laughable.
White Southerners also claim that their act of treason had nothing to do with slavery. To this assertion I offer this scholarly rejoinder: Yeah, right!
From Article 1, Section 9, Constitution of Confederate States of America,
March 11, 1861: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in Negro slaves shall be passed."
You can always divine the importance of an issue to any cause by how early it is mentioned in their manifesto. ARTICLE ONE! Now, maybe I'm just stupid but I have never been able to understand the human (or perhaps inhuman) ability to both defend and deny a position.
Up until the authorship and ratification of this document, nearly identical to the original U.S Constitution save for this one point of contention, the Confederacy had enjoyed the support of certain European nations who, suffice it to say, would not have been crestfallen to see the demise of the Union. One can only imagine the shock and awe experienced by the Confederates when these same nations, so supportive until now, quietly began to distance themselves from support of the rebellion, lest that support be construed as a support of slavery.
The South gave up all pretense regarding the rebellion/right to slave ownership connection when, in 1862, after the Union victory at Antiedam, President Lincoln drafted and had passed into law the Emancipation Proclamation. "They's tryin' to rob us of our Nigras!" finally became the honest, unabashed rallying cry of the rebellion. It also became their death knell. Aghast at having their barely secret feelings so baldly declared, anyone of any influence began to lose passion for the fight. Within two and a half years it was over. Almost.
To this day, much of the South still seethes at the failure of their forebears to properly secure their inalienable, God- given right to subjigate and enslave an entire race of people for fun and profit. Southerners, by and large, define themselves as some sort of uber-patriots. This seems like just a stubborn continuation of the transparent denials of the secession/slavery connection that so clearly formed the thesis of their original discontent.
The Confederate flag, confederate currency, even the "rebel yell" itself are all symbols of treason and oppression. How can anyone who calls himself a patriotic American celebrate, admire or display such a symbol of evil and deeply held prejudice born of a false, twisted sense of entitlement? Even the Germans took the swastikas off their flag. It is time for us to do the same.
If you aren't the type to walk down Main street waving a flag bearing the image of Osama bin Laden, maybe you aren't the type to proudly wave a flag that represents nothing but treason, hate and the misguided belief that these positions are somehow defensible.
Just because one of America's most despicable enemies came from within does not mean that they should be celebrated or revered.
Friday, April 13, 2007
White Males
The following is a message for all white males. You suck. It doesn't matter what kind of person you are or how you treat the people with whom you interact. You suck. Your life will become a thousand times less frustrating when you just accept it. As a white male, you will only be judged by the color of your skin and your genetalia, not by the "content of your character."
Now I know that not all men are pigs. I know that not all whites are bigots. Still, for those of us who are neither of these things, there will never be an article about us in Cosmo, Ebony, Ladies Home Journal or Jet. BET will never do a series called Great White Guys. Oxygen will never do a show called The Ten Sweetest, Most Thoughtful Men In America. It is the pigs and the bigots who get all the press. Then guilt by association sets in and, before you know it, every white male on Earth should be lined up and shot.
Women and minorities are still playing the "victim" card and they always will. As much as they claim they hate being in the role of victim, it sure opens a lot of doors. Don't think they don't know that. Take freedom of speech, for example. Women and minorities have freedom of speech. If you are a white male you'd better shut the hell up. They can make a career out of slandering you, libeling you, labeling you and denigrating you. Just don't think you have the right to object. You don't. A woman goes on national television and says all men are dangerous, abusive pigs and all she gets are more sponsors and a better time slot. A man says that all women are whores while talking to another man as they wash their hands in the men's room, it gets overheard by one woman walking by in the hall and he's out of a job and probably getting sued for creating a hostile work environment. People like Dave Chappelle and Chris Rock have built very successful careers routinely denigrating white people and what do they get? Mo' money! Mo' money! Mo'money! A white man says that blacks are better at sports because they are stronger, faster and more graceful than whites and it's off to the unemployment line.
I am not defending the rights of sexists or bigots. All I'm saying is that there are sexists and bigots on both sides but there is only one group that ever has to pay a price for it. I have had black people I don't even know calling me honky, cracker, white boy, white devil and every other anti - white perjorative you could think of throughout my life. Forty-six years of insults and disrespect. I have never wanted to nor have I ever responded in kind. If I had, I probably would not be alive to write this. I do everything I can to treat others with dignity and respect. Unfortunately, society does not require that I get what I give. In fact, society requires that I treat with respect those who are free to stereotype and denigrate me with abandon.
As a white male, it is both immoral and illegal for you to create double standards by which you deal with women and minorities. This is as it should be. It is not, however, either immoral or illegal for them to do it to you. If a woman wants to become a member of your all-male gym and you say no, get ready. In no time you will have T.V. cameras and reporters from every branch of the media in your face 24/7 as her team of volunteer attorneys serves you with papers and the National Organization for Women picket, protest and boycott you out of business. By the time it is all over you will be forced to close your doors and STILL give her a retroactive lifetime membership in your now non-existent gym. Now you go try to get a membership at Curves and see if you don't get tasered and arrested for refusing to leave the lobby without an application. Then see if you can get even one attorney to take your case pro bono. And don't look for any backup on the boycott thing either. There is no National Organization for Men. That would be sexist and illegal. Women say they need these rights and privileges because men have all the power. Huh? More women are getting into college than men. More women are graduating from college than men. In the business world, men have three things to help them get ahead. Hard work, skill and networking. Women have hard work, skill and networking, too. They also have Governmental incentives offered to businesses to hire and promote women as well as a veritable encyclopedia of empowerment programs. If women want something that is female-only, no problem. If you want something that is male-only, you can have it, as long as you keep it a closely guarded secret. If word gets out, it's over. If minorities want an organization, company or event that is strictly for them, there is nothing wrong with that. If you want the same right, you are a racist pig.
Socially acceptable double standards manifest themselves in many ways. Hire a white person because you want a white person and you're nothing but a filthy bigot. Hire a black person because you want a black person and you can rest easy in the knowledge that you wil be accused of no evil.
We could bandy about examples of the unconfessed double standards that exist in modern society until my fingertips were raw and my keyboard covered in blood. The long and short of it is this:
As Your Average White Guy, you know that you are no more responsible for slavery, Jim Crow or systemic racism than Jesse Jackson nor do you bear any greater responsibility for the historical subjigation of women than Gloria Steinem. You were not in on any of the meetings during which these evil, insidious plots were hatched and there is certainly no possibility in this day and age that you will profit from their original intent, even if you wanted to. Just be aware that, as unfair as it may seem to any thinking, rational person, you will continue to be held personally responsible for all of these terrible things and many more. Your gleeful public vilification will never end. No matter how fair, decent and respectful you are to the rest of the world, they will never be required nor feel compelled to treat you the same way. Learn to live with it.
Oh, and be sure to watch your mouth, White Boy.
Now I know that not all men are pigs. I know that not all whites are bigots. Still, for those of us who are neither of these things, there will never be an article about us in Cosmo, Ebony, Ladies Home Journal or Jet. BET will never do a series called Great White Guys. Oxygen will never do a show called The Ten Sweetest, Most Thoughtful Men In America. It is the pigs and the bigots who get all the press. Then guilt by association sets in and, before you know it, every white male on Earth should be lined up and shot.
Women and minorities are still playing the "victim" card and they always will. As much as they claim they hate being in the role of victim, it sure opens a lot of doors. Don't think they don't know that. Take freedom of speech, for example. Women and minorities have freedom of speech. If you are a white male you'd better shut the hell up. They can make a career out of slandering you, libeling you, labeling you and denigrating you. Just don't think you have the right to object. You don't. A woman goes on national television and says all men are dangerous, abusive pigs and all she gets are more sponsors and a better time slot. A man says that all women are whores while talking to another man as they wash their hands in the men's room, it gets overheard by one woman walking by in the hall and he's out of a job and probably getting sued for creating a hostile work environment. People like Dave Chappelle and Chris Rock have built very successful careers routinely denigrating white people and what do they get? Mo' money! Mo' money! Mo'money! A white man says that blacks are better at sports because they are stronger, faster and more graceful than whites and it's off to the unemployment line.
I am not defending the rights of sexists or bigots. All I'm saying is that there are sexists and bigots on both sides but there is only one group that ever has to pay a price for it. I have had black people I don't even know calling me honky, cracker, white boy, white devil and every other anti - white perjorative you could think of throughout my life. Forty-six years of insults and disrespect. I have never wanted to nor have I ever responded in kind. If I had, I probably would not be alive to write this. I do everything I can to treat others with dignity and respect. Unfortunately, society does not require that I get what I give. In fact, society requires that I treat with respect those who are free to stereotype and denigrate me with abandon.
As a white male, it is both immoral and illegal for you to create double standards by which you deal with women and minorities. This is as it should be. It is not, however, either immoral or illegal for them to do it to you. If a woman wants to become a member of your all-male gym and you say no, get ready. In no time you will have T.V. cameras and reporters from every branch of the media in your face 24/7 as her team of volunteer attorneys serves you with papers and the National Organization for Women picket, protest and boycott you out of business. By the time it is all over you will be forced to close your doors and STILL give her a retroactive lifetime membership in your now non-existent gym. Now you go try to get a membership at Curves and see if you don't get tasered and arrested for refusing to leave the lobby without an application. Then see if you can get even one attorney to take your case pro bono. And don't look for any backup on the boycott thing either. There is no National Organization for Men. That would be sexist and illegal. Women say they need these rights and privileges because men have all the power. Huh? More women are getting into college than men. More women are graduating from college than men. In the business world, men have three things to help them get ahead. Hard work, skill and networking. Women have hard work, skill and networking, too. They also have Governmental incentives offered to businesses to hire and promote women as well as a veritable encyclopedia of empowerment programs. If women want something that is female-only, no problem. If you want something that is male-only, you can have it, as long as you keep it a closely guarded secret. If word gets out, it's over. If minorities want an organization, company or event that is strictly for them, there is nothing wrong with that. If you want the same right, you are a racist pig.
Socially acceptable double standards manifest themselves in many ways. Hire a white person because you want a white person and you're nothing but a filthy bigot. Hire a black person because you want a black person and you can rest easy in the knowledge that you wil be accused of no evil.
We could bandy about examples of the unconfessed double standards that exist in modern society until my fingertips were raw and my keyboard covered in blood. The long and short of it is this:
As Your Average White Guy, you know that you are no more responsible for slavery, Jim Crow or systemic racism than Jesse Jackson nor do you bear any greater responsibility for the historical subjigation of women than Gloria Steinem. You were not in on any of the meetings during which these evil, insidious plots were hatched and there is certainly no possibility in this day and age that you will profit from their original intent, even if you wanted to. Just be aware that, as unfair as it may seem to any thinking, rational person, you will continue to be held personally responsible for all of these terrible things and many more. Your gleeful public vilification will never end. No matter how fair, decent and respectful you are to the rest of the world, they will never be required nor feel compelled to treat you the same way. Learn to live with it.
Oh, and be sure to watch your mouth, White Boy.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Requiem For Justice
There are more than two million people behind bars in this country. Assuming Law Enforcement gets it right 95% of the time, that leaves open the possibility that as many as 100,000 innocent people are locked up as we speak. In the nearly twenty years since DNA technology became available, more than 150 people have been released from Death Row alone.
Countless more have had to be released from prison in general but I want to get back to the Death Row people for a moment. These are people that the government was prepared, even eager, to kill for crimes they did not commit. Recently in Florida, a man convicted of murder and sentenced to death died of cancer after 18 years on Death Row. Eight months AFTER his death, DNA tests were finally allowed by the state, which had fought them tooth and nail to this point. No match. This man wasted the last 18 years of his life in a cage with the prospect of his own murder hanging over his head 24/7, all for a crime he did not commit. His family was robbed of his presence those last eighteen years, as well as being robbed of their chance to say goodbye to him before he died. He died alone, in a cage, for no good reason. Also in Florida, Dade county and Broward county had a serial killer of prostitutes on their hands. A man, clearly mentally disabled, was arrested and convicted for murdering six women, three in each county. After years of fighting it, Broward county finally agreed to test the DNA and found, to their surprise, that it did not match the convicted man. In fact, it was a dead on match for another man who, in the intervening years, had been sent to prison for other crimes. The Broward State Attorney had the convictions withdrawn. They then contacted the Dade State Attorney, a woman named Katherine Fernandez Rundle, suggesting that she might want to take another look at the three cases from her jurisdiction as well. Her response? "I don't have to run any tests. I know I convicted the right man."
If you were wondering how innocent people wind up in prison, you can stop now. This is but one reason that it is frighteningly easy to convict innocent people. There are others. Let's examine a few.
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
If you are one of those people who get all of your knowledge of our justice system from T.V., then you probably believe that all suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This is a myth. In order to prove it, you must put yourself in other people's shoes for a moment.
If you were a police officer, would you really go around arresting people if you thought they were innocent? As a prosecutor, would you put people on trial if you thought they were innocent? What about a judge? Would you allow people to be put on trial, their lives laid waste, in your hallowed courtroom if you thought they were innocent? The answer to all of these questions is "of course not." You would have to believe they were guilty to put someone through a nightmare like that. So who is it exactly that is presuming your innocence? The defense attorney, right? WRONG! If you were to conduct a survey of defense attorneys, you would find that most of them presume their client's guilt. It cuts down on surprises. That's why most of them don't even ask the defendant if he actually did it. Well, if none of the official players are presuming your innocence, then it must be the jury. Nope. The reason for this is simple. As a point of Human nature, we like to think the worst of strangers because it makes us feel better about ourselves. "I may cheat on my wife but at least I'm not a cold-blooded killer like THIS guy." The truth is no one is presuming your innocence. Quite the contrary. From your first interrogation to your last day in prison, and for the rest of your life, once accused you are nose to nose with one person after another who is sure you did it. Even after a certain and public exoneration, I guarantee many in the community will remain convinced of your guilt.
THE POLICE ALWAYS TRY THEIR HARDEST AND NEVER LIE.
Yeah, and I have a tendency toward brevity of thought. Although most police officers are honest and sincerely trying to get it right, many are not. Many look for shortcuts. It's understandable, to a point. They are overwhelmed with cases. One very common way that the shortcut method manifests itself is through what I call LCS or, Lazy Cop Syndrome. This is when a police officer will be investigating a crime, do background checks until he finds someone with a record and the investigation screeches to a halt right there. Arrest him, charge him, scare him with threats of multiple charges and many years behind bars unless he cooperates. Then you just sit back and wait. Sometime before trial, the prosecutor will offer him a sweetheart deal with little or no jail time as long as he pleads guilty, usually to a lesser charge. Most ex cons will jump at this to avoid the possibilty of a lengthy sentence. Officer closes a case, prosecutor gets a guilty plea which, on their record looks just as good as a guilty verdict and the judge has another person "found" guilty in his courtroom. Everybody wins. The system works and "justice" has prevailed.
Although most police officers would never lie about a case, there are, unfortunately, plenty who will. The chances of being caught are almost nil. In many cases it's a good career move. Who will the judge and jury believe? The officer or the criminal? Who would you believe? Sometimes when a case is weak, it's because you have the wrong guy. For some officers, that doesn't matter. Many prosecutors are willing to pretend like they don't know a case is being "fudged." Evidence gets lost, witnesses who don't help the State's case are not called or even revealed to the defense, who often lack the resources of the State to go out and find these witnesses themselves. Why is it so often left up to appellate attorneys to scratch and claw against the State's best efforts to the contrary in order to get DNA evidence tested? If the State is so sure they have the right guy, shouldn't they be the ones clamoring for these tests? Why have many states passed laws recently requiring the state to do pre-trial testing of any potential DNA evidence? Because the justice system doesn't like it when the truth muddies the waters of zeal. A prosecutor's career would be pretty short if too many defendants turned out to be innocent. Watch how fast a judge gets branded as "soft on crime" for letting too many defendants go free simply because they were innocent. Guilty people being punished is justice. Innocent people having to be set free is merely an embarrassment that no one wants to acknowledge, let alone be party to. Not good for the career.
Would it surprise you to learn that I support the death penalty? I really believe there are some people we just don't need. Also, like almost everyone else, if someone hurts someone I love, I am going to want my pound of flesh. When all the political posturing is put aside, that is what the death penalty is really all about. Revenge. That's why we have it and that's why we want it. It is not a deterrent. Look at Texas. More "law abiding citizens" carrying guns than almost any other state (obviously not the deterrent the NRA would like you to believe, either) and look at their murder rate. It's gotten so bad that they had to put in an express lane on their Death Row and there is still no end in sight. Clearly, rushing the process doesn't increase the deterrence factor much either. That's because there isn't one. People who want to kill will kill. Face it. The only thing you get from speeding up the execution process is more opportunities to kill innocent people before we have the chance to find out we were wrong. It is for this reason that, even though I support the Death Penalty, I would like to see us have the modicum of wisdom and restraint of our emotions to put it's application on hold until we can establish with reasonable certainty that we are killing the right person. Maybe I'm the strange one, I don't know, but the idea of not wanting to execute innocent people doesn't seem all that radical to me.
150 men released from Death Row. Many of whom would doubtless have been executed by now, if not for science and a series of brave, uphill battles, against the Government, by those who want to make sure we get it right.
What about all of the people that we executed before DNA? Can you really be sure they were all guilty? What about all of the people awaiting execution right now where there is no DNA to test? Are we really certain they are all guilty too? Really? How?
I refer you once again to the wisdom of Katherine Fernandez Rundle:
"I don't have to do any tests. I know I convicted the right man."
Countless more have had to be released from prison in general but I want to get back to the Death Row people for a moment. These are people that the government was prepared, even eager, to kill for crimes they did not commit. Recently in Florida, a man convicted of murder and sentenced to death died of cancer after 18 years on Death Row. Eight months AFTER his death, DNA tests were finally allowed by the state, which had fought them tooth and nail to this point. No match. This man wasted the last 18 years of his life in a cage with the prospect of his own murder hanging over his head 24/7, all for a crime he did not commit. His family was robbed of his presence those last eighteen years, as well as being robbed of their chance to say goodbye to him before he died. He died alone, in a cage, for no good reason. Also in Florida, Dade county and Broward county had a serial killer of prostitutes on their hands. A man, clearly mentally disabled, was arrested and convicted for murdering six women, three in each county. After years of fighting it, Broward county finally agreed to test the DNA and found, to their surprise, that it did not match the convicted man. In fact, it was a dead on match for another man who, in the intervening years, had been sent to prison for other crimes. The Broward State Attorney had the convictions withdrawn. They then contacted the Dade State Attorney, a woman named Katherine Fernandez Rundle, suggesting that she might want to take another look at the three cases from her jurisdiction as well. Her response? "I don't have to run any tests. I know I convicted the right man."
If you were wondering how innocent people wind up in prison, you can stop now. This is but one reason that it is frighteningly easy to convict innocent people. There are others. Let's examine a few.
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
If you are one of those people who get all of your knowledge of our justice system from T.V., then you probably believe that all suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This is a myth. In order to prove it, you must put yourself in other people's shoes for a moment.
If you were a police officer, would you really go around arresting people if you thought they were innocent? As a prosecutor, would you put people on trial if you thought they were innocent? What about a judge? Would you allow people to be put on trial, their lives laid waste, in your hallowed courtroom if you thought they were innocent? The answer to all of these questions is "of course not." You would have to believe they were guilty to put someone through a nightmare like that. So who is it exactly that is presuming your innocence? The defense attorney, right? WRONG! If you were to conduct a survey of defense attorneys, you would find that most of them presume their client's guilt. It cuts down on surprises. That's why most of them don't even ask the defendant if he actually did it. Well, if none of the official players are presuming your innocence, then it must be the jury. Nope. The reason for this is simple. As a point of Human nature, we like to think the worst of strangers because it makes us feel better about ourselves. "I may cheat on my wife but at least I'm not a cold-blooded killer like THIS guy." The truth is no one is presuming your innocence. Quite the contrary. From your first interrogation to your last day in prison, and for the rest of your life, once accused you are nose to nose with one person after another who is sure you did it. Even after a certain and public exoneration, I guarantee many in the community will remain convinced of your guilt.
THE POLICE ALWAYS TRY THEIR HARDEST AND NEVER LIE.
Yeah, and I have a tendency toward brevity of thought. Although most police officers are honest and sincerely trying to get it right, many are not. Many look for shortcuts. It's understandable, to a point. They are overwhelmed with cases. One very common way that the shortcut method manifests itself is through what I call LCS or, Lazy Cop Syndrome. This is when a police officer will be investigating a crime, do background checks until he finds someone with a record and the investigation screeches to a halt right there. Arrest him, charge him, scare him with threats of multiple charges and many years behind bars unless he cooperates. Then you just sit back and wait. Sometime before trial, the prosecutor will offer him a sweetheart deal with little or no jail time as long as he pleads guilty, usually to a lesser charge. Most ex cons will jump at this to avoid the possibilty of a lengthy sentence. Officer closes a case, prosecutor gets a guilty plea which, on their record looks just as good as a guilty verdict and the judge has another person "found" guilty in his courtroom. Everybody wins. The system works and "justice" has prevailed.
Although most police officers would never lie about a case, there are, unfortunately, plenty who will. The chances of being caught are almost nil. In many cases it's a good career move. Who will the judge and jury believe? The officer or the criminal? Who would you believe? Sometimes when a case is weak, it's because you have the wrong guy. For some officers, that doesn't matter. Many prosecutors are willing to pretend like they don't know a case is being "fudged." Evidence gets lost, witnesses who don't help the State's case are not called or even revealed to the defense, who often lack the resources of the State to go out and find these witnesses themselves. Why is it so often left up to appellate attorneys to scratch and claw against the State's best efforts to the contrary in order to get DNA evidence tested? If the State is so sure they have the right guy, shouldn't they be the ones clamoring for these tests? Why have many states passed laws recently requiring the state to do pre-trial testing of any potential DNA evidence? Because the justice system doesn't like it when the truth muddies the waters of zeal. A prosecutor's career would be pretty short if too many defendants turned out to be innocent. Watch how fast a judge gets branded as "soft on crime" for letting too many defendants go free simply because they were innocent. Guilty people being punished is justice. Innocent people having to be set free is merely an embarrassment that no one wants to acknowledge, let alone be party to. Not good for the career.
Would it surprise you to learn that I support the death penalty? I really believe there are some people we just don't need. Also, like almost everyone else, if someone hurts someone I love, I am going to want my pound of flesh. When all the political posturing is put aside, that is what the death penalty is really all about. Revenge. That's why we have it and that's why we want it. It is not a deterrent. Look at Texas. More "law abiding citizens" carrying guns than almost any other state (obviously not the deterrent the NRA would like you to believe, either) and look at their murder rate. It's gotten so bad that they had to put in an express lane on their Death Row and there is still no end in sight. Clearly, rushing the process doesn't increase the deterrence factor much either. That's because there isn't one. People who want to kill will kill. Face it. The only thing you get from speeding up the execution process is more opportunities to kill innocent people before we have the chance to find out we were wrong. It is for this reason that, even though I support the Death Penalty, I would like to see us have the modicum of wisdom and restraint of our emotions to put it's application on hold until we can establish with reasonable certainty that we are killing the right person. Maybe I'm the strange one, I don't know, but the idea of not wanting to execute innocent people doesn't seem all that radical to me.
150 men released from Death Row. Many of whom would doubtless have been executed by now, if not for science and a series of brave, uphill battles, against the Government, by those who want to make sure we get it right.
What about all of the people that we executed before DNA? Can you really be sure they were all guilty? What about all of the people awaiting execution right now where there is no DNA to test? Are we really certain they are all guilty too? Really? How?
I refer you once again to the wisdom of Katherine Fernandez Rundle:
"I don't have to do any tests. I know I convicted the right man."
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Say What?
Today I would like to discuss the sloppy, devil-may-care attitude we seem to have regarding our own language.
To begin, I would like to suggest that we make fools of ourselves when we go off on recent immigrants for not knowing how to speak English. We aren't that great at it either.
Now, before you start waving your Confederate flag in my face, I am not defending people who emigrated here twenty years ago and still never speak English. I am not going to demand that immigrants relinquish their mother tongue or culture in order to live here. If I moved to Germany, to LIVE, I might continue to speak English at home with the family or among my fellow English speaking emigres but, when speaking to native Germans, in their own country, I would speak German. That is not what I am talking about here. I am talking about American's laziness with our own language and as we go through some examples, you will see that it really does boil down to laziness.
Have you ever heard it said that "it takes more facial muscles to frown than to smile?" It's true. It is also true that it takes more effort to pronounce certain words correctly.
Take "realtor" for example. Listen when people say this word and 99 times out of a hundred you will hear it pronounced "real-a-ter." It's "real-TOR." Two syllables, not three and an "O" not an "E" sound in the second syllable. Which brings me to "jewelry." More often than not, people say "jew-la-ry." Unless it is actually made out of "jewlas" this is incorrect. It is made out of "jewels" and is properly pronounced "jewel-ry."
At this point, I'm sure someone is asking, "who cares?" Well, those who do not want to sound like idiots when speaking their own language care. Everyone else is free to keep saying things like "nuke-u-ler." By the way, it's pronounced "nuke-lee-er" but to be fair, I have even heard people in the nuclear industry say "nuke-u-ler." This does not make this pronunciation correct but it does make it a little more understandable when people who don't work with it daily mispronounce it. "Coupon" is pronounced "coo-pon" not "cyoo-pon." If you undergo "orientation," you have become "oriented," not "orientated."
It is not just the mispronunciation of common words that makes me nuts. It is also the misuse of certain phrases common to our lexicon that is somewhat disturbing. I can't tell you how many times someone has said to me "it goes without saying..." or "needless to say..." and then proceeded to tell me anyway. This is not only incorrect. Forcing me to listen to something that "goes without saying" or is "needless to say" is just mean and rude and a complete waste of my time. Trust me, if something is needless to say, then it goes without saying that it's needless to hear, as well. There. See how annoying it is?
One that I really love is, "I could care less." I know when you say this that you are trying to sound cynical and above it all but the fact is, if "you could care less" then you obviously care, at least a little. The correct phrase is, "I COULDN'T care less." That means you don't care at all. The problem is, it takes less effort to say "could" than "couldn't" and we Americans are all about less effort, even when it comes to our language and how we use it.
"My bad" is easier and takes less time to say than "my mistake." Most of our slang is designed, not as a cooler way of saying something but as a shorter way. We are always looking for a shorter way to say things. We are not "giving him proper respect" we are giving him "props." "National Football League" becomes "NFL." We just LOVE acronyms. Pretty soon we will have entire conversations completely in acronyms.
"H H, h w y d?"
"F, h w y?"
"W! I t t k t t z a w s a w t a f t g! T g a s a t u f e t m c c."
"I t y n t l h d t. H a g o a g s. I h h d t u i t c!"
Personally, I can't wait for that day. Communication is so much easier and mutual understanding so much deeper when we abbreviate our speech as much as possible, don't you think?
Here is another one I hear often. People saying "I seen."
"You'll never guess what I seen on the way to work. I seen a three-legged deer!"
It should, yet obviously doesn't, go without saying that it's "I saw" or "I have seen." Some will argue that this is merely a colloquial form of speech and as such should be granted special exception from these proceedings. I disagree. Saying "crick" for "creek" or "warsh" for "wash" is a colloquialism.
"I seen," on the other hand is just bad grammar.
As people who claim to be English speakers, it is our self-imposed responsibility to do it in a way that presents English for the beautiful language that it is, as well as sets an example for all of the people we are so quick to judge for their failings in this area. After all, if you played football all of your life and you still stunk at it, could you really look down on someone who had never played before just because they weren't very good?
Could you do it with a straight face?
Come to think of it, it goes without saying that I could care less. I think I'll just go buy that nice piece of jewlary I seen earlier.
To begin, I would like to suggest that we make fools of ourselves when we go off on recent immigrants for not knowing how to speak English. We aren't that great at it either.
Now, before you start waving your Confederate flag in my face, I am not defending people who emigrated here twenty years ago and still never speak English. I am not going to demand that immigrants relinquish their mother tongue or culture in order to live here. If I moved to Germany, to LIVE, I might continue to speak English at home with the family or among my fellow English speaking emigres but, when speaking to native Germans, in their own country, I would speak German. That is not what I am talking about here. I am talking about American's laziness with our own language and as we go through some examples, you will see that it really does boil down to laziness.
Have you ever heard it said that "it takes more facial muscles to frown than to smile?" It's true. It is also true that it takes more effort to pronounce certain words correctly.
Take "realtor" for example. Listen when people say this word and 99 times out of a hundred you will hear it pronounced "real-a-ter." It's "real-TOR." Two syllables, not three and an "O" not an "E" sound in the second syllable. Which brings me to "jewelry." More often than not, people say "jew-la-ry." Unless it is actually made out of "jewlas" this is incorrect. It is made out of "jewels" and is properly pronounced "jewel-ry."
At this point, I'm sure someone is asking, "who cares?" Well, those who do not want to sound like idiots when speaking their own language care. Everyone else is free to keep saying things like "nuke-u-ler." By the way, it's pronounced "nuke-lee-er" but to be fair, I have even heard people in the nuclear industry say "nuke-u-ler." This does not make this pronunciation correct but it does make it a little more understandable when people who don't work with it daily mispronounce it. "Coupon" is pronounced "coo-pon" not "cyoo-pon." If you undergo "orientation," you have become "oriented," not "orientated."
It is not just the mispronunciation of common words that makes me nuts. It is also the misuse of certain phrases common to our lexicon that is somewhat disturbing. I can't tell you how many times someone has said to me "it goes without saying..." or "needless to say..." and then proceeded to tell me anyway. This is not only incorrect. Forcing me to listen to something that "goes without saying" or is "needless to say" is just mean and rude and a complete waste of my time. Trust me, if something is needless to say, then it goes without saying that it's needless to hear, as well. There. See how annoying it is?
One that I really love is, "I could care less." I know when you say this that you are trying to sound cynical and above it all but the fact is, if "you could care less" then you obviously care, at least a little. The correct phrase is, "I COULDN'T care less." That means you don't care at all. The problem is, it takes less effort to say "could" than "couldn't" and we Americans are all about less effort, even when it comes to our language and how we use it.
"My bad" is easier and takes less time to say than "my mistake." Most of our slang is designed, not as a cooler way of saying something but as a shorter way. We are always looking for a shorter way to say things. We are not "giving him proper respect" we are giving him "props." "National Football League" becomes "NFL." We just LOVE acronyms. Pretty soon we will have entire conversations completely in acronyms.
"H H, h w y d?"
"F, h w y?"
"W! I t t k t t z a w s a w t a f t g! T g a s a t u f e t m c c."
"I t y n t l h d t. H a g o a g s. I h h d t u i t c!"
Personally, I can't wait for that day. Communication is so much easier and mutual understanding so much deeper when we abbreviate our speech as much as possible, don't you think?
Here is another one I hear often. People saying "I seen."
"You'll never guess what I seen on the way to work. I seen a three-legged deer!"
It should, yet obviously doesn't, go without saying that it's "I saw" or "I have seen." Some will argue that this is merely a colloquial form of speech and as such should be granted special exception from these proceedings. I disagree. Saying "crick" for "creek" or "warsh" for "wash" is a colloquialism.
"I seen," on the other hand is just bad grammar.
As people who claim to be English speakers, it is our self-imposed responsibility to do it in a way that presents English for the beautiful language that it is, as well as sets an example for all of the people we are so quick to judge for their failings in this area. After all, if you played football all of your life and you still stunk at it, could you really look down on someone who had never played before just because they weren't very good?
Could you do it with a straight face?
Come to think of it, it goes without saying that I could care less. I think I'll just go buy that nice piece of jewlary I seen earlier.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
The Myth of Superiority
Allow me to begin by offending an enormous number of people. Ready? Here we go. You are not superior to anyone. Now that you are teetering on the verge of apoplexy, I'll explain.
First, this is not "slam white folks day" here at A Few Words. Oh no, Dear Reader. This is "let's all be honest day." No matter whether you are White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian, Middle Eastern, Portugese, Sudanese, French, German, Irish, Scottish, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, tall, short, fat, thin, blue eyed, brown eyed, long hair, short hair, gay, straight, or lesbian and on and on and on ad nauseum, there are members of your tribe who believe they are somehow better people than members of some other tribe or tribes. This is a silly, baseless belief that we will examine here today. Our own little version of Mythbusters, if you will. Only here, we won't be blowing anything up or building some bizarro contraption. Today, we wallow in the truth.
Black people commit crimes. There, I said it. For many white people, this is all the excuse their feeble minds need to brand every black person who ever lived as nothing but trouble. May I submit, right here and now, that hating people in groups is the lazy man's way. It's also completely senseless. All black people aren't criminals any more than all white people are lousy dancers. (At this point it behooves me to concede that straight white men probably shouldn't be dancing, but I digress...) In fact, if you want to break it down to cold, hard numbers, the majority of convicted felons are white. The majority of welfare recipients are white. 99.99% of serial killers are white. In fact, the majority of all serial criminals are white. The majority of matricides are commited by white people. The majority of hate crimes are commited by white people. If by now you are screaming "LIAR! LIAR!" at your computer screen, I invite you to do a little research. These are F.B.I. figures. I daresay that as a conservative, law enforcement organization, with it's Director appointed by a Conservative president, from Texas no less, as a source of facts and figures it can't get much whiter than that. My point is that there are good and bad people of every color. Accept it and quit whining. If you're going to hate, at least be man enough to put some effort into it and hate selectively.
Now, about immigrants. I am so tired of hearing about how the immigrants are here illegally and stealing our jobs and none of them want to learn English. The truth is, MOST immigrants are here legally. INS estimates put the number of illegals in this country at somewhere around 11 million. Now I'm sure, much like the Government's estimates regarding the number of families living in poverty, that this estimate is low. But we are a nation of more than 300 million people, with millions and millions of immigrants and most of them are here legally. Most of them can, or are learning to, speak English. There are some who seem to almost arrogantly refuse to learn the language of the land, but they are truly a minority. Besides, have you ever heard someone born and raised here speak, or tried to read something they wrote? Ain't so many of us talk too good either, Jeb.
English is a tough language to learn. To, too and two. For, fore and four. Silent e's, b's and k's. We have a letter "f" but half the time we use "ph" or "gh" to make the "f" sound. Enough with being tough on foreigners about phonics, okay? Which brings me to the "stealing our jobs" garbage. Please!
If you wanted to mow lawns, do farm labor, scrub toilets or drive a cab, you would. I see ads in the paper every day for these menial jobs and many more. And those ads are in English, by the way. The jobs taken by recent immigrants to this country, especially illegals, are jobs you wouldn't be caught DEAD doing because they're "beneath" you. Also, most of these immigrants take two and even three of these jobs and show up for work every day. So much for their being lazy. Lazy people don't steal three jobs. Make up your mind.
Now, about the Gays. Imagine you woke up tomorrow to go to your one job, and you discovered that there were suddenly more gay people than straight people in this country. In fact, they now outnumbered you ten to one. By the time you get home from work, the Gay majority has decided that heterosexuality is a disgusting practice that offends their delicate sensibilities. They are going to pass laws making it legal to discriminate against you. They are going to, en masse, make it socially dangerous for you to be open about your love for a member of the opposite sex, make it illegal for you to marry, raise children, get insurance together or inheirit benefits in the event of your significant other's death. I'm sure you would have a fit. Probably even march on Washington, no? Chant slogans like "Too late! We're Straight!" or something like that. I know what you're thinking. It's not your fault that you hate Gays because the Bible tells you it's okay. The truth is, it doesn't. And don't start quoting me Leviticus. If your hatred of gays stems from your Christian beliefs get ready for a zinger.
You're wrong. The word "Christian" means "Christ-like." As a Christian, you are supposed to be following the teachings of Jesus. He taught that,with his arrival as Messiah, all the former commandments should be forgotten and replaced with only two: Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as you love yourself. Period. (He also said "go into the city and stay until you leave," which makes one wonder if Jesus hadn't crossed paths with Yogi Berra at some point but that's really an issue for my "Celebrities in Antiquity" post so, back to my point.)
In Matthew 24:14, Jesus instructed his followers to "go therefore and make disciples..." He didn't say "go therefore and legislate the Word." Besides, you are not supposed to be passing laws based upon your religious beliefs. The Law is a central part of the Establishment. When you give your religion the power of law, that is "establishment of religion" and is strictly forbidden by the Constitution. As a "real American" that is a document you must respect. Who some stranger chooses to love or marry is none of your business any more than you would want it to be their business to make those decisions for you.
In closing, let me suggest that as a race, a Human race, we have much more pressing problems than skin tone or who's getting the plumb jobs or who's sleeping with whom. Let's focus, people. We have terrorists after us and they aren't Mexicans and they aren't stealing all the choice fruit picking gigs or producing gay porn. Our kids can't read, nor do they seem to have an intimidating command of the Mother tongue. Many of our adults are in the same boat. Speaking of the same boat, when Antarctica looks more like the back nine at Augusta and Phoenix is a coastal city, will it really matter who's gay or what color the guy next door is? Will we ever grow out of this pettiness? Six billion people, all facing the same threats to our future, our security and even our very existence. Will we learn that we need to work together toward solutions?
That depends. Do you want to survive?
First, this is not "slam white folks day" here at A Few Words. Oh no, Dear Reader. This is "let's all be honest day." No matter whether you are White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian, Middle Eastern, Portugese, Sudanese, French, German, Irish, Scottish, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, tall, short, fat, thin, blue eyed, brown eyed, long hair, short hair, gay, straight, or lesbian and on and on and on ad nauseum, there are members of your tribe who believe they are somehow better people than members of some other tribe or tribes. This is a silly, baseless belief that we will examine here today. Our own little version of Mythbusters, if you will. Only here, we won't be blowing anything up or building some bizarro contraption. Today, we wallow in the truth.
Black people commit crimes. There, I said it. For many white people, this is all the excuse their feeble minds need to brand every black person who ever lived as nothing but trouble. May I submit, right here and now, that hating people in groups is the lazy man's way. It's also completely senseless. All black people aren't criminals any more than all white people are lousy dancers. (At this point it behooves me to concede that straight white men probably shouldn't be dancing, but I digress...) In fact, if you want to break it down to cold, hard numbers, the majority of convicted felons are white. The majority of welfare recipients are white. 99.99% of serial killers are white. In fact, the majority of all serial criminals are white. The majority of matricides are commited by white people. The majority of hate crimes are commited by white people. If by now you are screaming "LIAR! LIAR!" at your computer screen, I invite you to do a little research. These are F.B.I. figures. I daresay that as a conservative, law enforcement organization, with it's Director appointed by a Conservative president, from Texas no less, as a source of facts and figures it can't get much whiter than that. My point is that there are good and bad people of every color. Accept it and quit whining. If you're going to hate, at least be man enough to put some effort into it and hate selectively.
Now, about immigrants. I am so tired of hearing about how the immigrants are here illegally and stealing our jobs and none of them want to learn English. The truth is, MOST immigrants are here legally. INS estimates put the number of illegals in this country at somewhere around 11 million. Now I'm sure, much like the Government's estimates regarding the number of families living in poverty, that this estimate is low. But we are a nation of more than 300 million people, with millions and millions of immigrants and most of them are here legally. Most of them can, or are learning to, speak English. There are some who seem to almost arrogantly refuse to learn the language of the land, but they are truly a minority. Besides, have you ever heard someone born and raised here speak, or tried to read something they wrote? Ain't so many of us talk too good either, Jeb.
English is a tough language to learn. To, too and two. For, fore and four. Silent e's, b's and k's. We have a letter "f" but half the time we use "ph" or "gh" to make the "f" sound. Enough with being tough on foreigners about phonics, okay? Which brings me to the "stealing our jobs" garbage. Please!
If you wanted to mow lawns, do farm labor, scrub toilets or drive a cab, you would. I see ads in the paper every day for these menial jobs and many more. And those ads are in English, by the way. The jobs taken by recent immigrants to this country, especially illegals, are jobs you wouldn't be caught DEAD doing because they're "beneath" you. Also, most of these immigrants take two and even three of these jobs and show up for work every day. So much for their being lazy. Lazy people don't steal three jobs. Make up your mind.
Now, about the Gays. Imagine you woke up tomorrow to go to your one job, and you discovered that there were suddenly more gay people than straight people in this country. In fact, they now outnumbered you ten to one. By the time you get home from work, the Gay majority has decided that heterosexuality is a disgusting practice that offends their delicate sensibilities. They are going to pass laws making it legal to discriminate against you. They are going to, en masse, make it socially dangerous for you to be open about your love for a member of the opposite sex, make it illegal for you to marry, raise children, get insurance together or inheirit benefits in the event of your significant other's death. I'm sure you would have a fit. Probably even march on Washington, no? Chant slogans like "Too late! We're Straight!" or something like that. I know what you're thinking. It's not your fault that you hate Gays because the Bible tells you it's okay. The truth is, it doesn't. And don't start quoting me Leviticus. If your hatred of gays stems from your Christian beliefs get ready for a zinger.
You're wrong. The word "Christian" means "Christ-like." As a Christian, you are supposed to be following the teachings of Jesus. He taught that,with his arrival as Messiah, all the former commandments should be forgotten and replaced with only two: Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as you love yourself. Period. (He also said "go into the city and stay until you leave," which makes one wonder if Jesus hadn't crossed paths with Yogi Berra at some point but that's really an issue for my "Celebrities in Antiquity" post so, back to my point.)
In Matthew 24:14, Jesus instructed his followers to "go therefore and make disciples..." He didn't say "go therefore and legislate the Word." Besides, you are not supposed to be passing laws based upon your religious beliefs. The Law is a central part of the Establishment. When you give your religion the power of law, that is "establishment of religion" and is strictly forbidden by the Constitution. As a "real American" that is a document you must respect. Who some stranger chooses to love or marry is none of your business any more than you would want it to be their business to make those decisions for you.
In closing, let me suggest that as a race, a Human race, we have much more pressing problems than skin tone or who's getting the plumb jobs or who's sleeping with whom. Let's focus, people. We have terrorists after us and they aren't Mexicans and they aren't stealing all the choice fruit picking gigs or producing gay porn. Our kids can't read, nor do they seem to have an intimidating command of the Mother tongue. Many of our adults are in the same boat. Speaking of the same boat, when Antarctica looks more like the back nine at Augusta and Phoenix is a coastal city, will it really matter who's gay or what color the guy next door is? Will we ever grow out of this pettiness? Six billion people, all facing the same threats to our future, our security and even our very existence. Will we learn that we need to work together toward solutions?
That depends. Do you want to survive?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
