Shadenfreude

It goes without saying that I did not support Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race. Neither, in fact, did I support Donald Trump. I voted for neither. The reasons were many, some of which are shared by the two, others unique to each. There were other Republican candidates who, had any of them won the nomination, I would have voted for. Although I would never have voted for Bernie Sanders, he appears to have at least a modicum of integrity, unlike his primary election opponent.

I have the dubious luxury of living in a state whose electoral votes were never in doubt, so I was able to vote my conscience without any worry that my vote would make any difference. Were I living in a state that was actually in play, my decision would have been far more difficult. I honestly couldn't tell you whether I would have voted as I did, or very tightly held my nose and voted for Trump.

Like many, I was rather certain what the outcome of the general election would be. And, like many, I was quite surprised at the actual result. Since then it has been a rather wild ride. I won't go into details; there is no need. Suffice to say, a lot of Trump's words and actions have me shaking my head, but some have had me nodding. To be fair, it's possible that there would have been at least one or two things Clinton would have done that I would have been okay with, or at least not outright disgusted with... maybe.

The opposition to Trump, the wailing, gnashing of teeth, rending of clothes, invective and insults that have occurred since the election are unprecedented in modern American politics. If there are any positives to come from his victory, there are these:

• Many people who were perfectly fine with a large federal government, and especially a powerful executive, are getting a clue that maybe, just maybe, having all that power resident in one office isn't such a good idea.
• Many people are dropping the masks they've worn for many years. They oppose what they claim is fascism, but have thrown away all pretense and are utilizing tactics historically employed by actual fascists. Recent events at several universities bear this out.

There are people for whom I hold little to no respect, at least when it comes to their political views. They have been reliably disingenuous and dismissive, resorting to fallacious arguments, and exhibiting a thoroughly unjustified arrogance and attitude of smug superiority. What they fail to realize is that the election of Trump is in large measure a reaction to this. Perhaps the best piece I've read on this appeared on Vox, of all places: The smug style in American liberalism. Written before the election, the author realized that Trump actually had a chance:

Here's the conclusion I draw: If Donald Trump has a chance in November, it is because the knowing will dictate our strategy. Unable to countenance the real causes of their collapse, they will comfort with own impotence by shouting, "Idiots!" again and again, angrier and angrier, the handmaidens of their own destruction. 

The smug style resists empathy for the unknowing. It denies the possibility of a politics whereby those who do not share knowing culture, who do not like the right things or know the Good Facts or recognize the intellectual bankruptcy of their own ideas can be worked with, in spite of these differences, toward a common goal. 

It is this attitude that has driven the dispossessed into the arms of a candidate who shares their fury. It is this attitude that may deliver him the White House, a "serious" threat, a threat to be mocked and called out and hated, but not to be taken seriously. 

The wages of smug is Trump.

Which brings us at last to the title of this post. Whenever I see the reactions of these people to something outrageous that Trump has said or tweeted, whenever I see them apoplectic with rage and indignation over any action that he has performed as president, even if I myself find those words or actions reprehensible, it still requires effort on my part not to celebrate. This is especially true when they experience an epic fail as recently happened with Rachel Maddow and his 2005 tax returns. For I seem them living their nightmare, and I know they absolutely brought it on themselves and they deserve every second of it.

He says he can't... but he wants to.

While in Africa, Obama said he could win a third term if he was only allowed to run:

"I love my job," he told the assembled leaders in Ethiopia. "But under our Constitution, I cannot run again. I actually think I'm a pretty good president — I think if I ran, I could win — but I can't!"

Why is it that, whenever Obama says the law prevents him from doing something, he's actually working on a way to circumvent the law and do it anyway?

George's apology

George Takei has apologized for referring to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as "a clown in blackface" in response to Thomas' dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges. Many people who were offended might think that Mr. Takei's apology is not adequate but I would like to point out something that I think is rather important.

Many times when people who make offensive statements with regard to politics or political figures, they end up apologizing in a manner that indicates that they are not really sorry about what they said, but rather that anyone has called them out on it. The apology usually goes something like, "I'm sorry if I offended anyone," or, "I'd like to apologize to those who were offended." In contrast, Mr. Takei's apology states:

While I continue to vehemently disagree with Justice Thomas, the words I chose, said in the heat of anger, were not carefully considered. 

I am reminded, especially on this July 4th holiday, that though we have the freedom to speak our minds, we must use that freedom judiciously. Each of us, as humans, have hot-button topics that can set us off, and Justice Thomas had hit mine, that is clear. But my choice of words was regrettable, not because I do not believe Justice Thomas is deeply wrong, but because they were ad hominem and uncivil, and for that I am sorry.

Note that, while he does not apologize for his belief that Thomas is wrong - a belief he has every right to hold - he also does not qualify his apology. He says he is sorry, period. Although he says Thomas hit his "hot button topic," he claims it as a contributing factor to his error, but not an excuse that absolves him of responsibility for that error. While he may not admit to as egregious an offense as many believe him to have committed, and they're probably right, his apology is to everyone.

No George, it's racist.

Actor George Takei who, for the small percentage of people who don't already know, portrayed the character of Hikaru Sulu in the original Star Trek television series, several feature films, and even an episode of Star Trek Voyager (in flashback), is coming under fire for a statement he made in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. In his reaction to the dissent filed by Justice Clarence Thomas, Takei said that Thomas, "is a clown in blackface sitting on the Supreme Court. He gets me that angry. He doesn't belong there."

Many have responded that this statement is racist. The use of actual blackface, and the use of just the word, are routinely decried as inherently racist whenever they occur in contemporary times. Takei responded to this criticism with the statement (available at the above link):

"Blackface" is a lesser known theatrical term for a white actor who blackens his face to play a black buffoon. In traditional theater lingo, and in my view and intent, that is not racist. It is instead part of a racist history in this country.

So, basically, he is saying that Clarence Thomas is a white man who has applied dark makeup to his face to "play a black buffoon." And that's not racist. He attempts to separate the act from the history, and maybe he has a point. However, I wonder what his response is to the use of the very same argument in the controversy over the Confederate flag (that is, the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virgina). Although I cannot read his mind, and thus I cannot know for sure, I suspect he would say that argument is invalid and that the flag itself (that is, the design used on the flag) is inherently and irredeemably racist and must be forbidden. If so, then by his own standard his statement was indeed racist and any attempts to justify it fail by definition.

Mr. Takei has succumbed to the temptation that is experienced by many who are strongly passionate about something they believe to be right. He is so convinced of the correctness of his position that he simply cannot accept the premise that people of good conscience can disagree. Instead, the only possible motivation for any opposition must be evil - in this case, hatred of gay people - and thus any argument presented in opposition must be invalid on its face. Logic and reason are discarded, and any dissent is grounds for censuring the dissenters, or even censoring them.

The passion, and its associated narrow vision, has, I believe, caused Mr. Takei to misinterpret Justice Thomas' words. As noted at that article, the relevant text of Thomas' dissent reads:

Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that 'all men are created equal' and 'endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,' they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built.

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.

Mr. Takei apparently holds a view that is common among those on the left side of the political spectrum, namely that Government is the sole source of all good things. To them, for example, rights are not inherent, they are bestowed by government. If government does not specifically declare something a right, that right simply does not exist.

You can argue about whether or not Thomas is correct. However, he is, in these paragraphs, presenting a conservative (or, rather, classically liberal) view which is that there are things that humans possess inherently as a consequence of their very existence, and that government, while it can certainly infringe up on them, or suppress them, cannot remove them or replace them.

Symbols

Here's the thing: Symbols mean different things to different people. And if a symbol means something to you that you find offensive, or that represents evil deeds, it doesn't mean that it means the same thing to everyone else. Nor does it mean that you can claim that others must view that symbol in the same light as you do.

When Ben Jones, who portrayed the character of Cooter on The Dukes of Hazzard says this:

WHEN WE SAY OUR FLAG STANDS FOR “HERITAGE, NOT HATE” AND “PRIDE, NOT PREJUDICE”, WE MEAN IT. AND WE BELIEVE THAT OLD SAYING, “YOU CAN’T KNOW WHERE YOU ARE GOING IF YOU FORGET WHERE YOU CAME FROM.”

then who are you to say that he doesn't actually mean it? Who are you to say that this isn't what that symbol really means to him and to others? If you don't like the symbol, don't display it. If you have a problem with others who do, then don't associate with them and politely inform them why. But don't tell them that they can't display this symbol because it can never mean to anyone what it means to them and can only mean to everyone what it means to you.

Pondering the ponderable

It occurs to me that, if you participate in or support the destruction of someone's career and life because he or she said one thing that you found offensive, you might want to reconsider whether your motivation is really what you claim it is.

What does it mean to be black?

If you're reading this, you're probably aware of the controversy surrounding Ms. Rachel Dolezal, the leader of the Spokane, WA chapter of the NAACP. It seems Ms. Dolezal has for many years claimed she was black when, as it turns out, she never was. I won't list the details here but, suffice to say, it looks like she made up a lot of her history, and may have made several fraudulent claims of race-based harassment.

So, why would a white woman claim to be black? Before I answer that, allow me to say that I really dislike using these two words because I believe them to be inaccurate and a simplification. "Black" people and "white" people run a gamut of many different skin colors and shades. Also, I dislike the use of the word "race". The way I see it, there is only one race of people on this planet: the human race. I prefer "ethnicity" or even "racial sub-type." But maybe I'm just arguing semantics. For the sake of argument, I will use these words but with the caveats I just mentioned.

Why would she do it? I can think of a few possible reasons.

First, it has been reported that her parents adopted four black boys when she was a child. Perhaps she grew very close to them and wanted to be more like them. I don't know what the ethnic makeup of her neighborhood was but perhaps it was predominately black and she began to "act" black (see below) in order to fit in.

Second, depending on where you are, and what you are doing, being black is an advantage. Certainly if you want to advocate for civil rights and work to expand and secure them for minorities, being black provides you with experience and moral authority. A more cynical view would hold that she did it for her own personal benefit, knowing full well that, again, depending on where you are and what you're doing, it can convey a form of privilege, especially if you claim victimhood with respect to racial crimes.

Finally, and I think this is the least likely, she may actually be mentally ill. I am not a psychologist, psychiatrist, or medical professional of any kind, so I could be full of it but I'm reminded of cases of a condition commonly known as Munchausen Syndrome. If you've never heard of it, basically someone who suffers from this "feign(s) disease, illness, or psychological trauma to draw attention, sympathy, or reassurance to themselves." Perhaps she she wanted the attention that being black, and especially being a victim of race-based harassment brought and she got so wrapped up in it that it became her life. Again, I don't think this likely; it's simply something that occurred to me as a possibility.

Given what I know at this time, I think the second possibility is the most likely. Just as Ward Churchill and Elizabeth Warren claimed Native American ethnic heritage that they do not possess, she falsely claimed black ethnic heritage either because she thought it would help her do the work (which may certainly have been very good work) and/or because it provided an amount of power and authority that she otherwise wouldn't have had.

So, back to the subject of this post: What does it really mean to be black? I honestly can't answer that question, at least not completely. I, personally, am about as white as you can get, both in terms of the color of my skin and my culture. As far as I know, my ethnic heritage is German and Dutch, with a smidgen of Native American (either one sixty-fourth or one one-hundred-twenty-eight, I can't remember which), specifically Tuscarora. My aunt said I may have some Irish in there somewhere as well. But, more importantly, I can't answer that question because I believe it comprises far more than just the amount of melanin in your skin. Blackness is also cultural, and this is why I said "see below" when speculating that Ms. Dolezal began to "act" black. I think that, today at least, the cultural aspect of this is a far larger component than the physiological. I think most people will use both criteria to identify someone's race. If you "act" black, but are pale skinned with freckles and naturally red hair, you're not really "black". But, by the same token, if you're dark-skinned, with other physical characteristic that are typically associated with folks of African ethnicity, but you act in a typically "white" manner, a lot of black people are going to say you're not really black and may even criticize you or insult you (see: Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Justice Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, General Colin Powell (at least until he voted for Obama), and so on).

I think that it's the cultural differences that the biggest obstacles to racial harmony in this country. And, while I don't consider myself a racist, I do admit to being what I call a "culturalist." I believe that some cultures are objectively better than others. I believe that, for example, a culture that promotes education; that treats women equally to men under the law; that promotes solid, loving families (of whatever makeup) is better than cultures that don't (and I'm not referring to any particular culture here). Also, while most cultures adapt to changing circumstances, some can do so more readily than others. Those that adapt the best will, obviously, be more likely to survive.

I've basically run out of what I wanted to say. I can't think of a clever way to end this so I'm just going to end it by saying that, while my culture isn't perfect - far from it - I do think it's one of the better ones that has ever existed on this planet. Am I biased? Yeah, probably. But I also look at how many improvements in the human condition have come from my culture. Yeah, not everything has been an improvement but I think, on balance, it's done pretty well.

Oh bloody hell....

Looks like I'm going to have to pull this old blog out of mothballs and restore it to fighting trim. As the 2016 presidential race heats up, and with all sorts of other, shall we say, interesting events going on - both related to said race and not - I find myself with something I actually want to say.

Thing is, the place I usually say such things is one where I'm known by my actual name. I have to be careful, lest it blow back on me. I think I'd probably be okay with my employer but, should I say something that the powers that be there reflect badly on the company, they're well within their rights to reprimand me or even let me go. And that's just as it should be.

So I'm dusting this site off, giving it a fresh coat of paint, straightening the pictures on the walls, inflating the tires, clearing away the cobwebs, and whatever other metaphors you can think to mash together. Will I be posting regularly? Will I be coherent? Will anyone read it? Will anyone care? These are all questions yet to be answered.

Twice is coincidence....

Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times, it's enemy action. -Auric Goldfinger (from the novel by Ian Fleming)

 A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a couple of posts about the shooting murder of Hadiya Pendleton which took place in Chicago (here and here). It was notable not just because she was a promising young woman, but because she had performed at the presidential inauguration earlier in the month. At the time, I speculated that she was not accidentally shot as part of a gang conflict. I considered it possible, though unlikely, that she was specifically targeted as part of an orchestrated plan in order to provoke an emotional reaction in support of forthcoming gun control legislation.

Now comes the news of a suspiciously similar shooting in Chicago:

Two people are being questioned in the shooting death of a Janay McFarlane, who was shot to death in North Chicago hours after her little sister sat just feet away as President Barack Obama spoke in Chicago Friday about the violence plaguing the nation.

This is the second time that the following circumstances have occurred:

• A young woman was shot.
• She was shot in Chicago.
• She was allegedly shot by someone who intended to shoot someone else who was there.
• She had a connection to the President.

This is, most likely, a coincidence. However, if it happens a third time, it will be stretching the bounds of credulity. I will be watching.