Tag Archives: News

Another Essay About Privilege

I’ve lost count of how many I’ve written. This better be good.

Because of the context of using adverbs as nouns, I have bolded those words when they appear in that context.

Thinking about privilege, which I do more often than I let on, it came to me that one of the reasons it is so difficult and maddening to help certain of us understand the concept is that they individualize it. They are, in general, more comfortable as individuals than they are in groups. They take umbrage with what they consider to be a personal attack because they only respond to groups if they imagine they share every quality or when they share no qualities. It is hard for them to envision being a member of a group that has any great measure of diversity, such as being part of as group that is diverse, sharing a privilege that not everyone in the group acts on individually.

It is this part of their nature, be it learned or innate, that is being exploited by those who denigrate and outlaw DEI programs. Diversity has become a dirty word, not simply because they are averse to diversity themselves but because they have been sold a narrative that agrees with them about the nature of groups. They are told confirming information that groups are either completely good or completely bad . The narrative is filled with sordid exemplars of minorities getting unjust preferential treatment in hiring, housing, college admissions, etc. It reinforces the us versus them, sovereign citizen ideation.

An example (now here I go with exemplars) of this individualization is that so many of us react negatively to being told that America has a racist past. They need to make it clear, by immediately stating, loudly, that they are not racist. That’s not the issue. You don’t need to be a racist to belong to a group with the privilege of being a “right” race. Explaining this sort of privilege has always seemed very simple to me. That doesn’t make me a saint. Perhaps I’m an obsessive observer. I certainly get my share of blank stares when I talk about it.

In my world, privilege is always about what we are and not who we are. It’s that simple, but difficult. Making it complex is easy. I am a Caucasian male. That is what I am. I cannot change or alter that. I did not choose it. Any privilege it confers on me is none of my own, personal doing. I have male privilege because I am male and for no other reason. I am not singled out. All males have the same privilege I do, and they also did not choose it. Even trans men have male privilege, although it looks mighty diluted from here. Saying you can prove that not all men display male privilege will get no resistance from me. Some men choose not to take advantage of male privilege; others do. It can be very taxing to entertain this concept, but the fact remains that both using or not using privilege are there for the taking. 

The only requirement to have the advantages of male privilege or white privilege is to be what you are, male and/or white. Not all males choose to use their male privilege, but because they are male, they still have the privilege to use it if they wish. The defining characteristics of a what are that not just anyone else can be what that person is. The defining group is a closed group. Also, that person did not choose to be what they are. The thing that defines a who is that anyone can be any particular who at any time Whos are an open group. Being a who involves a personal choice.

Who we are involves a multitude of factors, the most prominent being that we, for the most part, choose who we are. Unless there are specific reasons we are not able to do or be something we can be whomever we desire. Anyone can be a teacher, lawyer, or butcher should they choose to become that and fulfill the requirements. Yes, lawyers get certain privileges that you and I do not, giving the appearance of a what. But, remember that anyone who passes the bar can be a lawyer. The privileges of the what of being a lawyer are a subset of who the lawyer is.

Privileges and privilege are different things. Privileges are things you can do that others are not allowed to. They are given to you by some worldly authority. Privileges can be taken away, and they can also be earned. A person has ‘privilege’ without it being given. You have it because you are something unique that only certain people can be. It is never earned and can never be taken away. You cannot change what you are. But you can change who you are. You could stop practicing law and become a scuba diving instructor anytime you so desire. But you cannot change the fact that you have type AB negative blood.

Many people become angry and defensive when it is said that there is systemic racism in America. They take it as an attack on their values without the ‘attacker’ knowing who they really are. They will deny being a racist and say you are a bad person for assuming they are. They feel this is accusatory and pigeonholes them as a bad person. They are sure they aren’t what you ‘say’ they are. It humiliates them and they won’t listen to another word you say.

This misunderstanding is significant. It happens largely because of that person’s troubles relating to groups. They feel better perceived as themselves, individually. When told there is systematic racism in America, they only hear that they are themselves being called racists, as individuals. They don’t clearly hear what was said, sometimes because the word racist triggers deep feelings, and they do not listen closely while influenced emotionally by the trigger. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this. We all have emotional triggers from various sources. What is heard is that they are part of a group that is racist, and they are angry for being assumed to belong to that group as individuals. What they aren’t hearing is that in America, there is systematic racism and has been for centuries. If you are not a minority in America (read ‘white’) you have the privilege grated to you by very old racist systems.

Not everyone understands systemic racism. There are and have been for a long time, systems that are racist by nature, i.e. redlining, job and educational discrimination, accusations of immorality, assumptive judgements based entirely on privilege with no evidence. People who do not speak out against these things are considered by many to be complicit and as at fault as the actual perpetrators. This is true in one sense, but to be generous, most of those considered complicit either do not know that the racist entities are, in fact, racist. Or, they have accepted a culture that normalizes the racism as natural without critically questioning those cultural norms themselves. This does not let them off the hook in complicity. But it provides teachable moments for those who can approach them truthfully and respectfully. 

Taking advantage of teachable moments is perhaps the best means of combatting the privilege afforded by systemic racism. This is one of the main reasons that MAGA legislatures want to control education by removing incidences of and references to racism, as well as alternative sexual and gender stories and such references from textbooks and libraries, as well as other truths they don’t want their vulnerable children to know. Conservatives, in general, think human beings are evil by nature and must be saved from themselves. They are afraid of ideas. Ideas will corrupt their children. 

It is a reality that many who don’t understand, when given the facts about privilege with grace, humility, and respect, will open themselves up to learning. Teaching truths without proselytizing helps people understand that knowledge is power and not propaganda. Knowing that because Americans committed genocide and encouraged ownership of other humans centuries ago, it does not magically make one genocidal or racist in the here and now. Hasn’t anybody ever told these people that we can learn from our mistakes, regardless of how heinous?

Raising awareness of what privilege is and isn’t is a giant step in the direction of helping all of us improve our lives by appreciating both what we are and who we are, with clarity about the differences. It lets us know which of our behaviors and attitudes we are directly responsible for, and which we are indirectly responsible for in the here and now, both as individuals and in groups. It tells us how not to fear things we are not overtly responsible for but need to know and understand. 

The dynamics of human social interactions and emotional reactions are rarely simple to grasp with facility. But humans of all sorts are capable of understanding those things and looking upon their fellows with compassion for their faults, which are also our faults. Opportunity, empathy, and responsibility are values that everybody has access to. They are not weak traits as we are often told. Paving a path to the embrace of those values for those who are lost might be a thankless job. But more likely than not, there will come a time when somebody appears from a thicket of oaks and, looking around, opens their mouth and heart in awe of the power that comes from simply being human, and realizing that we are all human. Instinctual, absolute truths can and will instantly replace the relative, learned truths of their past. We can unlearn that which is learned but we can’t unwhat what we are.

We can and will shine.

It takes work.

But the brilliance of the light makes it worth the effort.

A Few Things

I am not a baby killer. Regardless of whether a fetus is or is not a person I don’t think abortion is the best option for any child bearing person.. But, I don’t have the right, or duty, or ability to judge a person for the actions they take with their own body. I can’t demand their spiritual condemnation. That judgement is God’s and God’s alone. I believe when people legislate morality it’s dangerous, especially when it involves an individual’s personal decisions.

Those who favor banning books, or banning teachers from teaching things that give people valuable lessons, even they are are controversial should remember that someone els might benefit from reading or hearing about it. it infringes on their freedom. Banning such teaching is bullying. Implying that anyone is less human than you are is an offense against God. It violates the patriotic American idea that all people are created equal. Their desire to withhold truths from their children comes from the fear that those children might learn about something they don’t like. These deniers are afraid their children don’t have the common sense to know that learning about controversial things isn’t going to make them turn against their parents. In essence they are discriminating against their own children.. They do not trust their children to be clear thinking individuals. They don’t seem to have faith in human love or compassion. This is perhaps because they have difficulty with loving and empathizing themselves.

Yes, by themselves, guns do not and cannot kill people. And yes, people do kill people. This is not a good defense of people with guns. People with guns kill people much, much easier and efficiently than people without guns. None other than that famously woke Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, in his decision for the Heller vs. Washington D.C. ruling, stated that second amendment rights are not unlimited. He said a citizen can’t carry just any gum for just any purpose. Certain guns and how they are used can be regulated. We are reminded that freedom does not mean everyone has the liberty to do whatever they want to whoever they want.. Violating the liberty of another person who is exercising their liberty to use their freedoms is a crime.

At the leadership level Republicans and Democrats are less different than they and the media would have us believe. Both parties are heavily influenced by corporations. Republicans answer to corporations who are more interested in profit than people. They continue to follow economic principles that have little to do with ‘promoting the general welfare’ of the people. Democrats answer to corporations who use a more generous economic approach to create loyalty among their followers. They feel that appealing to the needs and desires of the average American will bring greater profits in the long term by establishing loyal customers. The Republican party makes its followers happy with secret appeals to their racial and white supremacist ideas,. These appeals are less secret now than in the past. The democrats appeal to their base by talking about doing good things but not doing a lot about it. Both sides accuse the other of doing bad things they do themselves.

Both sides try to keep the public distracted from the real issues of the time by talking a lot about issues that aren’t as important as they sound like which bathroom transgender people can (or can’t) use or demanding that their state representative be on their side on absolutely every issue. They use both social and mainstream media to tell people how bad the other party is and send out lots of emails and letters asking for more money than we have to give.

Republicans continue to try to keep people at each others throats by telling one group of people they are better than another group Or they tell a different group of people that the Democrats don’t care about them as much as another group. Because they are afraid there will soon be more Democrats than Republicans they want everybody fighting everyone else so they don’t see that the Republicans don’t have much of a plan for government. Democrats appeal to the decency of people. They feel this is the way to convince them to stop voting for Republicans against their self interests. The Republican message has backfired a little because they are losing suburbs to progressives who can now better afford to move there. These folks have become annoyed by what they think are stupid culture battles and the failure of government services under Republican rule. Democrats keep losing votes from voters who used to be loyal such as Blacks and Hispanics. Republicans tell them the Democrats only care about them when they need their votes. They appeal to their conservative religious and cultural values.

Most of us know that America is really run by a small group of super rich peopleThey work hard to control our voting habits. When Republicans are elected the wealthy few allow them to make lots of right wing laws and policies. People get tired of the weaknesses of right wing rule and eventually we elect Democrats. Then the same thing happens, the Democrats do too many liberal things and we elect the Republicans again. We go back and forth and back and forth a. This gives us the illusion that our vote counts but it is really the super rich that are controlling things.

I want to continue on something I talked about earlier. Many Americans confuse freedom and liberty and think they mean the same thing. This is not true. Freedoms are given to us by the constitution. They apply to everyone equally and are limited for everyone equally. Everybody has freedom of speech but no one can yell fire in a crowed theater for example. Liberty, on the other hand, is individual. Each person has the liberty to live their lives however they wish. Liberty is granted to every person because they are alive. Liberty come from God or whatever power greater than you that you recognize.

The issue with individual liberty is that there will always be conflicts when two people’s liberties clash. Conflicts of liberty are what most of our laws are about, civil and criminal. For example, the second amendment gives every American that follows the law the freedom to bear a firearm. The first amendment gives everyone the freedom to say whatever they want unless that speech would threaten someone else. But the person with the gun is not at liberty to shoot the speaker just because they don’t like what they are saying. Society determines how conflicts of liberty are to be judged. We do this by democratically electing representatives who debate and make laws about our conflicts. We have courts that decide who has the law on their side in a conflict. W have courts that decide whether the constitution agrees with a law or it doesn’t. Freedom doesn’t allow anyone to do whatever they want when and wherever they want. And liberty is only an inalienable right when it does not interfere with another’s liberty. These words are tossed about much too loosely.

There will be more tidbits of opinion coming soon.

Trash or Trash Talk?

While today there is plenty of attention is being focused on DJT’s arraignment and its political implications I feel the kerfuffle surrounding the NCAA women’s basketball championship has and will have more cultural significance. Angel Reese, outstanding woman’s basketball player for the LSU Tigers, 2023 champions, has been, often mercilessly, attacked for making demeaning and hurtful gestures and using foul language directed at superstar Caitlin Clark of the Iowa Hawkeyes. There is also evidence of Clark making the same gesture toward Reese but she seems to be facing less vitriol than Angel. Angel is Black, Caitlin is White and they are both women; women who have recently been thrust into the national spotlight.

Since Sunday’s championship game, there have been more tweets, quotes, and opinions voiced about this than Carter has pills. There are claims of racism and sexism, accusations, and defenses, from more angles than has a geodesic dome. Even flamboyant and controversial LSU coach Kim Mulkey is being criticized for her sartorial audacity. I say let the woman represent. But seriously, there is great sociocultural import here and it is not pretty. 

The primary issues that anger me and should anger you are not the ‘ism’ charges themselves or even the over the top coach’s outfits. Nor are they the trash talk and actions themselves. It is the hypocrisy of this commentary and the fact that in an evolved civilized world all of this should never have happened.

Trash talk has happened in basketball almost since Naismith set up the first peach baskets. In forums like the NBA, it can and often does get particularly graphic and vicious. Yet if you examine players who have been identified as the worst trash-talkers you find a who’s who of all-time great players. Universally accepted as the worst offender was Larry Bird whose episodes will his biggest rival, Magic Johnson, were considered either epic and legendary, or vile and obscene, depending on your point of view. Another player at the top of the list was Michael Jordan, widely considered basketball’s GOAT. These are two of the greatest players in the history of the game and rather than being reviled as crass and unsportsmanlike they are revered, even worshiped, as role models and heroes who saved the game and brought it to the height of popularity and profitability it enjoys today.

My point is the hypocrisy here is astounding. When cultural icons, wealthy men both white and black do this it is shrugged off as ‘part of the game’. When two young women student athletes, one white and one black, do virtually the same thing, the Twittersphere goes viral with flame wars and attacks unbecoming alleged adults. Yes, it is racism. Yes, it is sexism. But we are nearly one-quarter of the way through the 21st century. When in god’s name are we going to work through these infantile, unhealthy, foolish, cruel, uncivilized, wicked, and psychically wasteful cancers of sexism and racism? This should not be happening. This is supposed to be an advanced human culture, not toddlers screaming “I hate you” to anyone within listening distance. I continue to be appalled at the damaging stubborn stagnation of this conflict of willful obstinance. Yet there is only inertia present when the outrage fades and society is supposed to be doing the dirty work of real change

I might not have another 25 years. Will I ever see the day when the public response to such an event is a simple ‘Did you see those two players trash talking. Not very good role models” with no mention of gender or race? And when the only lesson for the players is learning that their actions on the national stage are more consequential than when they were in a high school gym and not on national TV. This should have been just another 3rd page sports section event and not a bloviated something that should never have been. A minor blip on that day’s Sportscenter.

The racism and sexism of this event are sinful examples of a mainstream tragedy of moral failure; grossly vestigial and much, much, much, much overdue for amputation from America’s spiritual body.

Not Really About Economics

Economic prosperity and likewise economic distress are both very complex issues with a considerable number of variables sharing responsibility for the economy’s health. To blame any one political party and/or politician for our economic troubles is disingenuous. Knowing that people like simple solutions to complex problems Republicans cleverly apply Occam’s Razor to their campaigning. They frame both our problems and their solutions in the simplest terms possible. Democrats have an unfortunate tendency to endlessly debate, then partially address, each of the numerous variables responsible for our most significant problems, leaving people confused and suspicious.

Republicans are aware that people approach life and its problems emotionally rather than mentally. They use emotional persuasion based in such things as fear, revulsion, and scorn to get their point across. They use emotional ad hominem attacks and sensational prevarication to vilify their enemies (read opponents). They avoid issues primarily because there are no easy solutions to complex problems. Thus they don’t spend a lot of time on policy and problem solving. They do spend in inordinate amount of time disseminating emotionally charged attacks and simple solutions to as many people as possible through their cleverly purchased and easily accessible information sources. They use glib and charismatic talking heads to sell their framing to the masses. These tactics are often successful given peoples’ tendencies to get their information from just one source without taking time out of their manufactured busy day to investigate issues.

On the other hand, assuming we have two hands, Democrats rely on the overrated fact that life is practical and ordered, based on truth and knowledge. They have a different concept of simplicity than Republicans. They feel (over)confident that if they simply and clearly reveal all the factors that influence public policy and problem solving that the people will magically absorb it all into their heads. Voters will obviously recognize and embrace the truth, facts, and irrefutable policy conclusions of the nearly infinite research and careful considerations of the hard working, honest and empathic clerks of the Democratic Party. What a crock. Most people fall asleep before the end of the first paragraph. Luckily for the Democrats, the country, contrary to expansive marketing, is mostly a center/left nation. Philosophically there are more Democrats and sympathetic independents than Republicans. If the Democrats can somehow motivate, logically of course, their base and likely allies to forego chatting over their weak lattes long enough to vote they can usually win. These outcomes hold up for both major parties unless one of the frequently incompetent candidates is vastly more incompetent than the other. Herschel Walker this means you.

It is relatively easy for Republicans to proudly and loudly shout out their simple and emotional views of our problems and their simple and emotional solutions while attacking the Democrat’s complex, mental, and issues oriented assessment of problems and their complex and mentally oriented policy solutions. Democrat’s tough but convoluted solutions are normally more effective but Republican’s easy and understandable solutions are more popular. It is so much easier to convince someone that you are correct in one or two sentences than in a white paper.

Tangentially I rest partial blame for the incredibly short attention span of the modern American squarely on the head of MTV, even though they essentially no longer play music. The accepted metric for editing a music video states there should never be a continuous scene of more than four seconds. For a generation raised on music videos and their progeny and progeny’s progeny this style of editing has conditioned and normalized the average American’s attention span to that very four seconds. Well, perhaps as much as 10 seconds. Barely enough to get in a sentence, or maybe two if they’re short.

Enough of my tangential hypothesis.

Frankly, this very essay is too long and complex. There is a reason many modern opinion pieces, news articles, essays, social media comments, and actual conversations are passed over by ultra busy people. They haven’t the time to read anything longer than a tweet. In the 21st century time is money and you don’t get paid for the 10 minutes it takes to read something that actually covers the subject. With the acronym TLDR: Too Long, Didn’t Read (these days everything seems to be an acronym ) writers apologize for their verbosity, warning the reader, and targeted readers apologize for choosing to avoid reading the piece regardless of it’s relevance.

Here’s my attempt at something succinct. Not easy for this Irish Italian. The Democrats suck but the Republicans suck more. A fender bender sucks but totaling your car sucks more. Do you wanna vote for a fender bender or a totaled car? No brainer if you ask me. Don’t wanna vote for either one? That kinda makes sense but it means you probably don’t have a car.

A final thought. Control of the government roughly resembles a sine wave, with the GOP ruling above the axis and the Democrats below. Once the public elects a party that controls government they eventually become disillusioned with that party’s inability to do much for the people and subsequently vote them out of office. They figure out that the Democrats have such a complex plan they can never really effectuate it and the Republicans have no plan and can only fool people for so long.

So yeah, both parties suck but one party has no plan and the other party has a flawed plan. For my money flawed beats none by a nose.

And if you choose not to vote you’re riding the bus.

Guns and Woes Is

That well known screaming progressive Justice Antonin Scalia in his majority opinion for Heller vs. Washington D.C. stated that even the second amendment could be regulated and in fact all constitutional rights can be regulated by society, limiting the liberty of individuals to act in a way that threatens society. Infringement means encroachment, an intrusion, a breaking of the terms of a law. It does not refer to a reasoned regulation based on serving the greater good. This aspect of the constitution is rarely/never referenced or talked about. 

Constitutional rights and inalienable liberty are two different things. Everyone has certain rights but when ones expression of those rights interferes with the liberty of an individual to do as he legally pleases that expression is subject to the laws of society, laws that limit people from infringing upon the liberty of another person. For example, everyone has the right to drive a car. Society limits that right to those over 16 because society has determined that those younger than 16 present a danger to society. Technically everyone also has the right to drive on the wrong side of the road but society says that we are not at liberty to run headlong into another’s vehicle, as that endangers the other individual’s right to life. 

We, as a society, agree that reasonable limits to the second amendment are needed to help protect society from gun violence. That is a verified fact. People do kill people. People with guns. People with the means to accomplish their plans, however heinous. The argument that criminals will always be able to get guns is specious. People will always be able to break any of society’s laws. Is that a valid reason to stop striving to refine our laws, make them more effective and fair? This is why we have laws, law enforcement, a judicial system, and consequences for behavior that violates the laws that are enacted to protect the many. We strive for justice. We don’t give up because injustice is not always served. If even one domestic massacre is prevented by stricter scrutiny of those buying guns that effort is worth it. 

Laws, by their nature, are reactive. They address illegal behavior and its aftermath. Gun safety laws are no exception. People talk about addressing the ‘root causes’ of gun violence but their vision is mostly myopic. They talk about mental illness and youthful transgressions. Some even mention limiting those who have publicly stated their intent to commit violence, which is good. However, the root causes of violence go much deeper. They go into what society accepts as conflict resolution. They go into the accepted societal mores of masculine roles. They go into abject poverty and lack of parental guidance. They go into poor and/or neglected education. These things are deeply ingrained in today’s American society and to break these cycles armed only with weak social and political will will be incredibly difficult. 

I’m not sure we have it in us to do so, especially when our very democracy is confronted by so many intense existential challenges. Where would these potential solutions to rampant violence fall in the current national triage? One immediate thing that can be done is a redoubling of the efforts of public education to teach our children the lessons of empathy, humility and civic responsibility. Racial and religious biases and prejudgement of the ‘other’ are all learned behaviors. They can be unlearned by way of a quality education full of truth and respect. This type of education, an education embraced by a populace that cared about each other, one that gave us the ‘greatest’ generation and has served America for a very long time is being slowly chipped away by forces who would prefer that children only learn what they want them to learn, truth and critical thinking be damned.

Most recently, these authoritarians loudly complain that public education has a liberal bias. But that squawking only serves to mask the fact that what they want to teacher youth is not merely biased but often patently untrue. They are the ones with the agenda. That agenda is to sow mistrust in America’s democratic institutions, confusion about the truth, and to stir up outrage over nonexistent problems they themselves created, such as their virulent attack on something very few people know anything about, Critical Race Theory. Backed by obscenely wealthy oligarchs they are winning.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.