A Knee-Jerk Reaction

I am taking a reprieve from studying today because the topics I want to discuss are mounting a coup in my head. From today's topic, to the topic of the ignoramus bill signed into law today (how does a bill which will cost the taxpayers money while raising banking costs (including credit union banking) protect the consumer?), to the topic of a bill based on a fallacy (the "paycheck fairness act"), the mental pressure to speak out about these issues was getting to me. So this morning while working out at the gym, I wrote the framework for today's topic. This hopefully will minimize the time to write the topic while at the same time provide practice for law school exams. (Law school exams are essay exams. Each question is a scenario from which the exam taker is supposed to identify the issues, discuss the relevant rules, analyze the scenario based on those rules and then provide a conclusion. In a time period that even the professor could not answer the question fully!)

Earlier this week I saw an on-line story about Ms. Shirley Sherrod. The article was detailing the bias in the NAACP towards the Tea Party as lop-sided. A video posted on the website Big Government (the website responsible for the prostitute sting videos against ACORN) showed Ms. Sherrod discussing how she did not help a white farmer (Ms. Sherrod is black). Of course there was much outrage at this "racist" incident. The NAACP called for her resignation and on Monday, the USDA, which is where she worked, called her while she was driving and pressed her for her resignation. Obviously she must have felt this was a "resign or you're fired" type of phone call since they told her to pull over so they could discuss this with her. Thus she resigned.

I snickered when I read the story. I again snickered when I saw the video on FOXNEWS later that day. But something stood out. Something which made me wonder was this over reaction and another example of the misuse of the word "racist." What stood out was the words she used.

Ms. Sherrod was retelling a story in which a white farmer came to her at the Georgia Dept of Agriculture looking for help with his farm so he wouldn't lose his farm to bankruptcy. She says she felt the farmer was talking down to her, much like a superior white would do to a black. Now of course, this is her perception of how he was speaking. This in no way is to say he was speaking in that manner. But that is how she perceived the conversation, so we'll believe her one-side of the issue for now. The key words are then spoken. She, with a half-laugh, says she did not give him her full potential. Her words were "I did not give him the full force of what I could do."

In other words, she HELPED him. However, she did not give him her full effort. If she gave help, but that help was a minimum effort, even if the reason to do so was the color of his skin, is that racism? To give him the minimum effort means she must have given more of her effort to someone else. Unless of course, she always gives the minimum - but I doubt this. If she gave her full effort to struggling black farmers but only gave the minimum to struggling white farmers is this racism? No, it's called AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

Is that not what affirmative action is all about? She was appearing to favor blacks over whites. This is not necessarily racism. If colleges are required to enroll a certain percentage of underrepresented groups to ensure those minority groups have access to the college, is that not the same thing as providing more assistance to black farmers than to white farmers? I think so. Remember, she did not say she did not help him. She only did not provide the full force of her effort.

Should she have been fired over this? Should she have resigned over this? Of course not. What she did was not egregious, even if she had done this action yesterday. For one, it is not racism. Even though the NAACP came out and said it was racism, it is not. Remember, racism is the believe one race is superior to another. If we allow the umbrella of racism to cast a shadow on prejudices, then words and feelings which are not racism are elevated to the rank of racism. This would mean saying something bigoted like "all blacks eat fried chicken" is on the same level as the KKK calling for the end of interracial marriages because they view white blood is being contaminated by black blood with the birth of interracial babies! This violates logic! This violates common sense! Yet this is what the racist Jackson and the NAACP are accomplishing. It is ridiculous.

Of course, the video was edited. To listen further, Ms. Sherrod states she realized that helping people was not about the color of their skin. Helping people was about assisting poor farmers against rich farmers. This was the purpose of her story. She realized she was wrong and changed. She gave that white farmer the full force of her efforts, and to this day, that farmer's family is gracious to her. I should also mention, in case you don't know, her story happened 24 years ago! That's right, even if what she did was racist, the events happened 24 years ago. This means she was asked to resign over something long ago in the past. Senator Byrd was hailed as a great statesman yet when speaking of his KKK ties, "oh, he was just trying to get elected." Senator Byrd was the head of the West Virginia KKK! We can forgive Senator Byrd but we can't forgive Ms. Sherrod? Ridiculous.

This is not the first sign of a reaction from the Obama Administration or its appointees based on half-the-story. Don't forget about the President and his "stupid Cambridge police" comment. Don't forget about the Administration's reaction to the Arizona immigration law based on news stories vice the actual reading of the law. A knee-jerk reaction does no one any good. A knee-jerk reaction actually makes the situation worse not better.

Shirley Sherrod was the victim of a knee-jerk reaction. Even though the NAACP has retracted their statements based on the new facts, the damage is done. Ms. Sherrod deserved better treatment. She wasn't even given the chance to defend herself prior to the resignation request.

The boy who cried wolf strikes again........

Mike

See the story here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38321920/ns/us_news-life?Gt1=43001

Will the Real Racist Please Stand Up?

One of my favorite quotations is "Ye who finds racism where racism is not is, in fact, a racist yeself."

In the past week there have been two separate stories hinting at racism. Or maybe it's something else. I'll let you decide.

We'll start with my favorite racist, the Reverend Jesse Jackson. Yes, I called him a racist. He and his cohort, the Reverend Al Sharpton (do you see the similarity between the two? I wonder what God will say to these purveyors of hate when they finally reach the promised land?), can find racism in any story, in any event, in anything. (BTW, in case someone is thinking, "Hey this is libel!" Sorry, it's my opinion about public figures, which means the First Amendment protects me as long as I don't say a false statement of fact with 'actual malice'.)

Last week Lebron James jumped ship (I mentioned it before) from Cleveland to Miami. The owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers published a letter to the Cleveland fans decrying Lebron James for his actions and vowing to win a championship for Cleveland before Miami does the same with Lebron. After that letter, Jesse Jackson had to speak his mind.

Of course, what does the ultimate racist do but find racism where racism is not. He compared the letter by the owner to how a "runaway slave" is treated. All of Cleveland felt betrayed by Lebron - evidenced by the events where they burned his jerseys, some of which were valued at hundreds of dollars, if not more. Do their actions speak of Lebron James as a runaway slave too?

Dan Gilbert can speak his mind. All he did was voice the heartbreak over one of Cleveland's favored sports personality. Mind you, Lebron James is from Cleveland. He dished the Cavaliers. They have every right to be mad and to voice that anger. Who is Jesse Jackson to voice his opinion in such a manner as to compare Dan Gilbert to a slave owner? Jesse Jackson has an agenda and that agenda is to keep his ego in the media by doing what he loves to do - accusing whites of being racists even when they aren't. Mr. Jackson I have a message for you: read "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf" before you open your mouth again.

Earlier this week, the NAACP voted to condemn "racism in the Tea Party." Their claims of bigots in the tea party and the acceptance of bigotry by the tea party are evidenced by the supposed incident when a black lawmaker had a racial slur yelled at him while walking to the Capital Building and tea party gatherings where signs showing President Obama in white face or compared to a monkey were on view.

Recently on CNN, the leader of the NAACP, Ben Jealous said anyone waving a sign which could be viewed as racist should be escorted away. First off, is bigotry racism? Not necessarily. Remember racism is defined as a believe that one's race is better than another. A bigot is one intolerant of or prejudiced against those of differing religious beliefs, political opinions, race, etc. Being prejudiced against someone is not necessarily meaning the bigot believes he's better than the other. It is given all racists are bigots; it is not given that all bigots are racists. More than likely, most bigots are racists; but that means there are some bigots who are not racists.

So why is the NAACP claiming the Tea Party tolerates racists? I obviously cannot answer that question. But I'm sure it is purely political. But I digress.

Secondly, the NAACP wants the Tea Party to speak out against any view which might be construed as racist with more fervor than the Tea Party has done in the past. Well I think the Tea Party should pass a referendum condemning the NAACP for the racists the NAACP tolerates. I'm speaking of the New Black Panthers. In 2008, King Shamir was charged with interfering with an election when he stood in front of a polling place with a night stick and spoke ill to white voters to turn them away. Those charges have recently been dropped by Eric Holder. Now a DOJ lawyer has resigned over the issue. King Shamir, a bastion of good race relations, championed killing "white babies." Why have we not heard the NAACP condemning these people?

Some would say a black man saying blacks should kill white babies is more racist than Obama painted like the anarchist "The Joker" from The Dark Knight. The "white face" Obama, as I interpreted the sign, was drawing a reference to a character that "wanted to watch the world burn." I took it as a symbolic reference to how the President's policies are viewed in relation to our Country's future. Of course, the word "socialism" was below the picture and the picture was similar to the "hope" posters which were displayed during the election. Now I am not a black man so I might not react a specific way to this but I don't see anything racial in the poster.

So is there a difference between the supposed bigots crashing the Tea Party rallies and the Black Panther Party relationship to the NAACP? No. The Tea Party should not "CENSOR" the people who come to the rallies even if their view is not part of the rally message. This would be a violation of the First Amendment. Escorting people away whose view is different from yours in a way to silence them is the same as censorship. A vile and disgusting viewpoint cannot be silenced by the majority even to protect the minority. To do so violates the principles upon which this country was founded.

While I find King Shamir's opinion vile and disgusting, I respect his right to voice that opinion. Why can't the NAACP do the same? Instead of condemning the Tea Party, they should condemn the individuals concerned but only if the individuals truly deserve it. Again, the NAACP has political gains. Racism is not involved, it's just an easy tool to use. But using racism as a tool when racism is not present is no better, and I would argue it is worse, than racism itself.

Ye who finds racism where racism is not is, in fact, a racist yeself. Would the real racists please stand up? Oh wait, never mind, your actions have already rooted you out....

Mike

Definitions retrieved from dictionary.com app on the iPhone.

Anti-Illegal Immigration is not Racism

This past Wednesday while working out on the elliptical machine at the base gym, I saw a CNN story about a woman who entered the country illegally and the daily stress of her life. Realize, I had to piece this story together without the benefit of sound. Additionally, the television was across the room and I was reading the closed-caption translation which occasionally blended in with the video portion of the story.

She is effectively a single mother. I say effectively because she is married to an American. Unfortunately for her, her husband is a Marine who is currently deployed to the Middle East. She states she is always afraid that when she goes to the grocery store or some other place while her children are in school she might get picked up for being an illegal immigrant resulting in her children arriving at home with no one there.

The part of the story that rankled my emotions was when she said she tells her kids to ignore the racists who are against their mother. She wishes people would have a heart and understand she is trying to raise her children in a free country. Just because of what she is should not cause her to be separated from her children or deported. This was another ridiculous attempt to cull an emotional response of "oh woe is me, have pity."

I've stated before that the spreading of innocent ignorance is just as dangerous as the spreading of intentional lies. Equating anti-illegal immigration to racism is more of the latter than the former. The spokespeople for the illegal immigrants have crossed the line into spreading half-truths, or as I will argue - out right lies, to make their case. This is a typical progressive move to sway the public to their side. So let's go about showing the untruth in their words.

We'll start with racism. What is racism? Webster (1997) defines racism as "a thought or belief that one race is better than another race" (pg 272). New Standard (1987) also confirms this definition by holding "belief in the inherent superiority of one's own race" (Vol 12, R-8). The subject of the story wants us to believe that deporting her because she entered the country illegally is equatable to believing she is inferior to Americans because of her race or nationality. Her premises are flawed. Racism is based on the race of the person. Illegal immigration is an action not a characteristic. Thus those against illegal immigration are not racist.

Some will argue that some on the anti-illegal immigration side are also against immigration because they feel Latinos are inferior to them. There is no valid argument against that stance as there is truth in it. However, what applies to a segment of the whole does not necessarily apply to the whole of the whole. For example, all firemen are human. Bill is human. Therefore Bill is a fireman. This logic flow does not work. Bill may or may not be a fireman. While Bill is a human, there's not a guarantee he is a fireman. If you try to flip the first premise around to state (all humans are fireman), you get a statement that is not true. So going back to our racism statement: racists are against illegal immigration. Bill is against illegal immigration; therefore, Bill is a racist. This does not work. The premises are incorrectly applied. The only way it does work is to make Bill a racist as a premise vice a conclusion. When that is done, the logic works. But the premise relies on Bill being a racist to begin with vice being a racist because of his anti-illegal immigration stand. So when we bring in Howard, what do we get? Howard is not racist. Howard is against illegal immigration. Wait! Our premises now don't support the conclusion of the progressives. This is why a part of a whole does not reflect upon the whole; instead the whole reflects upon the part. This is a classic example of all A are B; all C are A; thus all C are B. The progressive logic is all A are B, all C are B, thus all C are A - which DOES NOT WORK! If your head is spinning, one more example might help. All apples are fruits. All bananas are fruits. All bananas are apples is flawed logic. This is what the progressives are doing.

So let's look at their argument from another viewpoint - one of discrimination. Discrimination, as defined by Black's Law Dictionary (2005), is "the effect of a law or established practice that confers privileges on a certain class or that denies privileges to a certain class because of race, age, sex, nationality, religion, or disability" (pg 393). It is further defined as "differential treatment; esp., a failure to treat all persons equally when no reasonable distinction can be found between those favored and those not favored" (393). Illegal immigrants are not being singled out because of their race, age, sex, nationality, religion, or disability.

As a matter of fact there is a reasonable distinction between an illegal immigrant and a legal immigrant, and it is not based on what another person observes from looking at a member of each group. The distinction is based on what each member had done to be a member of that group. One violated a federal rule; the other followed the federal rule. One believes it is okay to violate law when they deem it in their best interest; one believes in following a law is in their best interest. Thus being against illegal immigration cannot be equated to discrimination because the stand is not based on an unreasonable distinction.

One cannot violate a law and then expect sympathy unrelated to the violation to escape the effect of the law. Our Country was not founded on this flawed principle; we are founded upon the believe of freedom but within the constraints of respecting the law which is created to maintain a free society. We welcome immigrants who follow the rules we established to join our society. We don't have to accept someone willing to do otherwise.

I am against illegal immigration and I am not a racist.

Mike

References:

New standard encyclopedia dictionary. (1984). IL: Standard educational corporation.

Downey, D. (Ed.). (1987). New Standard Encyclopedia. IL: Standard educational corporation.

Landoll's. (1997). Webster's Dictionary. OH: Landoll's Inc.

Gardner, B. (Ed.). (2005). Black's Law Dictionary, abridged 8th edition. MN: Thomson/West.