Welcome to Jestertunes! If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Feel free to leave a comment, read through the archives, and enjoy yourself. See you again real soon!
If you haven’t been following along, I commented yesterday on a particularly inflammatory post on another blog. There have been comments flying back and forth, in which the author, Tammy, has yet to understand a very simple point that if you post something to your website, especially something that expresses a very clear and strong opinion without argument, it’s the same as offering those opinions as your own. She accuses me of ASSUMING to know her opinion. Well, yeah, she hasn’t said anything refuting the statements made in her post.
Until a few minutes ago when she posted a point by point explanation and qualification of the inflammatory comments. Because it’s a long post, I’ll link to it here: Clearing the Air.
Here is my response, which will also be long.
And I’m sure that I don’t have to explain this to my readers, but yes, these are my opinions, I’ve posted them on my personal site, with my name on it, because they are my opinions. You know… the whole point of having a blog.
So here we go, Tammy. Kudos to you for FINALLY expressing an opinion.
1. The fact of the matter is that there are many cultural differences, and I think the argument could be made that almost every other channel on television is a “white channel.” I certainly don’t see very many black characters on NBC, ABC, or CBS. And as far as scholarships for minorities, there are a couple of good reasons for these, first, minorities are historically underpaid and under-represented in higher schools. Secondly, there are many schools in predominately white areas that feel it is important to draw minorities to their school to make for a more diverse and rich school experience, therefore they offer scholarships to entice these students to attend their school.
2. Access to guns by people who are not “normal people who happen to own guns” is the problem. Access to guns that are capable of firing many rounds of ammunition in a very short amount of time is a problem. We have laws in place to stop people from driving drunk. We have laws in place that stop people from driving when they have a history of driving recklessly. Yes you can kill someone with a baseball bat, or your car, but you can’t kill dozens of people at once with a bat or a car. You can’t kill someone with a bat from 400 yards away in a tower. The analogy and the logic of this statement is seriously flawed.
3. Martha Burke heads the National Council of Women’s Organizations. She is an outspoken leader of the ‘feminist movement.’ You say you’re not sure why the statement is made, or who Martha Burke is, yet you felt comfortable posting this opinion on your blog without research or thought. The problem with the Boy Scouts is this: they have defined themselves as “ethical and moral leaders” of the community, and as such, they refuse admittance to homosexuals and yes, girls. The PROBLEM is that the Boy Scouts receive lots of funding from the Federal Government, and are often allowed to use federally owned property for their own purposes. Many people, myself included, believe that this makes the Boy Scouts a PUBLIC entity, therefore subject to federal non-discrimination standards, which includes gender. If the Boy Scouts no longer received federal money, they could do whatever they hell they want, and I would support their right to discriminate against whomever they wish.
4. You’re right, believing that homosexuality is wrong is not necessarily ‘homophobic.’ However basing your opinion or judgment of someone based solely on their sexual orientation is. Voting to “preserve the sanctity of marriage” and blocking gays from adoptions, and voting to allow employers to fire gay employees based on their orientation is definitely homophobic. You can think it is wrong, but you can’t also believe that it’s perfectly ok to discriminate because of it. There is nothing worse than someone who responds with “Some of my best friends are [insert minority here].” So what? All that means is that you have been able to set aside some prejudice to get to know one person. How do you vote? What do you teach your children? Do you stand up and speak when someone else expresses some homophobic or racist statement? If you are not doing something to help spread a message of tolerance acceptance, then you are perpetuating the problem.
5. You absolutely have the right to be intolerant. Just as I have the right to call you on it. You have the right to fear people that are not like you. You have the right to call them weird. I have the right to call you an asshole. Isn’t our country great?
6. I love made up statistics. They make me laugh. This statement is intended to refute the idea of racial profiling. Here’s a statement of FACT from the US Department of Justice, complete with a citation, which is necessary when stating something is a FACT:
At yearend 2004 there were 3,218 black male sentenced prison inmates per 100,000 black males in the United States, compared to 1,220 Hispanic male inmates per 100,000 Hispanic males and 463 white male inmates per 100,000 white males.
Unless my math is completely wrong, this means that: 3.2% of black males in the US are incarcerated, compared with 1.2% Hispanics, and 0.4% of white males.
Warning!!! Sarcasm follows!!!
Seems completely fair and balanced to me. No possible reason to believe that racial profiling exists. Apparently all this means is that Black males are 8 times more likely and Hispanic males are 3 times more likely to commit a crime.
[/end sarcasm]
7 & 8. Our country was founded by immigrants. Everyone here is from somewhere else. While I believe that at least a cursory knowledge of English is important, insisting that immigrants speak English is definitely ethnocentric and arrogant. You can not impose your culture on someone else. English is one of the hardest languages to learn. Why not make an effort yourself to learn some Spanish or Chinese. It is not disrepectful of your ancestors who fought in wars. In fact, the desire to come to this country, open a business and contribute to our taxes, and the diversity of our nation is a much higher form of respect than most Americans, who can not be bothered to vote show.
If you wish to do business with English speaking only shop owners, that is your right. I encourage you to do that. Take your business elsewhere. Good luck finding one… Walmart has put all those English speaking mom and pop stores out of business, so I suggest you start there.
9. Threaten them with a gun, yes. Shoot to kill. A knife? Not so much… there are non-lethal ways of subduing someone who can’t hurt you from a distance. You can not shoot someone for running away from you. What if they’re deaf and can’t hear you? What difference does it make if they speak English or not? This statement is obviously being made as a way to justify the police’s actions in taking deadly force against an immigrant or non-English speaking person. The statement is clearly racist and ethnocentric.
Perhaps you need a definition of ethno-centricism.
From Answers.com:
eth·no·cen·trism (?th’n?-s?n’tr?z’?m) pronunciation
n.1. Belief in the superiority of one’s own ethnic group.
2. Overriding concern with race.
10. Similar to the idea behind offering scholarships to minorities, offering incentives to immigrants to open businesses strengthens our economy, adds to the tax base and the diversity that makes this country great, despite the idiots that have been doing their best for the past several years to erode the very freedoms they are trying to impose around the globe.
11. I’d like ONE example of an immigrant coming to this country and trying to change a law resulting in the erosion of our freedoms? George W Bush? He’s from Texas. Ashcroft? Missouri. These two have done more to gut the Bill of Rights in the past six years than any immigrant ever could. I believe the allusion to the statements of the Constitution being a ‘living document’ is referring to Supreme Court Justice Scalia (a staunch conservative fundamentalist) who stated that the Constitution is an enduring document but not a “living” one, and its meaning must be protected and not repeatedly altered to suit the whims of society.
He has used the argument that the Constitution should only be read for what is actually written, the original intent, to interpret laws. That any ‘interpretation’ of the Constitution is dangerous. His ideas would effectively reverse any Supreme Court decisions regarding rights that are not expressly stated, most notably Roe v. Wade (abortion) or Lawrence v. Texas (gay rights) or Roper v. Simmons (death penalty for persons under the age of 18).
12 & 13. Seemingly innocuous statements designed to manipulate the reader to agree with the author. Similar statements could be made regarding Nascar, the Bible, or apple pie. This is a common technique taught in persuasive speaking courses. Get your audience to agree with you on “no-brainer” points, and they will begin to align themselves into agreement with you on other points. If you believe in God, then you must also believe in purple people eaters. Don’t laugh. How do you think Hitler came into power? Persuasive speech.
14. Does Bill Gates deserve to keep the money he makes? Yes. Does he deserve special tax breaks because he is so wealthy, NO. Does he deserve to take advantage of hundreds of tax code loopholes solely because he can afford the team of accountants and lawyers necessary to do so? No. The statement is worded such that you find it hard to disagree with. It’s like saying “Anyone who kills someone deserves the death penalty.” Well, yeah, except that there are other circumstances that have to be considered. It’s too simplistic. And for the record, I believe that Bill Gates has an ETHICAL and MORAL obligation to give back to the community, even if it is only for the tax exemption.
15. This statement is another tricky one. At first glance you want to say YEAH! But look at the subcontext: It doesn’t take a village to raise a child” is a direct slap at Hillary Clinton, who famously wrote “It Takes A Village
16. Aah… more discrimination disguised in a ‘cute’ way that you don’t want to disagree with. See, this is directed at the younger generation, notoriously known for voting for liberal causes. Cranky old Republican men shaking their fists and screaming “Get off my lawn.” I think tattooing and piercing can most definitely be a political statement. Do you think the punk movement, with the outlandish dress code and makeup was not a political statement? What about hippies? Today’s youth getting tattoos and piercings as a way to rebel against their parents and elders, and yes, the government is most definitely a political statement. One that says, we are not like you, and it pleases us to make you uncomfortable.
17. In order to feel comfortable with those around us who are different, we wish to force them to assimilate to our ways. You’re telling me that we should not be proud of our heritage, no matter how remote? Tell that to all the Italian families in the US who are steeped in tradition. Or Jewish families. There goes the Scottish Festival, the Greek Games, and Cinco De Mayo celebrations. While we’re at it, let’s cancel all religious holidays because, really they are all carry overs from other cultures. Christmas, Easter, Yom Kippur, Kwanzaa… secular holidays from other cultures, New Year’s, Hallowe’en, Valentine’s Day… I think that basically leaves us with Independence Day, Veteran’s Day, Thanksgiving, President’s Day, and umm… well that’s it. Everything else? Not ours.
18. I’ve already commented on this point about the “statistic” of 86% of people believing in God. 86% of what people? Is it 86% of the people in this church right now? 86% of the people in the Boy Scouts? 86% of Republicans? You can’t throw statistics around like that with out some citation of your source. It can’t possibly be 86% of all Americans, cause no one has asked me. Also, if you see my point from earlier about persuasive speech, this statement leads you to believe that if you are part of the 86% that believe in God, then you will also agree with the rest of the missive. I firmly believe that the separation of church and state is very important. The use of the word God does not ring true for MANY Americans. Would you like it if the pledge was “One Nation under Allah?” or “One nation under The Flying Spaghetti Monster?” No. It definitely has a air of second class citizenship for non-Christians. “Under God” was not added to the pledge until 1954 by Eisenhower, during a period of time not so unlike current times when an unhealthy fear of a belief system different from our own (Communism) created an air of fear that allowed our Government to get away with almost anything.
In conclusion, I really don’t see you making any steadfast opposition to any of the statements written. At the most, you’ve stated that you don’t understand the point of some of the statements. I still don’t see that I’ve made any incorrect assumptions about you based on this post.
You should really think before you post, do some research, and be more careful about what crap you let into your email inbox.
