March 6th heralds the 50th anniversary of the march from Selma on the infamous”Bloody Sunday”which featured the killing of a young black man by Alabama police.”Officer involved” shootings and killings most often involving visible minorities are a commonplace in America.The latest involve a homeless man in Los Angeles(later named a robbery suspect),a young black man in Madison Wisconsin,a woman armed with two knives and a history of angry acts including a prior stabbing,in Anaheim California. There has also been a shooting of a recent Iraqi immigrant who, having escaped the turmoil of Iraq and while enjoying his first snowfall in Dallas, fell victim to a rifle shot from four as yet unidentified men.This latter is clearly a crime but also lends to the problem of the ready access to and use of guns(bombs and swords )as “solutions”.We’ve talked about the unwritten functions of police power tied to keeping people in…
View original post 409 more words
The Octogenarians 
Following the dots seems a lot like looking for a lost object under the most available bright light without regard to where the object was lost.Unfortunately for the argument presented we have all heard the speech about the 47%; even the author of that speech is now talking about the problem of inequity All men are not created equal but access to the “dream” for men and women of equal ability is supposed to be fair.The reality of some men and women being commodities for the material enhancement of others is a problem for a democracy.Some men and women having historically been commodities and presently being deprived of the ballot ,particularly when they had previous access to it, is a problem.In my view reparations can’t work..(.too hard to structure and bound to be resented)Yes, all civilizations have been built upon the backs of slaves but when former slaves and women are declared citizens, then the access to voting has to be ensured to prevent reversion.Isn’t it amazing that the new restrictions are particularly applicable to the Obama constituency and follow upon the striking down of section 4 of the voting rights law?
Yes some of my best friends are….(whatever) It doesn’t prevent them from being misguided..I don’t think the billionaires who concern themselves with greater access for the poor are demented or particularly ideological..(comments appreciated!)
Some premises are on display here that can help explain the gulf between the political left and the right.
Daedal2207 writes: “The reality of some men and women being commodities for the material enhancement of others is a problem for a democracy.”
In a free society and a free market we are not “commodities” in a negative sense. In a positive sense, each and every one of us could be considered a “commodity” helping to advance the material success of others – that is, if we are doing our jobs well. Those I hire, thereby expanding my success, help me to provide the goods and services that help others expand their success. It is when a person is forced to labor at advancing the material success of others that their place in the scheme of things becomes a “problem” – a problem for the best health of a democracy – having to do with diminished freedom and productivity. Democracy itself can be a problem for productive free markets if pluralities of voters choose to force others to advance the majority’s material success. (Bill Buckley once asked, I paraphrase, “If 100% of what one produces is taken by the government, doesn’t that make him a slave? If 50% of what he makes is taken by the government, is he half slave?”). I understand that we agree to laws that allow us to be taxed, but that does not necessarily protect the few from a tyranny of an unwise, self-serving majority.
Daedal2207 writes, “Yes, all civilizations have been built upon the backs of slaves…”
This seems to reflect the way of history – up until better ways were discovered to inspire and direct productivity. Geographic parts of US history included the “backs of slaves”, but the US civilization also includes from the beginning a constitution dedicated to individual freedom, and it includes a war fought to end those ugly forces that violated that promise.
Daedal2007 writes, “Isn’t it amazing that the new restrictions (Supreme Court ruling on VRL) are particularly applicable to the Obama constituency and follow upon the striking down of section 4 of the voting rights law?”
He needs to clarify just how “the new restrictions are particularly applicable to the Obama constituency”. How are the states creating laws that apply negatively – and ONLY to Obama constituents?
Daedal2207 writes, “I don’t think the billionaires who concern themselves with greater access for the poor are demented or particularly ideological..”
I don’t understand why one’s possession of wealth would necessarily equate with social wisdom. Fairness under the law dictates that equal individual rights should be supported no matter one’s status of wealth. You cannot make the “poor” as a group more important than any other “group” without violating that promise of individual equality under the law. If daedal2207 is making a general accusation that somehow the “poor” are being denied access to their equal rights, the supporting evidence needs to be clarified. And, aren’t we going to be a healthier society if we remember the fact that it is individuals with protected freedom who will move fluidly from one category of economic “class” to others?
Don Spencer
When were slaves hired?If billionaires are worrying about inequity they don’t have to be experts on social commentary to get my attention! Education used to be the key to fluid movement within the society but the beginning failure of this “key” is now bothering educators.(They also are not experts on social commentary).
An intelligent mind whether billionaire or pauper, can understand that there are many problems associated with “inequity”. But let’s start by defining “inequity”. What is it that should be made equal? Left and right are using the same word with very different meanings. And more importantly, which understanding of this word will inspire humanity to its best future?
The left desires (for many interesting reasons) to define humanity as consisting of distinct “groups” and then it statistically compares their “possessions”. A government with lots of power logically becomes for them a major tool helping to force a more equal redistribution.
The right wants to define equity as an equality of individual rights. Inequality for them occurs when individuals are forced to give special (unequal) deference to any other individual because that individual belongs to a favored group. For those using this definition of equality government is important as a tool to protect individual liberties and is dangerous when it uses its powers to create favored groups (and thus compromise individual liberties).
Do we inspire greater country-growing, healthy productivity by choosing to focus on individual liberty, or is it better achieved with a focus on group-defined government-empowered redistributions?
Another important dimension – Is healthy, growing productivity the major goal for the left, or is their goal primarily that of a “moral” nature? If so, from what source (religious-like?) comes this idea of “morality”?
Don Spencer
It hangs on. Like a magnet force that can both attract and repel, it alters the ability of the mind to judge fairly the evidence supporting that which is believed and eventually felt to be true. We devolve into, “My side is good.” Your side is “bad”. Beliefs invented about the importance of “race” fuel the desired sentiments.
A mind with a primary interest in knowing the objective truth of things will want to connect ALL the dots. Let me direct attention to some “dots” that are apparently absent (repelled) as regards daedal2207’s analysis of race relations. Had he chosen to run, Republicans would likely have voted for General Colon Powell to be our first black president. Herman Caine did well in Republican debates and popularity. Ben Carson, with great support from the Republican base, has announced his intention to run for president. Condi Rice is greatly admired and will hopefully continue to be active in government. For intellectual brilliance and deep analytic skills consider Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, and Walter Williams. In media, Jason Riley is a rising star.
What all these superb minds have in common are well-understood values that embrace the original under our law “all men are created equal” and thus these outstanding individuals do not parade their racial background. They know race to be of little importance relative to the universal values that matter most. Race being unimportant, this value is without racism. They understand that fundamental rights justly directed equally to every individual citizen will suffer compromise to the degree that “special” considerations are forcibly directed to anyone just because they belong to a “favored” group.
So, why attack as racist those who favor this set of colorblind values? Could it be that because they will not support laws that favor the groups that the left favors, it is erroneously assumed that they hate those groups? Is it not racist to favor a race?
For some it is not error. Manipulate the “dots”. As Orwell described, if you have the power to control history you have the power to control the future. Have power now and you control history. Tell minorities that conservatives have been and are bad people who want to do harm to them. Repeated enough, those who lack “dots” will actually believe the slander.
Here is another interesting assumption failing to connect important dots: Requiring the use of identification is by some thought to be a racist, voter-suppression action rather than a reasonable, world-wide-accepted method to avoid voter fraud. Those who believe that only one race is impacted negatively by this requirement – that a great many of its members are incapable of acquiring identification – must themselves be thinking poorly of that race. By their definition, isn’t this racist?
Don Spencer