Maybe I'm just tootin' my own horn here, but I think I would make for either a great candidate that everyone can find at least one thing they like about, or a horrible candidate who pisses everyone off. I will go ahead and say that it would likely be the latter, as I have a tendency to please myself instead of others (and what true individualist *wouldn't* at least harbor such a thing as at least a guilty pleasure?) instead of tailoring my views to what the lumpenproletariat desire - such as bread & circuses and all the associated tripe.
Let's put them all in alphabetical order...
Abortion - Cut the crap about "woman's right to choose", "murdering babies", and all the other namby-pamby "everyone is special" horseshit. Abortion is the only thing keeping the West from being totally swamped by a dysgenic underclass of entitlement addicts. Think about it: the probability of an educated, employed, middle-class woman who doesn't bring home a new man every weekend having an unwanted pregnancy is statistically insignificant. The kind of women who ARE having abortions are the ones we DON'T want reproducing - high school dropouts, drug users, sexually-irresponsible, perpetually on welfare. Abortion has stemmed the tide of future Democratic Party supporters who would be interested solely in obtaining more government cheese for themselves and their future demon spawn, who will go on to repeat this process. While I am not too keen on federal funding of ANYTHING, I believe that federal funding of abortions is important to keep, if for nothing else than human pest control.
Bailouts: I don't care how critical a particular industry is to our nation's success or failure - bad decisions must never be subsidized, and certainly not with other peoples' money. The failure of these companies can largely be attributed to government "regulation", and allowing the perpetrators of instability to then lord over the industries they ruined by way of favored-industry policy or financial blackmail is unthinkable.
Campaign Finance: I am opposed to corporations being able to donate. Funny how a majority of the people who disagreed with the recent SCOTUS decision and "corporate personhood" voted for Obama, who was carried into office on the backs of the majority of corporate donors...
Defense: Either we snap ourselves out of this half-assed approach that endangers our troops when our rules of engagement more or less encourage their deaths rather than the deaths of jihadists and start waging total war, or we pull up anchor and leave posthaste. There can be no gray area in regard to whether we are at war or not. I am also in favor of slashing our standing army in favor of a citizens' militia. We once had "a rifle behind every blade of grass", but we have become complacent and lazy, allowing others to shoulder the burden of defense while simultaneously disrespecting our armed forces with government-run healthcare and incompetent civilian leadership. According to the US Code, every able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45 is part of the irregular militia. I would be open to a policy of compulsory service of one weekend per month (to cut down on the riff-raff, service would be for those who have graduated high school with at least a C average) which would include courses in wilderness survival, orienteering, improvised munitions, marksmanship, field communication, fortification construction, and psychological warfare/counter-intel. Terror attacks in other nations should not be such a priority for us - if those nations cannot deal with terrorism on their own, that is their problem, not ours.
Energy Policy: Nuclear power is the only sensible and efficient long-term source of energy. While we should not limit ourselves to one or two sources, nuclear power is the safest, most cost-effective, and most infrastructurally-viable option. We have allowed the enviro-nuts to scare us with images of Chernobyl (crappy Soviet technology combined with human error) and Three Mile Island (crappy American technology combined with human error - and nobody even died!) while even France generates the vast majority of its electricity by way of modern nuclear reactors.
Guns (2nd Amendment): I support the repeal of ALL gun control laws - 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA, 1986 Hughes Amendment, 922r import restrictions - as well as unconditional incorporation of the 2nd Amendment against the states. Posession of small arms that are on-par with those the military uses by civilians is the best way to secure liberty for all. Allowing governments to have a monopoly on the use of force has always resulted in tyranny and sometimes genocide. Gun control laws do nothing but punish the innocent due to the behavior of the guilty. They also restrict supply of certain types of firearms, allowing only the wealthy and well-connected to obtain such things as select-fire weapons and destructive devices. We accomplish nothing but the criminalization of self-defense when we pass laws that restrict or prohibit the use of firearms technology. Anyone who believes that there should be "reasonable restrictions" on the last line of defense that we have against tyranny is a willful accessory to tyranny. The 2nd Amendment lets us all know that we have the right to defend ourselves, our property, and our Constitution from any who would try to destroy or subvert them - essentially, it is the "fangs & claws" of our Constitution, which was meant to restrain the government and not the people.
Health Care: Many will say that the "free market has failed", when little do they know the free market was never in charge of health care in the first place! The American Medical Association is a monopoly whose preponderence in the industry incurs unnecessary costs. Insurance companies are not allowed to compete across state lines, nor are the trial lawyer unions ready to give up opportunities to suck hospitals and private practices dry with malpractice suits. Health care is NOT a right. The only "right" we have is to take care of ourselves. Rights are not something granted to us by a government, which is why the Constitution acts as a constraint on that government. Some will point to the "general welfare" clause, but the recent healthcare bill is quite specific in what aspects of "welfare" it covers. If someone else has to pay for it, it cannot, under any circumstances, be called a "right". Exercising one of the rights in our Bill of Rights incurs no expense on the part of another, a far cry from the massive costs imposed on the productive sector to finance "healthcare as a right".
Illegal Immigration: A fence is not a real solution, and neither are totally open borders. Minimum wage laws and a lack of enforcement of penalties for hiring illegals are what drives much of the illegal border crossings. Minimum wage laws coerce employers into looking to illegal immigrants to avoid high labor costs. This can significantly affect the prosperity and expansion potential of small businesses, as it is exponentially more difficult for them to absorb those costs than it is for large corporations.
I'll add other stuff later. Stay tuned.
2.3.10
I have found a way to solve the problem of affirmative action
There's been a great deal of furor over at the UC San Diego campus, as well as across some of the other UC campuses, regarding a non-sponsored "Compton Cookout" event that encouraged guests to dress up like stereotypical "ghetto blacks", with the do-rags, baggy clothes, and such, during Black History Month (February, in case you forgot).
Now, lots of other people unaffiliated with the UCSD student body are in an uproar, throwing all kinds of claims around, from "hateful" and "insensitive", to "institutionalized racism" and (I particularly love this one) that the UC is not creating a "safe space" for black students. There are actually people, blacks and guilty white progressives alike, making a huge scene about how black students are now "in fear for their lives". Because of what? A Klan rally? David Duke just moved into the neighborhood? No, a party lampooning stereotypes THAT ACTUALLY EXIST. Don't tell me the folks complaining have never seen "Boyz in the Hood", or have never been to an urban area where there is a significant black population. Or, if you really want stereotypes - Detroit, Oakland, or Atlanta.
How does this all tie into affirmative action? [Here] is the press release from the Black Student Union at UC San Diego, detailing their demands. Like I mentioned before, out of context, it would appear that something fairly serious was happening, like UC funding for an Aryan Nations speaker coming to make a presentation at their "Diversity Center" or whatever the hell they're calling it. [Side note: the word "diversity" simply means "more brown/black people with more or less the same political agenda"; is there anyone calling for more "diversity" at Historically Black Colleges?] No, there was nothing serious. No threats have been made. Nobody has been assaulted. There was a party, and a lot of hurt feelings because of that party, never mind that the people who are "morally outraged" never actually WENT to the party, nor have I seen one single shred of photographic evidence documenting the "hate" and "bigotry" that was allegedly present and described in great detail by people who only saw the event description on Facebook. Someone allegedly uttered the phrase "ungrateful niggers" in response to complaints about the party. Who knew a UC education would enable one to go to parties without actually going to parties, and to turn hearsay into truth! I guess I must've fallen asleep during that part.
Now we have the BSU demanding privileges which no other group on campus enjoys: funding for ALL events (the article says "traditional and non-traditional", which might mean off-campus events, possibly involving the purchase and consumption of alcohol), make the African-American Studies and Chicano Studies minors a "priority", "three permanent designated spaces for African-American inspired art to reflect the struggle and progress for students of color on this campus", a "resource center", free tutoring (but only to African-American students) and a university-wide Affirmative Action program to increase the number of blacks in student, administrator, instructor, PhD candidate, and staff positions.
The difficulty lies herein: WHO should be considered "black" or "African-American"? How "black" does one have to be to qualify for the tutoring, being able to make use of the permanent spaces for African-American art? Half-black? An "octoroon", like my friend Bill? Shall we simply bring back the "one drop rule" of the Jim Crow days, but instead apply it to receiving special treatment? What benefits should Boer immigrants receive? After all, they too are African-American.
I suggest we use the von Luschan scale: (click for full view)
Anyone lighter than '27' is not eligible for racially-oriented "safe spaces", tutors, inflated representation, nor may they use the proposed resource center.
There, solved. No more worrying about who is "black" and who is not, and what benefits they are or aren't eligible for. We can't use "African-Americans" because that might include white people whose family has lived in Africa for centuries. Allowing quadroons and octoroons are not allowed, as they may be too white.
And if you don't like it, you're a racist for disagreeing.
Что делать о проблемой представительства? What is to be done about the represenation problem? For starters, if there are simply not enough applicants "of color" (and of course, using our handy chart to see who is "colored enough" to qualify), perhaps we should simply bring in underrepresented minorities from the community at large by lowering standards because standards are racis'. They do not account for the legacy of post-colonialism set within a Hegelian dialectic, and they only reinforce institutional racism by forcing black students to adhere to white standards. It's all racis'. Racis', racis', racis'!
[moving away from satire...]
If the black community is offended by things like stereotyping, the solution is NOT to punish and excoriate and demean those who mock them, going on witch-hunts to stamp out imaginary "racism". The solution is not to break down those stereotypes by lecturing people who already know that stereotypes are not monolithic. Would it be right of my Southern friends to be "morally outraged" when a bunch of West Coast trust-fund babies have a "redneck party", where everyone dresses in plaid and overalls, the women are all barefoot & pregnant, everyone has given themselves false gap-teeth and a stalk of wheat hanging out of their mouth? That's also some "insensitive" stereotyping, but nobody actually considers it insensitive, for a few reasons.
#1: White people are *supposed* to be made fun of, as they are overall not part of any legally protected class. Sure beats the "kill whitey" attitudes that are often present in classrooms and parts of the student body in general.
#2: Everyone realizes these stereotypes exist in real life, and they ARE goofy and ridiculous and easy to make fun of.
Maybe the black community in places like Oakland and Detroit and Atlanta - where you will actually see a lot of black people dressed in baggy clothing and gold chains, where 'nappy hair' is common, and a great many blacks DO talk far more loudly than is really necessary - should focus on actually policing their own image. Stop putting this stuff in rap videos. Stop allowing these images to become part of "African-American" or "black" culture - playing rap videos on BET isn't helping your case one whit. Stop complaining about the speck in your neighbor's eye when there's a 2x4 sticking out of your own.
I'm reminded of one of Dalton's lines from the film 'Road House':
Steve: What if somebody calls my mama a 'whore'?
Dalton: Is she?
What's the point in being offended by stereotypes, if those stereotypes don't actually exist? Often, we simply pretend they don't exist, enabling us to blame the people who make fun of them as if they were the ones who concocted the imagery with malice aforethought.
The sooner I leave this hellhole of "progressive" fascism, the better.
Now, lots of other people unaffiliated with the UCSD student body are in an uproar, throwing all kinds of claims around, from "hateful" and "insensitive", to "institutionalized racism" and (I particularly love this one) that the UC is not creating a "safe space" for black students. There are actually people, blacks and guilty white progressives alike, making a huge scene about how black students are now "in fear for their lives". Because of what? A Klan rally? David Duke just moved into the neighborhood? No, a party lampooning stereotypes THAT ACTUALLY EXIST. Don't tell me the folks complaining have never seen "Boyz in the Hood", or have never been to an urban area where there is a significant black population. Or, if you really want stereotypes - Detroit, Oakland, or Atlanta.
How does this all tie into affirmative action? [Here] is the press release from the Black Student Union at UC San Diego, detailing their demands. Like I mentioned before, out of context, it would appear that something fairly serious was happening, like UC funding for an Aryan Nations speaker coming to make a presentation at their "Diversity Center" or whatever the hell they're calling it. [Side note: the word "diversity" simply means "more brown/black people with more or less the same political agenda"; is there anyone calling for more "diversity" at Historically Black Colleges?] No, there was nothing serious. No threats have been made. Nobody has been assaulted. There was a party, and a lot of hurt feelings because of that party, never mind that the people who are "morally outraged" never actually WENT to the party, nor have I seen one single shred of photographic evidence documenting the "hate" and "bigotry" that was allegedly present and described in great detail by people who only saw the event description on Facebook. Someone allegedly uttered the phrase "ungrateful niggers" in response to complaints about the party. Who knew a UC education would enable one to go to parties without actually going to parties, and to turn hearsay into truth! I guess I must've fallen asleep during that part.
Now we have the BSU demanding privileges which no other group on campus enjoys: funding for ALL events (the article says "traditional and non-traditional", which might mean off-campus events, possibly involving the purchase and consumption of alcohol), make the African-American Studies and Chicano Studies minors a "priority", "three permanent designated spaces for African-American inspired art to reflect the struggle and progress for students of color on this campus", a "resource center", free tutoring (but only to African-American students) and a university-wide Affirmative Action program to increase the number of blacks in student, administrator, instructor, PhD candidate, and staff positions.
The difficulty lies herein: WHO should be considered "black" or "African-American"? How "black" does one have to be to qualify for the tutoring, being able to make use of the permanent spaces for African-American art? Half-black? An "octoroon", like my friend Bill? Shall we simply bring back the "one drop rule" of the Jim Crow days, but instead apply it to receiving special treatment? What benefits should Boer immigrants receive? After all, they too are African-American.
I suggest we use the von Luschan scale: (click for full view)
Anyone lighter than '27' is not eligible for racially-oriented "safe spaces", tutors, inflated representation, nor may they use the proposed resource center.
There, solved. No more worrying about who is "black" and who is not, and what benefits they are or aren't eligible for. We can't use "African-Americans" because that might include white people whose family has lived in Africa for centuries. Allowing quadroons and octoroons are not allowed, as they may be too white.
And if you don't like it, you're a racist for disagreeing.
Что делать о проблемой представительства? What is to be done about the represenation problem? For starters, if there are simply not enough applicants "of color" (and of course, using our handy chart to see who is "colored enough" to qualify), perhaps we should simply bring in underrepresented minorities from the community at large by lowering standards because standards are racis'. They do not account for the legacy of post-colonialism set within a Hegelian dialectic, and they only reinforce institutional racism by forcing black students to adhere to white standards. It's all racis'. Racis', racis', racis'!
[moving away from satire...]
If the black community is offended by things like stereotyping, the solution is NOT to punish and excoriate and demean those who mock them, going on witch-hunts to stamp out imaginary "racism". The solution is not to break down those stereotypes by lecturing people who already know that stereotypes are not monolithic. Would it be right of my Southern friends to be "morally outraged" when a bunch of West Coast trust-fund babies have a "redneck party", where everyone dresses in plaid and overalls, the women are all barefoot & pregnant, everyone has given themselves false gap-teeth and a stalk of wheat hanging out of their mouth? That's also some "insensitive" stereotyping, but nobody actually considers it insensitive, for a few reasons.
#1: White people are *supposed* to be made fun of, as they are overall not part of any legally protected class. Sure beats the "kill whitey" attitudes that are often present in classrooms and parts of the student body in general.
#2: Everyone realizes these stereotypes exist in real life, and they ARE goofy and ridiculous and easy to make fun of.
Maybe the black community in places like Oakland and Detroit and Atlanta - where you will actually see a lot of black people dressed in baggy clothing and gold chains, where 'nappy hair' is common, and a great many blacks DO talk far more loudly than is really necessary - should focus on actually policing their own image. Stop putting this stuff in rap videos. Stop allowing these images to become part of "African-American" or "black" culture - playing rap videos on BET isn't helping your case one whit. Stop complaining about the speck in your neighbor's eye when there's a 2x4 sticking out of your own.
I'm reminded of one of Dalton's lines from the film 'Road House':
Steve: What if somebody calls my mama a 'whore'?
Dalton: Is she?
What's the point in being offended by stereotypes, if those stereotypes don't actually exist? Often, we simply pretend they don't exist, enabling us to blame the people who make fun of them as if they were the ones who concocted the imagery with malice aforethought.
The sooner I leave this hellhole of "progressive" fascism, the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)