Rants, can'ts, shan'ts, dance…

Posts tagged “government

Fair Treatment & Free Speech For All – Even The Klan

klan

You may have heard that the Ku Klux Klan had a rally in California that turned violent. Apparently, the Klan members were attacked by protesters as they were exiting their vehicles. It appears the brawl was caught on tape (video at the end of this article), and now the protesters are going to be charged in this crime. That is as it should be. You cannot physically attack someone just because you do not agree with them.

I got a lot of negativity for saying exactly that when this incident first happened. I heard many saying that the police should have shut this rally down or never permitted it in the first place. Truthfully, I never thought I’d find myself defending the Ku Klux Klan of all things, and I’m happy to say I was right about that. I was not defending the Klan and have never defended the Klan. I was defending free speech.

I find the Klan morally repugnant. I think they are idiotic, ignorant, foolish and frankly, I think they are absurd. They are laughable, a human joke. That doesn’t make what happened to them OK. Hearing people call for police intervention, insisting the authorities should have shut this rally down and stopped the Klan from exercising their first amendment rights is troubling. People seem to be perfectly happy with the government violating the rights of those they do not agree with. This is a slippery slope to stand on, folks. If you advocate the violation of others’ rights, you are advocating the eventual violation of your own by setting a precedent. Holding a rally centered around their stupid, hateful belief system is their right as Americans. For “protesters” to show up to that rally and physically attack them is a violation of their rights – period. However, this was not a protest. It was a mob. It was 30 people attacking six.

How is this any better than the Klan themselves? It would seem counter-productive for a group of minorities to attack KKK members – to say the least. How does it discredit the stupid things the Klan says about minorities? They say that minorities are savages and wild animals. How, then, does a group of minorities attacking them essentially without provocation dispute that? Sadly, it doesn’t. It’s just more fodder for the hate machine, and it has only made these Klan members martyrs for their own idiotic cause. They were attacked by those “savages” and “wild animals” they’ve been warning everybody about. This was exactly the wrong thing for people to do, and legality or rights violation isn’t even the half of it.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this incident is society’s general reaction to this incident. It’s too much to expect sympathy for the Ku Klux Klan, of course, but for people to be so unabashedly gleeful over this is disheartening, and a little disquieting. Guilt by association is not guilty enough. It’s despicable to be a racist and to be a member of the Klan – but it is not illegal. Holding a rally to promote their separatist, racist views is not illegal. Nothing they did was illegal, and for people to support – even applaud – a gratuitous, senseless “punishment” for what is essentially a thoughtcrime is disturbing.

Seeing and hearing so many supposedly civilized people who would gladly rip somebody apart in the street (or happily watch others do it) over an idea, a belief or an association is ominous. To say they got what they deserved is dangerously close to the type of rhetoric the Klan themselves spouts. People are entitled to how they feel, but to me it’s like saying it’s OK to be like the Klan as long as you’re sure you have a better reason for your behavior than you think they do. Isn’t that exactly how the Klan members feel? Don’t they feel their reasons justify their behavior? I’m not seeing how the same wrong mindset just turned against them is supposed to help anything. I devoutly hope that I myself am more evolved than a bunch of racist, sheet-wearing fools spewing bile and part of being better than that is not being OK with hateful mobs bent on hurting someone – because that is what the Ku Klux Klan is and that is why they are wrong. If we regard them as Neanderthals, as troglodytes trapped in a distant, stagnant past who are refusing to evolve, how does lowering ourselves to that level elevate our own platform? It doesn’t. It demeans and discredits it. It puts us squarely beside and on equal footing with them, whether people want to see that or not.

Is this really what we want? To be on equal moral footing with the Ku Klux Klan? Or is it just another example of the nearly-universal and almost totally unself-conscious narcissism and hypocrisy we see on display in society? “It’s not OK for you to do this, but it’s OK for me because I have a good enough reason and you don’t. I’m right and you’re wrong.” How does this mindset resolve itself? “I’m so tolerant, open-minded and evolved. I love all people equally, regardless of race, color, gender, creed or orientation. I truly believe in the Brotherhood of Man and that all life has value – AND I HATE THE KLAN FOR NOT FOLLOWING THIS! I LAUGH WHEN THEY ARE ATTACKED BY A HATEFUL MOB! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! KILL THEM ALL!!!” It doesn’t even make any sense.

This whole “intolerant of intolerance” thing is just hypocrisy. It’s “bigotry with good reason,” which is just another way of saying, “I can do this but you can’t.” If your reaction to a hateful mob is to form another hateful mob, you are a hypocrite. Fighting fire with fire won’t put the fire out. It only burns everybody involved. It solves nothing, and has the added consequence of destroying the credibility of all parties.

If we claim to be enlightened, if we claim to be evolved, if we claim to be tolerant, if we claim to be champions of equality and free speech but we draw the line at defending those we find distasteful or we actually advocate violence toward others in these situations, we aren’t really any of these things – and we are certainly no better or even any different than those we are opposing. It’s easy to defend somebody that everybody agrees with. It becomes significantly more difficult when it’s someone that nobody – including ourselves – agrees with. It’s hard to look past ignorance, and it’s not easy to have the courage of our convictions in the face of a hostile majority, but what are we without it? We become just so many hypocrites.


The Battle of The Bathroom: Political Correctness Run Amok

Recently I got into a… not really an argument or debate but just a small thing with someone on social media regarding whether or not transgender folks should be able to use the bathroom they choose, rather than the one dictated by their anatomy. My position is that they should use the one dictated by their anatomy, simply because it has become too much of a grey area and a line has to be drawn or a distinction made somewhere. It’s going to have to be there. That’s the simplest and most obvious resolution to the problem, and for me it is a problem. Not because people are trans, though. I have a problem with the whole transgender bathroom thing because for someone to feel uncomfortable if an opposite sex person is in the bathroom with them would be a pretty common thing. Most people don’t want that. If nobody cared, that would be something totally different. But they do care, so why do 500 people have to be made uncomfortable just so one person is not? I’m all for equality as everybody knows, but that isn’t equality – at all. It’s special rules for special people, which is the antithesis of equality.

If someone can say, “My rights are being violated by forcing me to use the bathroom for my anatomic gender because I don’t personally feel that gender is correct. I feel I’m in the wrong bathroom which makes me uncomfortable,” why is it not OK for someone to say, “My rights are being violated by forcing me to use the bathroom with someone who is not anatomically the same gender as myself even if they think that gender is incorrect. I feel they are in the wrong bathroom which makes me uncomfortable”? Isn’t it the same thing?

Transgender person: “I am uncomfortable using the bathroom around people I feel are the opposite gender from myself, even if they don’t think they are.” The narrative says OK. You don’t have to. This is a big deal and we will do everything we can to ensure you are not uncomfortable.

Non-transgender person: “I am uncomfortable using the bathroom around people I feel are the opposite gender from myself, even if they don’t think they are.” The narrative says You’re a bigot. Suck it up. It’s not a big deal and if you say it is, you’re just overreacting. 

How is that fair? It’s the exact same thing. This is where it bothers me. For me, it’s not a transgender issue. It’s the unfairness of the narrative. The person I got into the thing with asked the folks in the thread, “And what do you actually think they’re going to be doing with thier [sic] penises in the bathroom? Chase you around and say “ooga-booga”? Rape you?” That right there is bullshit. It’s stating that if someone is uncomfortable by having to use the bathroom with someone they feel is the opposite gender, they’re being needlessly fearful and overreacting. That translates into: Your feelings about this don’t matter. Yes, it affects you personally but they still don’t matter. Your privacy doesn’t matter. Nothing matters, except how this one person feels. She went on quite a bit about how it was no big deal and people who had a problem with it are just overreacting. If that’s the case and it’s no big deal to use the bathroom around people who you feel are the opposite gender, why can’t our hypothetical transgender friend just use the bathroom dictated by their anatomy? Oh, right. Because it is a big deal – for them. The hypocrisy of that argument just absolutely astounds me. It really does. “I’m doing the same thing you are, but you doing it is bigoted.” What the hell, man? I’m hateful and bigoted for saying the same thing you’re saying? I’m hateful and bigoted because I don’t want to go to the bathroom with people of the opposite gender – the exact same thing transgender folks don’t want? Why? Why is it OK for them to feel that way but not for me?

It isn’t just with this issue, of course. This issue is just a perfect example of the hypocrisy and absurdity of political correctness run amok. In an attempt to appease the few, the many are sacrificed. This in the end appeases nobody. It breeds anger and creates a feeling of being marginalized and disrespected. Of course, it’s supposed to. Divide and conquer and all that.

As an aside, I find it amazing that so many people claim to be against “rape culture” and state ridiculous things like, “The penis is by default an object of violence” but somehow are able to reconcile the penis as inoffensive and impotent (sorry) when the bearer of said penis believes he is a female, and further, that they insist that girls and women who don’t want a person who is anatomically male in their bathroom need to simply put up with it.


Rachel Dolezal: Fraud or Fruitcake?

You’ve probably heard by now about Rachel Dolezal, the president of the Washington chapter of the NAACP. She recently resigned from her position because, well… she’s white. This might not have been that big of a deal under normal circumstances; there are white people in the NAACP. However, these were not normal circumstances. Ms. Dolezal was pretending to be black. Yes, you read that right; Rachel Dolezal identified herself as black on official documents and spent quite a bit of time and money in order to make herself look black. Or at least as black as a blonde haired, blue eyed white girl from Montana can look.

Ms. Dolezal’s unusual prevarication has sparked a media storm, with most of the debate centering around whether she is delusional and in need of psychiatric help or whether she is simply a fraud.

While it is certainly unusual that someone would lie in order to claim a different race, it’s not unheard of. But is this a psychiatric issue? Ms. Dolezal’s adopted brother (who really is black) claims that she asked him not to give her secret away. This points pretty strongly to the fact that Rachel Dolezal is most definitely aware that she isn’t really black. Since she doesn’t actually believe she’s black, that would seem to leave only one option: she’s just a fraud.

How is she a fraud? She obviously felt masquerading as a black woman would bring her advantages that she could not have as her true self. Therefore, whatever these advantages were, they were fraudulently obtained. Scholarships, jobs, positions of power… whatever opportunities she received for being an educated black woman were stolen from a real educated black woman. Stolen by a sneaking, scheming, lying white woman. This is a person who is supposed to improve race relations?

Perhaps the most frightening thing about this entire situation is the media handling of the story. There are articles popping up everywhere criticizing Ms. Dolezal’s parents for “outing” her. Really? Her parents should have gone along with fraud? With the outright mockery of black people? What world do we live in where this despicable person is supported for lying to obtain money and opportunities, but her parents are criticized for refusing to support that? It’s absolutely absurd.

Is this white guilt run amok? Judging by some of the comments on articles about this story, it would seem that at least a small segment of society feels Ms. Dolezal should want to be any other color than white and should be forgiven for her fraud because of this.

Another (admittedly smaller) segment of society compares this situation to the Bruce Jenner story. I understand the comparison on some level, but I don’t recall Bruce Jenner defrauding anybody, gender notwithstanding.

The saddest part is that, for whatever reason, Ms. Dolezal didn’t feel she could accomplish what she wanted as a white woman. Perhaps it goes back to when she attended Howard University. Apparently, the school was under the impression that she was black when they gave her a scholarship and accepted her, and when they saw her in person she was not treated very nicely. Maybe that made her believe that a white person attempting to help would not be taken seriously by the black community. Her brother reportedly stated that after she attended Howard University, she made many comments alluding to the fact that all white people are racist. Apparently, that’s what they teach there.

If you are serious about working on race relations, is this not where you should begin then? How does changing who you are help that particular problem? If you think that you cannot achieve what you want to achieve because of what you are, then instead of changing what you are or lying about it, shouldn’t you try to change the perception of what you are by being a better example of it? If you think you can’t do good work in the black community because of the way white people are perceived, pretending to be black while doing good works does not address this problem at all. In fact, it perpetuates it. Addressing it would be doing good works as a white person. That’s real change. This is just lies and foolishness.

If Rachel Dolezal truly cared about race relations in this country, instead of resigning in total disgrace, she’d have martyred herself. She should have stood up and said, “Yes I lied, but I felt that I had to because of the nature of race relations in this country. It’s something we really need to resolve so that people of every race and ethnicity can work together and no one ever feels the way I did again.” Instead, she took the coward’s way out. She resigned in disgrace, with absolutely no dignity.

In the end, this woman has made a mockery out of two races, at least two organizations and many, many people. Most of all, she made a mockery of herself. She’s destroyed her own credibility and integrity, which damages the good she’s done, possibly irreparably. All for a lie.


“Chemical Imbalance” Is A Real Thing — Right?

*Originally posted on my other blog, Modern Pioneer Magazine*

You often hear someone who takes psychiatric medications say they have a chemical imbalance, or that they’ve been told they have one. Literally billions of dollars have been made selling psycho-pharmacological drugs to cure this imbalance. Millions of people take them. The problem with this is that there is really no such thing as a chemical imbalance. It doesn’t exist. You see, if it were a real thing, it could be measured. You could have a test and see which chemicals are not balanced. If someone has diabetes and their pancreas does not make enough insulin, this can be measured and proven. If someone’s body does not make enough red blood cells, this can be measured and proven. It should theoretically be the same for a chemical imbalance. However, this test does not exist.

It should also be true that if chemical imbalance were a real thing, the same medication to correct an imbalance would work for everybody. Insulin doesn’t just sometimes not work for some people with diabetes who need insulin. It always works because the problem is quantifiable. This is not so with psychiatric medications. Not only do psychiatric medications not work the same for everybody, it is very often not known how psychiatric medications work inside the body at all. For example, many doctors – and patients – believe boosting serotonin levels helps fight depression. This is a very commonly-accepted medical theory. It was conceived in the 50’s and rose in popularity in the 80’s with the invention of Prozac and other medications like it. But regardless of what you’ve been told, this is not a fact. In fact, even after all this time there is still no proof of it at all and studies show that 60-70% of depressed patients do not respond to Prozac or similar drugs that boost serotonin. People are simply prescribed these medications – and ingest them – based on vogue theories, with no hard science to back them up, no idea how the drugs work, what the side- or long-term effects will be or anything else. This is dangerous and with many people on multiple medications now (often to counteract side-effects), it is no wonder that people have so many problems. This is especially true when you consider the fact that when a medication is found not to work, instead of discontinuing that medication, doctors will often just add more medication(s) to the medication(s) the person is already on.

Part of the reason the chemical imbalance theory became so popular is because doctors essentially made it up to sell drugs. Psycho-phamacological drugs to treat mental illness became much more popular and “mainstream” in the 80’s and 90’s, but people were still leery of labels due to the stigma attached to it and they were certainly unaccustomed to taking pills for something that was thought of as “all in their head.” So in order to demystify, de-stigmatize and put people at ease with taking a pill for a mental problem, doctors began making it sound as if the patient had a physical problem. Enter the chemical imbalance. This is not to say that many doctors did not wholeheartedly believe in the veracity of the chemical imbalance claim; undoubtedly many did and still do. This theory not only demystified mental illness for the patient, it demystified mental illness for doctors, too. It is supported by nothing, though.

Good health care should be about elimination first, not accession. The truth is that many so-called mental illness symptoms are caused by improper nutrition, chemical toxicity in the body, hormonal problems, reactions to environmental toxins, stress and many other things. Before any medication is prescribed, these things should be eliminated but they are generally never even mentioned to the patient at all. The patient is simply given pills and told to “call if there are problems.” This is very vague; patients often do not realize what these “problems” could be, or do not recognize them when they arise. Patients are not educated about side-effects or health risks when they are given prescriptions. They are certainly not told that no one (including their doctor) understands fully how these drugs interact with their bodies, and that they may do more harm than good, if they even do anything at all.

The major downside to the chemical imbalance theory and the resulting popularity of treating mental problems with drugs is that psychiatrists and even family doctors have become little more than pill pushers and other therapies which actually do work and which address the root of the problem rather than just the symptoms of the problem (such as the so-called “talking cure”) have fallen by the wayside. It has become about convenience rather than cure. Doctors gain much from this. Pharmaceutical companies gain much from this. The government gains much from this. Only the patient loses.


The Tamir Rice Shooting & Why You Picked The Wrong Martyr

The shooting of 12 year old Tamir Rice in Ohio is discussed.


Damaged. But Is It An Excuse?

As I have said in other posts on this blog, the world is becoming overrun with narcissists and sociopaths. These empty vessels are frighteningly easy to create and impossible to deconstruct. It is not their fault they are this way; they do not become such empty vessels by accident. It is almost always the result of childhood abuse, neglect or other repetitive childhood trauma. The question that then comes to mind is, “Are they to blame for their behavior?” After all, they are victims. At what point do they stop being victims and become perpetrators? Do they ever stop being victims?

These broken people walking around cannot help what they are. They cannot help the way they see the world, or the fact that they can only view other people as objects. They cannot help the fact that they are incapable of love or empathy. They were utterly failed in a very real, very sad way by whoever raised them. They are fundamentally broken, flawed and empty beings. It is not even precisely right to call them human beings; the internal landscape of the narcissist and the sociopath is barren. Alien. It is obvious to many people. Many who come in contact with these vacant containers feel right away that something is off or wrong about them. And it is. They walk around mirroring and pretending for their entire lives, trying to mimic normal, integrated human behavior and listening to an incessant, sadistic and vicious superego that tells them how disgusting, awful and terrible they are 24 hours a day. The pressure of this is crushing. The stress is unrelenting and there is no escape from it. So are they to blame for doing things that give them relief from this torment?

Yes. They absolutely are.

Narcissists and sociopaths know that what they are doing is wrong. Maybe not morally, maybe not personally but they know that this is not how normal people behave because society does not condone or approve of it. If they thought it was OK, they would not conceal their behavior or go to such lengths to ensure that people never find out who and what they really are. Because of this, they can and should be held responsible for their behavior and their actions. Hiding or excusing what they’ve done only permits them to continue to wreak havoc, destroy lives and hurt people. Hold them up to the light. Bring their behavior out where people can see it. They are afraid of being exposed and it is your only hope of stopping them.


Feminism & Chauvinism In Our Relationships

I’m so tired of the whole feminist/chauvinist thing, especially regarding relationships. All you hear all damn day long is “Stop kissing these hoes’ asses!” and “Stop letting these bastards oppress you!” #nomoresimping #yesallwoman everywhere. Well, here is my advice to all of you:

There are many different kinds of people. There are just as many different kinds of relationships. Some you may feel are more equal than others. Here’s the thing about that, though: It’s absolutely none of your business. None. At all. It does not matter what you think the societal implications of such a relationship might be. It doesn’t matter what you think the long-term chances of such a relationship might be. It doesn’t matter what you think of the motives of the parties in the relationship, their feelings or anything else. It. Does. Not. Matter. What consenting adults do is not your concern in any way, shape or form. Your judgement is not needed or welcome. Period.

I cook for my husband. I clean up after him. I bathe him sometimes. I brush his hair, I shave him, I cut his hair. I massage him. I made him French toast at 4 o’clock in the morning the other night. He gets what he wants. In return, I ask for respect, faithfulness and kindness. He doesn’t ask me to do these things, or tell me to. I want to do them. I like doing these things. It’s my personality. I don’t see him as superior to me, or feel I have to do anything for him at all. I just like doing things for people I care about. It makes me happy. I’m (obviously) no shrinking violet; I’m fully capable of standing up for my rights should they be trod upon. But then I have people saying things like, “This ain’t the 1950’s. Come out of the kitchen. He’s oppressing you.” as if it could never be my choice. My answer is always the same thing: “You’re right. This isn’t the 1950’s. It’s the year 2014 and that means I can choose to do whatever I want to do. Stop trying to ‘liberate’ me out of my personal choices.” Liberation and independence are supposed to be about doing what you want to do and making your own choices, not the choices that everyone else agrees with or thinks you should make. On Facebook, someone made a great point about Muslim women, and how Non-Muslim Americans want to “liberate” these women of their head coverings without even sparing a thought to the fact that Muslim women choose to wear them. 

People who engage in this type of ridiculous judgment and life-policing are the reason for all of this BS, because they simply cannot keep their noses out of other people’s business. If a man wants to elevate his woman to the status of Empress of the Universe, that’s not your business. If a woman wants to wait on her man hand and foot as if he were God Himself, that’s not your business. As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, nobody’s marriage or relationship is your business. So instead of worrying about all the other men and women in the world and why they are not doing exactly what YOU think is the right thing, worry about your own partner and your own life.

And shut the fuck up, too.


My Message To The Anti-Rape Culture Brigade: Enough, Already!

As I’ve stated in other posts, I have a few problems with the anti-rape culture movement. The purpose of the anti-rape culture movement seems to be to reduce women once again to helpless victims. To me it looks like women who are being groomed to be victims because they are being taught that they have no power here. I stand in staunch opposition to this and always will. Thinking that more education and sensitivity training is going to protect you in this world is a pipe-dream and it’s a dangerous one. You cannot “cure” or educate someone out of being a rapist. It is impossible. Making women put on clothes is not going to change things and women running around naked telling everyone not to look is not going to change things, because these things have nothing to do with why rape occurs. Rape occurs because a person feels powerless and wants to assert control over another human being in order to feel more powerful. No amount of sloganeering or naked protestation is going to change that.

This video is my statement to the anti-rape culture brigade: Enough, already! THIS is why rape occurs: because a person puts (or sees) another person in a vulnerable situation and takes advantage of them. Period.

It has nothing to do with any of the political bullshit that these assholes are talking about. It is not society causing it. It is not because of some lack of education or sensitivity. People don’t need to be “taught not to rape,” because people already know that rape is wrong. They do it anyway because they don’t care.

This video is also a rebellion against being branded as a sex object. Attempts were made to look not sexy but pathetic. The simulated rape and forced servitude shown here is not just the message but the subtext as well; it is symbolic of being forced into a role you do not want to occupy.


“First they came for the Communists…”

I am not religious but the growing discrimination against Christians and religious people in general is beginning to alarm me. Those who I’ve debated with don’t seem to really be offended on behalf of gays or women or other hot button issues. Not really. They seem to have actually been offended by the mere mention of religion. For many, it seems to be a platform for them to express their own bigoted and discriminatory views — against Christians and/or religion in general. I’m no expert but it would seem that the answer to perceived bigotry and discrimination can hardly be more bigotry and discrimination.

I find it sad and a shame that people who claim they are all about equality and fair treatment for all just ignore this, or worse – they participate in it. Discrimination against anybody should alarm everybody. But it doesn’t, and that alarms me. I really feel that if, say, religious people were all rounded up to be shot simply for being religious, many of the people in this country would not protest or even care. I find that terrifying. “First they came for the Communists” and all that.

What I don’t get is, do they not realize how easily that actually could be them? Do they really think that could never happen? What about when it’s me? What about when it’s you? I tell myself every day not to give in to my ego or superego or whichever it is; that people cannot possibly be as stupid as I sometimes think they are. But every day I hear things like that (“Oh, it’s OK if it’s them, because it’ll never be me!”) and it gets harder and harder to believe that. I think they really do believe that. It’s frightening.

But what can you say about a society where scientific studies are done and psychiatric illnesses are dreamed up solely for the reason of giving people an excuse to escape personal responsibility? Not much, I guess.


Hypocrites. Aren’t We All?

As I talked about in my blog on Modern Pioneer Magazine, “Why Working From Home Could Be The Best Way To Go Green,” working from home may be one of the biggest things you can do to go green this year. No commute. No traffic. No gas. No emissions. No rush. No being forced to eat garbage food from fast food restaurants. Less stress, less hassle, less worry about daycare. It’s all around a better gig than the daily grind for sure. You make your own hours, you’re your own boss and you still get paid.

I’ve had some conflicts over it though. I am very against the digitalization of modern society, yet I do inbound customer service for a huge wireless company. It’s pretty ironic when you think about it. My job is to promote and propagate one of the things I hate the most. It makes for interesting internal conflicts, especially considering the fact that I actually like my job. I like problem-solving, I like the challenge and I like the interaction. I hate the product. I hate what it stands for. I hate that it seems to control people’s lives.

How do I rationalize that? I don’t. I don’t justify it either. It is what it is. I earn money contributing to what I believe is a cancer upon society. There is no denying it. I guess in some way, most of us do the same thing. But the money I earn goes toward creating a(n eventually) self-sufficient lifestyle. It goes to help fund small businesses and struggling artists. It goes to help animals in need. It supports small farms. It funds a message I strongly believe in. It’s not a perfect situation but what is?

I guess in the end, all we can do is find a way to live with ourselves for the concessions we have to make.