Whimsical Worrisome Words

I grew up opposing racism, because I was born in a country that had not come to grips with its own issues about race.

I have been blessed with daughters and granddaughters and wanting the best for them, I speak out against sexism.

As I have gotten older, and seen people of the baby boom generation pushed to the sides in the name of progress, I have become sensitive to agism.

Various  isms are used to divide, desensitize and compartmentalize people. Some people bank on the premise that if you are not part of a group under attack or subject to ridicule, you will not care about such things or might even join in.

I thought long and hard about what I could write about the bumper sticker campaign that attempts to twist the "N-word" in a free-speech protected statement against President Obama's reelection effort.

It has already been labeled racist, but I think it is just a symptom of a broader backlash of bigotry being embraced for political reasons.


There are some who would harness the collective anger of individuals who have somehow convinced themselves that a coalition of formerly underprivileged or disadvantaged classes are out to take away their rights.

If you do not enjoy the same institutionalized advantages that your father or grandfather enjoyed, then you might consider attempts to equalize the rights others as a reduction of your own.

The bumper sticker flap from March 15 triggered some interesting comments, particularly as some people I know tried to get others to at least admit the bumper sticker, the idea behind it and the language used as racist.  They included two responses from the same guy, whom I know is a broadcaster in Texas:

"Ever since 2004, the prevailing sick reasoning is that it's some kind of crime to be a conservative. And we "allow" it by not fighting back." He also said "The thing that bothers me most is this constant barrage from the Left that conservatives are "racist". And yet, I've never seen a more racist person than Al Sharpton. No one calls him on it. He gets the proverbial free pass from the MSM."

I am not clear about the motivation for this feeling of "persecution" as it was put to me. But I have heard it before. It strikes me that this unapologetic conservative is willing to defend the promotion of various isms, by what he perceives as acceptance of isms by the so-called mainstream media and by inference a broader society hell-bent on destroying conservatism.

Could that be just excuse to buy into bigotry?  It's funny that just a few decades after America laughed at the outdated bigotry of Archie Bunker and George Jefferson on popular  TV sitcoms, we now have the far less funny  nastiness of Talk Radio.

The things heard daily on the air provide the angry with outlets to buy into bigotry they that don't get much anymore.

Most people don't go around using words like "honey, baby or sweetie" on the job because they are considered sexist.  Uttering various ethnic, or racial labels that were once commonly heard on the streets of most cities can carry perilous consequences. It is considered tasteless to refer to the physically or mentally challenged as "cripples" or "retards"  today.

 There are now sections in a lot of school systems "codes of student conduct" that make use of many of these terms grounds for discipline.

At many jobs there are policies in place that recognize that such language can create an uncomfortable work environment. People who say them or display them are likely to hear from the boss, the human resources department, or attorneys representing an offended party pretty quickly.

Discouragement of use of the "N-word" is something something some of us have worked for in recent years. These days, we are seeing a backlash from those who likely once used such terms without consequence.
Some smirk smugly through their denials of racism, sexism and xenophobic commentaries.

No matter how often they smile and say "I am not a racist," or "I am not a sexist," or "I am not an agist," the realities of their words, and the tolerance and acceptance of the sentiments means they may be a bigot.

The question is, who will they dislike next, and is that something most of us want to easily accept?

Misdirected Anger

The deaths of 16 Afghan villagers was a tragedy.  That it allegedly occurred at the hands of an American soldier is unfortunate. 

Sad things happen in war, and military doctors and judge advocate office investigators will sort through the reasons why. 

Still, the disturbing backlash of violence now being blamed upon this isolated act is every bit as tragic.

In Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Israel, Lebanon, Kenya, France,Turkey, the United Kingdom, Uzbekistan and the United States, terrorist violence has repeatedly been used as a political weapon.  

It moves well beyond the limits of "by any means necessary" to the senseless slaughter of innocents.  Victimizing  civilian populations for political gain is a strategy worthy of universal condemnation.  

NATO and the United States have had successes building alliances with locals willing to hunt down killers who use terror as tools of death and fear. Collateral damage should not be an acceptable means of bringing about change.

The vocal indignation registered by those led would rule Afghanistan is meaningless. They have had years to step and and take control of their country, but corruption and graft have kept them from reaching that goal. Silk robes and posturing politics do not represent power to a people still waiting for basic services.

If the American soldier allegedly involved turns out to be responsible for the killings, he will face justice before a U.S. military tribunal. International security forces maintain the right to discipline their own.

Once the Afghans can handle the security of their own cities, villages and their entire country, they will have the right to subject foreign nationals to justice in their own courts.  For now, that is not only impossible, it is out out of the question.

Universal condemnation of terrorism, and no quarter for those who would target the powerless represents a course that leads toward a more peaceful world.To not negotiate with terrorists is no longer enough.

The threat they represent is ample enough to warrant pre-emptive actions.  It is  why the drones of the United States are armed and continue to strike when intelligence warrants a deserving target. It is a foreign policy approach that is paying dividends. Others in the world should adopt that approach. 

Anal Anger

I urge you to tune in for 15 minutes to the conservative diatribes, character assassinations and spin control orbiting little nuggets of the news. It will give you a reality check and may explain why the most anal, nasty, raisin-hearted individuals you cross paths with always seem angry.

For 1158 days, a cast of assorted characters has been incessantly wailing away at Barack Obama.  They rant about his birth certificate, insult his wife and then apologize, and completely ignore the reality of his lineage.

I won’t say that it is a 24/7 thing. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I would suggest that they take a Sabbath off from time to time.  But for nearly 243,000 hours there have been numerous angry people ranting about the current president and Democrats and independents who disagree with their outlook. 

Someone you work with, or someone you know has been buying into this crap day after day, week after week, and ingesting it hours at a time. They have been hearing from angry voices railing against what they believe is a seditious and conspiratorial threat against everything they hold sacred.

They have been spoon fed and force fed terms like “Utopiast,” “radical left-wing liberal,” “redistributors of wealth,” and other assorted labels that essentially mean “they disagree with us.”

Many of these people have accepted a constant diet of this for upwards of three years. It began when President Obama won election in 2008 and has intensified since then. I have been listening the last few days, and I can say without any doubt that there is not a bare space open and ready to receive a less strident perspective.

There are no comparable voices from a more moderate outlook. Perhaps it is because nobody can sound that angry day after day after day.  It is easy to imagine hearing this for so long and having your body lock up from the adrenaline rush. 

The results are either the most intense headache, or a feeling of fullness so extreme it makes you grind your teeth.

Now think about it? In your life, whether it is at work, or in your personal life, is there someone you know who has just bought into all the partisan labels? Are they so negative that they mutter and parrot all the claims that any American president is so dead-set on destroying the country that they would make it a matter of his national policy?

For them, it’s far too late for a chill pill. They may not even respond to a good laxative. Some of them have not had any ideological relief in nearly four years. They are locked up and bloated with impacted outlooks.

Let’s hope they go soon. If they don’t and things do not go their way Nov. 6, they may well explode. Then, we may ask the remnants of the Tea Party to clean up the mess. 

TV: It's Like an Education

Is it just me, or does Newt Gingrich's pragmatic style remind anyone else of Pat Buchanan in the run up to the 1996 campaign?

Say anything with enough conviction and years of too much exposure on a cable news show and you will sound more authoritative than most ordinary politicians.

We'll have to wait and see if GOP voters find much substance in his style.