If you make any personal decision in your life, that is made solely on the criteria of skin color and/or cultural background, excluding all other criteria, it is a racist decision.
Voting for a fellow black person, solely because they are black, is a racist decision. The motivation is racist. It fits the definition. If a white person stepped forward and declared the same motive, for another white person,it would be quickly labeled thus. If a white person votes for a black person solely because they are black, out of sympathy or guilt or whatever, it is a racist decision.
Voting for a hispanic person, solely because you think that voting for a hispanic person advances the cause of hispanic people, is a racist decision. It fits the definition. The motivation is racist. If a hispanic person did this, they would be excoriated by other hispanics for being a tool of whites. They would be right. When a white person does it, they should be excoriated for being a slave to some bogus politically correct guilt conscience, implanted into their psyche, by a racist liberal mindset.
If you promote a person solely on skin color, it is a racist decision. It fits the definition. Nobody wants to be operated on by a surgeon who got his diploma handed over by a affirmative action policy. Nobody wants their anti-lock brakes or their airbags designed by anyone who was given a better grade, based on skin tone, instead of engineering acumen. Racism hurts everyone. Affirmative action, as is practiced today, is affirmative racism. It makes liberals feel good, while it hurts the public as a body, and destroys the achievement of minorities who try to excel, purely based on character content and merit based excellence.
Everybody should be measured by performance excellence and achievement. Honor rolls are not criminal acts. They are metric mandates for a healthy nation and culture. This does not mean under-achievers are discarded.
Some people are better at the game of life than others. Live with that fact. Nature intended it that way, so competition would move us all forward. It is a law of nature, so in the long run, it will not be ignored.
People that excel, should be rewarded, praised, lauded and ushered into their specialty, without delay. Their achievement should not be moderated, mediated and attenuated to rescue the feelings of others from comparison.
Personal responsibility is fast becoming a passing fad in this country. I cannot express how extraordinarily dangerous this trend is. The Chinese, the Indians and the Asian capitalists and even the terrorists will not look upon our struggling heroin addicted misunderstood population of artistic celebrities and homeless types with the jaded eyes of secular humanism. They will take all of the power in this world. They will seize the energy, the technologies, the markets and all of the physical and intellectual property. It is as simple as that.
This sudden rise in Obama's popularity is beginning to look exactly like the same template Deval Patrick used, here in Assachusetts, to become governor. Here you have a completely empty and image driven platform, coated in multi-cultural teflon. Race is now a tool that will be pimped, ad nauseum, for points at the polls. It is leverage. In spite of the MLK dream of people being judged by character content, the new racists, like Jackson, Sharpton and their army of guilt driven liberals, will now use their racism as a tool for political leverage.
If this guy is nominated, Condi may have to be the anitdote, whether we like it or not, to expose this ugly trend in the system.
Of course, this will, by my own definition, be a racist decision. That is just too damn bad.
.
4 comments:
I cannot express how extraordinarily dangerous this trend is. The Chinese, the Indians and the Asian capitalists and even the terrorists will not look upon our struggling heroin addicted misunderstood population of artistic celebrities and homeless types with the jaded eyes of secular humanism.
I just started re-reading Niven & Pournelle's "Lucifer's Hammer" to see what hope they thought we had in the face of adversity, back in the 70's. Their take on the John Galt's of our culture is probably on the mark, right? They lived right in the midst of the movers and the creators for many years.
I read this book a long time ago (high school). I loved Niven back then. World out of Time was another commentary, early in the book, on the corrosive decay of worldwide bureaucracy. It was depicted from the eyes of a person displaced in time. Much like Huxley's Brave New World, only on a grand time scale.
The Galt's will always be with us. People with a pragmatic view, who know the value of trade and property. There will always be people with the skills to leverage achievement and reward team thinkers and players with the class recognition they deserve. Our pool of true leadership is being smothered by this victim culture.
I dearly hope it does not take a civilization shattering event to exhume that talent, as it did in Lucifer's Hammer.
Wasn't there a story of how Pournelle, Niven and General Danny Graham wrote the SDI portion of Reagan's 1983 speech in Niven's living room? SDI lead directly to Gorbachev's confrontation with the Soviet Polyus anti-SDI team, which went on to stage the coup against Gorbachev, which brought out Yeltsin.
...wrote the SDI portion
JP claims that some of the 1983 speech components were written by the Citizen's Advisory Council on National Space Policy. In a criticism of Norm Spinrad's claims, He said he and his colleagues did not write the SDI speech; Reagan did.
He also asserts that everyone's goal was to win the cold war, not to fund the space program on the back of SDI for funding sake. He said that if low cost space technologies were a side beneficial side effect, that would be good.
He cites NASA's intentinal burn up of the DC/X program, as an excuse to continue shuttle developemnt.
Post a Comment