Archive for the ‘Gritching’ Category

Is it just me, or does the political rhetoric and milquetoast responses we seem to be getting out of the current administration in response to current events unfolding in the Middle East seem almost like the responses of a battered spouse?  An angry mob storms our embassy and desecrates our flag, and our embassador apologizes?

I can’t help but picture some drunk, ill-bred mouth breather in a sweat stained t-shirt who rolls in after a particularly bad bender and just lays into his poor wife, beating her and throwing her around.  “WHY do you MAKE me DO this?!” he screams, with blow after blow.  “You JUST. DON’T. LISTEN!!!!”

She cowers in a corner, covering her face, and sobs out, “I know, I know.  I’m sorry. It’s my fault.  I’ll try harder. I promise!  Just…please…don’t hit me again.”

Time and again radical islamic terrorists attack our people, our facilities, our country’s honor, and “we” opt for a “measured response.”  We don’t want to make them angry.  We strike a conciliatory tone, hoping to “defuse” the tension and forestall another confrontation.

Which only ensures that there WILL be another confrontation, because, really, what’s to stop them? Time and again we prove that we won’t fight back, that we won’t respond with the kind of overwhelming, crushing force which would actually serve as a deterrent.

In other words, we act like a victim.  Hoping to placate our attackers so they won’t hurt us.  Or at least, won’t hurt us as often, maybe.  Or, you know, as bad.  If we just make sure to say the right things, to do the right things, to make sure we make his dinner just like he likes it, and don’t dare talk to him during his football game, because we know how angry he gets when we forget our place.

Me, on the other hand, I’m thinking it’s time for a little “Burning Bed” action instead.

The always engaging Sobek has a brilliant post up over at Innocent Bystanders that pretty much says it all.  Highly recommended reading!

So, I have determined that it is only appropriate to focus on a person’s race or gender if you are “heralding” it.  Judge Sonomayor is being “heralded” as the first hispanic Supreme Court Justice.  Barack Obama is “heralded” as the first black president.  Every month is some sort of minority appreciation month where we “herald” the contributions of blacks, pacific islanders, native americans, women, children, those with a cleft palate, the tone deaf and wiccan transgendered performance artists.  Okay, I might have made up those last few.

So, lemme get this straight.  Basing your decision on whether or not to pull someone over for a traffic stop or to give them “extra screening” at the airport based on their race or gender is BAD, profiling, ptooie, but basing your decision on whether or not someone should sit on the Supreme Court of the United States in large measure because of their race and gender is GOOD?  Hoookayyyy….

If you believe that, by nature  of her gender or her ethnicity, Judge Sonia Sonomayor has some unique and/or unmatchable ability to perform her job as Supreme court justice, you are a racialist.  She certainly seems to think so, as per her much quoted sentiment:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Did she mean in general, or merely with respect to women’s issues, or Latino issues?  Which, of course, then begs the question, why do we need a special set of rules or a unique viewpoint to properly and impartially apply the law to women and/or Latinos?  How is suggesting that a latino woman is somehow inherently more capable of making the correct decision than a white man at its core any different from barring blacks from military service because they aren’t “smart enough?”

Answer:  No difference whatsoever.

There is of course that touchy-feely, squishy-guishy idea that a minority woman should be cherished and protected because of her unique perspective based on her upbringing and challenges.  Bollocks.  That’s called “coddling,” and it promotes all sorts of enabling behaviors that cause us to overlook clear and present concerns with the performance and methods of an individual or group out of some misguided sense that we should not “quell their voice.”  

Sure, let ‘em talk.  Just don’t let them make “policy” from the bench!

So, lemme ask.  Whyizzit that a white South African man who emigrated to the US last week is on his own, has to compete in the marketplace just like everybody else, and is lucky if he can avoid paying out-of-state tuition at a college, but a black man whose ancestors came to this country 185 years ago is an “African-American minority” who deserves special consideration in hiring, academic scholarships, and other  quota-based entitlements?   How long until “minorities” are required to just be “Americans,” and compete on an equal and impartial basis with the rest of us genetic misfits, especially when a lot of them would be hard-pressed to find Africa on a map?!

There is NO EQUALITY where there is PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.

If all men (and women) are created equal with respect to the law, then they MUST be treated equally.   NOT given undue priviledge based on a real or perceived injustice now divorced from their present situation by several generations.

One would hope that the selection for a Supreme Court justice would be completely blind to race, skin color, gender or taste in music.  One would HOPE that we would simply chose the most qualified individual for the job, REGARDLESS of the nature of the adjectives one might ascribe to their appearance!

But no, it would appear that we still have a LONG way to go in the area of equal rights in this country. 

If Sonia Sonomayor is qualified for that seat on the Supreme Court, good on ‘er.   BUT.  She must be qualified because of her experience as a judge, her demonstrated performance as a jurist, and her proven and demonstrable committment to upholding the principles of established Constitutional law.

Not because she’s a latina chic.

In keeping with my overall mood of late, I’ve decided to spontaneously create a meme called “Things I Hate,” the first in what it likely to become a regular series of installments, unless I by some amazing miracle get run over by the Perkiness and Happiness Steamroller.  So, without further ado, Things I Hate Hate With The Intensity of 70 Burning Suns Going SuperNova:

- People that call an office phone and let it ring 13 effin’ times.  Folks, most offices these days are pretty small, and if they don’t pick up by the fourth ring, guess what?  THEY AREN’T FUCKING THERE!  Staying on the line for the next ‘leventy rings accomplishes nothing but sending his poor hapless office-mates into a fit of blind seething rage such that if they were ever able to find out who you are, and where you live, they would immediately jump into their car, run on over, and stuff that phone up your ass.  And by “they” I’m sure you realize, I mean ME!

- Also phone related, people who 1) insist on using the speaker phone, and 2) use the speaker phone like it is a window across a busy street, and you are on the other side.  Thus, they have to YELL TO BE HEARD OVER ALL THE TRAFFIC, RIGHT?  BECAUSE IT’S NOT TECHNOLOGY, IT’S A CAN AND A PIECE OF STRING, AND SO I HAVE TO YELL LIKE THIS SO YOU’LL BE ABLE TO HEAR ME CLEAR ACROSS THE EVER-LOVING UNITED STATES.  Folks, technology is real. It works. Most speaker phones are TOO sensitive, such that you can hear some guy fart three cubicles over whenever you’re having that conference call.  So please, speak in a conversational tone, such that I don’t have to come over and pull a Terry Tate on yo ass.

- The word “Di’nt.” You know, as in, “Oh no you DI’NT!?”.  Folks, there are two, count ‘em, TWO “D’s” in that word.  Use them.  They were put there for a reason.  Saying “di’nt” doesn’t make you sound hip, it makes you sound like you have a speech impediment.  Or are perhaps ever-so-slightly retarded.

- White people who use phrases like “I’m down wit it.”  Guys, gals, come on.  If you’re melanin challenged, then leave it alone. It’s not for you.

- And lastly – Dudes.  Pull. Up. Your. PANTS!  As mentioned above, it does not make you look hip, or cool, or “down”, or street.  It makes you look developmentally disabled.  Or worse – just plain stupid.  It doesn’t proclaim your individuality, it proclaims that you are unable to perform such basic functions as dressing yourself in the morning.   Walking around with your boxers bunched up  in your crotch, with a belt riding mid-thigh as you constantly hitch your pants up an walk with that lurching, shuffling gate doesn’t say “cool,” it says “I’m a walk-away from some institution.  Please call the number on my red aluminum bracelet.”