Note that this article is heavily contextual to issues within the United States; some of these issues have already been resolved in other parts of the world, and in others, social circumstances have either yet to reach the point at which they become relevant, or the nature of the society itself prevents relevance. Those of you who live elsewhere in the world in some aspects have a greater advantage of objectivity in the logical handling of these issues. Unfortunately, however, many of these issues have parallels that are global and universal to the human condition.
Andy Rooney:
I don't think being a minority makes you a victim of anything except numbers. The only things I can think of that are truly discriminatory are things like the United Negro College Fund, Jet Magazine, Black Entertainment Television, and Miss Black America....
I have heard similar arguments, and they're pretty good. I find it most helpful in terms of resolving the question of race is to remove the concepts of "black" and "white" and substitute variables such as "X" and "Y." This eliminates the emotionally charged elements and allows one to address the problem from a purely logical standpoint. When this is done, Andy Rooney's arguments hold true. From a logical standpoint, B.E.T. is an implied advocate of segregation.
Obviously, this isn't what they're intending. But, it's what the end result is. Terms like "counter-racism" and "reverse discrimination" have been developed, but they're only meaningful inside the context of the current social climate. Logically, "reverse discrimination" is simply discrimination.
My own observation is that racism (and "reverse racism," which is simply racism from the perspective of someone not traditionally used to being on the other end of it) is the result of an elaborate illusion. Ancestory reveals a time when racial seperation was far more real. But, time has paved the way for some equalization. Still, I grant, there's room for improvement, but the emergence of some affluent minorities has helped to break down barriers.
The real issue isn't race; it's poverty. Most racists are poverty-stricken. They can be the whites who form white supremacist groups, or they can be the various minorities, who blame the white man for their ills. But, the simple reality is, the overwhelming majority of rich minority people and their rich white neighbors get along just fine. You don't see gangs of upper middle class professionals dividing themselves into racial groups, unless they're politicians appealing to voters, or they're on trial for murder.
Guns do not make you a killer. I think killing makes you a killer. You can kill someone with a baseball bat or a car, but no one is trying to ban you from driving to the ball game.
I oppose gun control myself, but this is not a valid argument. I will not use a logically poor argument to defend a position that I believe; I'd rather use real reasons.
It's a poor argument, because it assumes that bats, cars, and guns are essentially similar devices. There is a very important difference that this argument intentionally avoids. Guns are designed for the express purpose of killing. Cars are a mode of transportation, and baseball bats are intended first and foremost as sports equipment. The use of a bat as a weapon is fairly easy to determine, and its evolutionary ancestory to a medieval mace is noticable. But, it's intended first for sport, a channelling of aggression away from killing. The overwhelming majority of car-related deaths, even factoring in drunk driving, is unplanned and accidental.
I oppose restricting gun control because it historically has been shown to be used by totalitarian regimes as a way of controlling the population. It's one of the first things Hitler did when he came to power. It also disarms private citizens more readily than it does criminals. But, I don't support weaker arguments, like "it's in the Second Amendment." Those of us here in America can speculate all we want about what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they said that having a well-armed millitia requires private citizens to have rights to bare arms; the simple fact is, it was written inside the context of colonial days, and it's interpretation today is speculative.
I believe they are called the Boy Scouts for a reason, that is why there are no girls allowed. Girls belong in the Girl Scouts!
Andy, I'm going to have to call you on this one. Just a few paragraphs earlier, you were making great arguments attacking segregation. This statement endorses it.
I have the right "NOT" to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.
No you don't, Andy. Can you back that up?
When 70% of the people who get arrested are black, in cities where 70% of the population is black, that is not racial profiling, it is the Law of Probability.
And now he's logically valid again.
I believe that if you are selling me a milkshake, a pack of cigarettes, a newspaper or a hotel room, you must do it in English!
To those of you outside the U.S., he's referring to our rapidly growing minority who speak only Spanish, largely a migration from Mexico. The funny thing is, they're a hybrid of Europeans--the same ancestors as the white majority--and the Native Americans, the discrimination and displacement of whom is legendary. Though I am not an advocate of going through the complicated process of "reparations," in which various races tally up all the things that other races owe them, I do find the present-day disgruntlement by white people about the Hispanic "invasion" an amusing irony.
That aside, there are practical advantages to a common language. It makes sense that everyone can understand each other. And, it is far more practical for 10% of people to learn English as a second language than 90% to learn Spanish as one, even factoring in that English is a harder language to learn. So much of the United States is already developed around English, and the process of converting so much of it over is inherantly impractical.
I consider the idea of making English a national language a valid one, but unfortunately, I have to question the motives of most of the people who have proposed it. It's main champions unfortunately have been people like David Duke, a Congressional for Louisiana who's former leadership within the Klu Klux Klan hate group is well known. I would like to see this idea promoted by people who are more clearly impartial, and to see it presented as a measure of practicality, without being condescending of those who don't already speak English.
I think the police should have every right to shoot your sorry a** if you threaten them after they tell you to stop.
Yeah, I'll agree on this one.
If you can't understand the word "freeze" or "stop" in English, see the above lines.
This is one example of why approaching English as a "national language" from a practical standpoint without making the effort to be as blatently racist as possible in the process might be a good idea. Police officers and medical personell need to be able to communicate with people.
I don't think just because you were not born in this country, you are qualified for any special loan programs, government sponsored bank loans or tax breaks, etc., so you can open a hotel, coffee shop, trinket store, or any other business.
To those of you outside the U.S., this is one of the things that is creating a lot of controversy over here. Our government is actually offering some benefits to people who have entered our country even illegally, that are not available to our own citizens.
Perhaps it can be seen as an example of our government's incompetence. Perhaps these are benefits that
should be available to our citizens. As a health care professional, I can say that the United States has quite possibly both the best and the worst health care system in the world. If you can afford private insurance, you might have a chance to be cured of pancreatic cancer at M.D. Anderson, a hospital about fifteen miles from where I live, and one of the leading centers in the world for cancer research. But, if you're making minimum wage, you probably have to tough out a cold, because you can't afford an office visit and antibiotics. Weirdly enough, people who make less than you because they don't work are eligible for government aid, and can be seen for free, even the same day by an emergency room, for that sore throat and cough. One of the leading causes of bankruptcy in the middle class and financial destitution among the working class is medical bills.
I know pro wrestling is fake, but so are movies and television. That doesn't stop you from watching them.
A minor issue compared to the above points.
I think Bill Gates has every right to keep every penny he made and continue to make more.
As long as he's not doing monopolistic tactics. But, he is. Still, he's done some good things as well. He's a juggernaut and a force of nature, best not reduced to "good" or "evil."
It doesn't take a whole village to raise a child right, but it does take a parent to stand up to the kid...
It takes competent parents, and it is darn-near impossible to ensure that every single two of them are. Therefore, it's good to have backup, to help ensure that all the kids have someone to expose them to intelligence. So many people today are the way they are because that's what they grew up in. (Yes, I ended on a preposition.)
I think tattoos and piercing are fine if you want them, but please don't pretend they are a political statement.
Throughout most of history, they were a symbol of social conformity. Now they perhaps still are, as a symbol of membership within one of several counter-culture movements. The good news is, they're gaining respectability.
I am sick of "Political Correctness."...
"Politically Correct" is a term to describe the present social consensus; it is usually used by someone about to express disagreement with it.
Taking a Gestalt approach, since it's the "in" thing...
! I hate when organizations tweak statistics to make it sound like there is something wrong with are juditial system, when it's just plane commen sence!
