Redistributive Vocabulary

June 25, 2011

What is a liberal? Look it up in the dictionary and you’ll get confused. That’s because in most of the rest of the world, “liberal” basically means conservative or more specifically, libertarian. This is because, some years ago, Progressives figured out they were unpopular so they began identifying themselves with Democrats. When Democrats realized they were identified as “liberal” and that was unpopular, the move back to “progressive” was on. They didn’t change their policies or ideology. Instead, they changed their label.

“Words have meanings” is a common political football of a phrase. Nobody knows this better than the party of a thousand verbal disguises. Ronald Reagan made one of the best references to this phenomenon when he criticized JIimmy Carter for saying that the US was not in a recession because of the very technical definition of the word that Carter fished out of a textbook. “Millions of Americans are suffering and Jimmy Carter chooses to hide behind a dictionary.” That’s not an exact quote but it’s close enough I don’t feel like looking it up.

Most people will be familiar with many of these ploys. Take for example “illegal immigrants” who are now “undocumented workers” much as I was an “undocumented pharmacist” many years ago. Not only is the attempt to shift public opinion by infusing the label with excessive nuance, it’s also an attempt to shift the debate by changing the definition. If “illegal immigration is a problem, we look to the LAW and IMMIGRATION to formulate a solution. If we like our law, then the solution to illegal immigration is to enforce immigration law. If the problem is “undocumented workers” we’re talking about people who are working (supposedly but irrelevant) who lack “documentation” (something that is in the left’s wheel house – more bureaucratic busy-work we can use to funnel taxpayer money into the hands of ivy-league pencil pushers with law degrees).

I was in an argument with your average twitter liberal/nihilist troll yesterday in which I was maintaining that Barack Obama was a War Criminal. He called me a liar. My response was thatCongress had debated about whether or not the President had violated the War Powers act and, in a bipartisan vote, decided that he had. So I argue, he broke a LAW concerning WAR – hence he was found “guilty” by a jury of his peers, or as close as you can come to it. Simple, really, but NO…we had to debate whether or not this was a formal charge. We didn’t even get into the President’s ridiculous claim that he was in the clear because bombing Libya didn’t constitute “hostilities.” SRSLY?  If you buy that line of crap, I feel like I can take all your stuff and argue it wasn’t theft. Words may have meanings but that hardly matters to the ideology and attached political party that has brought you such classics as “Well it depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”


The Word “The” is Racist

May 12, 2011

The race card in American politics is well beyond the point of absurdity and now threatens to become a permanent red herring in all conversations about policy. Liberals tend to consistently make the argument that practically any criticism of the President or liberals in general is racist. Case in point: calling Obama a “two-bit thug” seems perfectly reasonable and race neutral if you examine and explain his bullying tactics but IN CONTEXT because he is black, the word “thug” can only bring about discussion of the stereotypes of violent black youths.  This is fundamentally different from identifying a statement as racist “prima facie” meaning “on its face.” Any example of this would be “white people are dumb.” Here we clearly have the target identified and a negative generalization made. Contextual racism in statements requires both a contextual target and a reasoned argument. With Barack Obama in the white house, liberals believe they have a persistent contextual target leading me and others to wonder if America is racially mature enough for a black president. If we can’t disagree with the President for fear of being labeled a racist, is he then free to govern as badly as he wants? As far reasoned arguments go, though, there is absolutely no quality standard anymore and to illustrate that, I will explain how the word “the” can be viewed as racist code. I was taught in the same fashion as the intelligentsia that makes stupid arguments on behalf of socialists they like so this is easy for me.

Obviously racist statement: “The Obama administration is ruining America.”

Racist code word: “The”

Explanation: the definitive article “the” performs the grammatical function of singling something out. This is different than the article “a/an” which simply identifies it’s object as part of a set or series (group). This can be used as a racist statement in two ways. The first is that since “the” defines a singular object, its use by a member of the majority or dominant ethnicity puts it at odds with uses by minority ethnicities. When this conflict occurs, the “the” used by the majority takes precedence, creating a  grammatical tool for dominance which discredits minority views. White me says “the administration” which because of my status makes black you’s “the administration” a weaker statement. Oppression through the use of articles.

Secondly, using “the” draws more intense attention on the object of the article. Why focus on “the” Obama administration? Obama is black. (actually, he’s mixed half white and half black, roughly, so his use of black as a way to self-identify is an example of “hypodescent” which identifies people of missed backgrounds automatically with minority culture, an analogy would be to say that whiteness is like pure water and anything else makes it dirty – the President equates his black heritage with a contaminate). So if he’s black it’s as if the statement reads “the black man’s administration is ruining America.” I cannot single out Obama, even by using a definitive article, without some tinge of racism. Why point out that Obama is ruining America? By identifying “the” Obama, I have set him apart to describe him negatively, therefore, simply putting “the” in front of his name is a way to encode racist speech.

Do I believe the word “the” is racist? Absolutely not. But I do think this is a good way to illustrate how ridiculous the race card has become and as a way to combat the most incredible uses of attacks on “racist conservatives.” Arguably, though, since the explanation is that the statement is racist “in context,” it can similarly be said that the charge of racism is racist because it continuously leveled at white people who are “assumed” to be racist because of their skin color. Oh “the” irony.


#NeverForget

August 24, 2010

Last year, I found a list of all the victims of the 9/11 attacks complete with their ages, hometown, and branch of service (if any). It occurred to me that a memorial on Twitter might be a good idea so I asked for thirty volunteers to take 100 names each and tweet them out. I got the support I needed and we made it a memory worth sharing. Different people used different tags on their tweets and some of us put in a bit more time to add links to remembrance sites specific to each person. I, for example, used the tags #ocra, #tcot (my homes, if you will), and #NeverForget which I asked everyone to use on every tweet.

We’re doing it again this year and I’m asking for a fresh round of volunteers. If you’re interested, you can DM on Twitter or just direct it to me if I’m not following you so that I can get an email address to send a list to. I certainly understand most of us wouldn’t want that in the public timeline. I will also send you a link to this post which contains “THE RULES:”

1. No matter what else you do with the names I give you, remember to include the tag #NeverForget on each one.

2. Don’t start until 9/11. Some people had to start very early. I started when the first plane would have taken off from Boston.

3. I kindly request that you abstain from any confrontational discussion on that day. Obviously I made a bit of a name for myself being a confrontational loud mouth but, on that day, I will not let my desire to “be me” get in the way of what was a beautiful ceremony last year.

4. Some names may overlap lists and some of you may want to tweet your lists a few times. This is fine. Repitition is perfectly within the spirit of the event and you will be RT’ed, anyway…

Again, if you’re interested, DM me your email address and I’ll send you a list with 100 names, one on each line so they’re easy to cut and paste. Thank you all in advance, both our returning volunteers and the new additions.

…Never Forget…


Race Panels

May 20, 2010

As an ex-leftist (by the Grace of God), I have always tried to accomplish at least two things in my activism. The first is that I want to assure conservatives that the attacks of the left come from a place of anger and fear, not hate. Secondly, I am keenly aware of how a reasonable person, to the extent that I was capable of reason at the time, ends up believing that a self-feeding power mechanism like the federal government is looking out for “the little guy.” There are compassionate people who turn to the state for solutions out of fear and naivety. I want to help them by speaking to them in their own language.

When Sarah Palin challenged ObamaCare with the power of Facebook, she did so by putting a name to one of the “unintended consequences” of the bill that may very well have been intentional. Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, and other Obama advisors have called for a form of eugenics in the past which involved selectively rationing care to certain groups of people. Along comes the bill and, low and behold, there are a number of “efficiency measures” which sound a lot like their plans for “decreasing the surplus population,” to quote Dickens. Sarah calls them “death panels,” the left reacts with strident denial, and congress silently moves to eliminate a number of the questionable sections.

In Arizona, on the other hand, the left is so eager to find incidences of racism that they have made exactly the same mistake they accused Governor Palin of. I have read Arizona Senate Bill 1070 one time each for Janet Napolitano, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and Felipe Calderon, none of whom have read it at all. Where I can cite specific provisions of the border control act that are meant to discourage, prevent, and punish racial profiling in the enforcement of immigration laws, I am witnessing more and more each day a sincere hope by liberals and the Democratic Party that race-card spaghetti sticks to the walls of the immigration debate. So many times have they played the card and so many times been disappointed.

But now there’s word that even a majority of Americans with Hispanic ancestry (notice I didn’t say “Hispanic-Americans”) support Arizona’s attempt to “do the job the federal government just won’t do.” I am sure the left is frustrated by this development even more so than by the overwhelming support of Americans of all backgrounds, as many as 10% of whom don’t think Arizona is doing enough. I happen to think the law is just about right. Nobody gets asked for “papers please” until they are otherwise detained or questioned by authorities. Guess what, whitey? When you go to jail in Arizona, you too have to provide proof of status to be released. The law also has a specific provision against a national ID or “Real ID” card. My libertarian side loves that, the kid in me likes the frosting.

So to help my liberal friends understand the debate on Arizona, let’s just say that there are no “Race Panels” in the bill. Not only do they not exist, but Arizona did something that the DC left completely neglected in the health care bill by explicitly forbidding the activity that they would be accused of. Rewriting the bill for public consumption and to make it a sort of “how not to discriminate in law enforcement for dummies” grew the bill from about ten to seventeen pages in length. Even so, this greatly inflated length means there isn’t much room to hide “unintended consequences” with quite the same impunity as in a 2800-page anti-market manifesto.

Congress quietly and without direct mention “apologized” to Sarah Palin by attempting to remove her argument in revision. I doubt conservatives, moderates who favor a functioning national border, the people of Arizona, or the majority of the American people will get the same from the Professor-in-Chief or the rest of the lecturers who are currently holding speaking engagements in our nation’s capital. In the spirit of leadership and in keeping with the goals of an ex-leftist, let me extend the olive branch, first. To liberals and the left, I am sorry, but Race Panels are a myth.


Three Types of Racism in Arizona Debate

May 5, 2010

Liberals are right. There is racism in the Arizona law meant to enforce immigration laws that the federal government has abandoned by way of apathy. As I see it, there are three distinct ways that this ugly discrimination has manifested:

  1. It is racist to assume that police and other law enforcement officials will discriminate against minorities simply because the cops are white.
  2. It is racist to assume that legislation meant to curb illegal immigration or deport those who have already violated the border of the Sovereign State of Arizona is targeted at Hispanics or any other minority because that assumes minorities are more likely to violate that border.
  3. It is racist to lower the standard for proper immigration so that Hispanics can form a permanent slave underclass, providing cheap labor, shoring up bankrupt liberal entitlement programs, and exchanging social spending promises for votes.

And there you have it. Racism comes in many colors.


What May 4th Means

May 4, 2010

“Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
We’re finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio.

There are matters of policy and there are matters of decency. Agree or not with the Vietnam War or President Obama’s “radicalism on rails,” Americans of all stripes cherish the right to civil and open dissent. There is something altogether sinister, then, to the American spirit when the powerful remove conversation from the shaping of the country’s direction by answering words with force. Forty years ago, today, Ohio Guardsmen shot into a crowd of Vietnam War protesters on the campus of Kent State University, not ten miles from my house, killing four, wounding nine, and ending any notion that civility would trump amoral ambition.

I don’t blame the Guardsmen. I have trouble fixing an inordinate amount of blame on President Nixon, either. Some witnesses testify to harassment of the young men in uniform, some as young as eighteen, surrounded by a sea of angry faces and having balloons popped near them to keep them on edge. Nixon, in continuing a war started by his political rival Kennedy and continued by his predecessor, Johnson, was attempting to manage what he knew was a bad situation. The drumbeat that turned “suits” against “long-hairs” had been coming from the media for quite some time. The names you know and connect to Kent State have the blame for their individual parts. The responsibility for the storm, though, falls heavily on the media and their rain dance.

What do we learn? If we fail to absorb the tragedy, we’re setting ourselves up for another one. Conservatives and libertarians have taken the mantle from the peaceful left that comprised the bulk of the protesters at Kent State. Nearly every day in this country, a Tea Party serves as a place where people gather to protest big government, closed-door deals, and oppression. In other words, while the targets have changed, the critique is very much the same. It’s no accident that you’ll find people who protested Nixon’s invasion of Cambodia 4o years ago carrying signs to protest Obama’s bureaucratic overreach, today.

What has changed and become, in many ways, much more insidious is that the media is no longer at odds with our would-be masters. Instead of stirring up tensions between Nixon’s “silent majority” and hippies, the mainstream media is now carrying the President’s water in demonizing dissent and amplifying the “post-partisan” divider-in-chief’s calls to violence. When Obama says “if they bring a knife, you bring a gun” or “punch back twice as hard,” the media excuses his rhetoric. When Homeland Security calls defenders of the constitution and pro-life demonstrators potential terrorists or the military trains to deal with Tea Parties, they are silent. In a world where objective reporting is impossible, those excuse the instigators are accomplices. There is no better evidence of this culpability than how the left has adopted the language and stance of the administration. Notice they’re not planning to question those corporate dollars they complain about fueling the protests (still waiting for my check) but instead they plan to “crash the tea party.”

The events of May 4th, 1970, may have done much to turn the tide of the national discourse on the Vietnam War. Not long after, Nixon began to draw down the conflict before soon calling for total withdrawal. In much the same way, the Obama administration is one tragedy away from having to hem in the failed “war on poverty.” With a complicit media to run cover for the White House and “rebel left” being a sad joke, anymore, there are few guarantees as to how such an incident would play out. With Oath Keepers in practically every military unit we have, there are few guarantees that even a direct order to shoot Tea Partiers would be followed. Nonetheless, even victory over religion of the state would not wash away the blood that our President is edging closer to drawing.

Stay strong, keep the volume up, and pray for both our victory and safety. To borrow from another song of the era, “I hope Neil Young will remember…” that with God we are never “on our own.”


The Master Race

April 8, 2010

Unlike some bloggers and amateur pundits, I don’t make any attempt to hide my name. Translated, roughly, Dickerhoof (originally Dickerhof) means “large yard.” This is only entertaining to those whose sense of humor hasn’t progressed past eighth grade because, well, German names sound funny. When I was growing up, it dawned on me at some point that German pride wasn’t really allowed. The Irish had parades, the Italians had festivals, and we had, well, Oktoberfest, a celebration which more Americans equate with beer than German heritage. I never had to ask why this was, though. Germans were, according to the education system, a people devoid of pride because of what they had done to the Jews.

I agreed with that assessment for quite a while. I bought it for so long, in fact, that my heritage is really more of a footnote in my identity than something tangible. I had a question, though. Why, if German heritage was relegated to a condition and Jewish ethnicity was not elevated to a matter of pride in the national consciousness? It’s a religion, it’s a race, and it’s an ethnicity but it’s never been something the Jewish community seemed to broadcast anywhere but in the self-promotion capital of the world in Hollywood.

Historically, the Jews have every right to keep their heads down and who could blame them? From the Old Testament or Torah, call it what you will, we know that the Jews have never been terribly popular with their neighbors. There has been a pattern for at least 4,000 years that, whenever a dictator would come to power and he could find a Jew somewhere on the same continent, he would blame them for whatever his shortcomings produced and promise their destruction. It’s as true today as it was when Moses took a long walk and I don’t think I need to provide much evidence to that effect. All have failed. Where Germans in America are reminded of their fascist failures, Jews should be proud that practically every other race in Europe has tried to kill them and they can’t.

There is a visible disconnect between American and Israeli Jews, though. In trying to understand this, I came up with a crazy theory and it’s one that I’ve gone over in casual conversations for a few years, now. How, if one were so inclined, would you actually create a “master race” as Hitler sought to do with the Aryans? His plan was slow. It would require total military victory over all of Europe and then a number of generations to weed out anything the Nazi eugenicists viewed as a weakness. If you wanted to do it quickly and the number of lives destroyed in this pursuit was no object, here’s a plan:

  1. Pick a race with a history of surviving genocide (this narrows down the field and replaces theory with empirical evidence of survivability )
  2. Gather them in a few central locations
  3. Starve, beat, torture, and otherwise attempt to demoralize every single member of that race and let disease spread in these “ghettos” and “camps”
  4. Take the small percentage of those who survive and nurse them back to health
  5. Take those survivors and put them in an arid piece of land smaller than New Jersey and surrounded by cultures who have sworn to exterminate them.
  6. Watch a successive parade of invasions, attacks, and insurgencies forge the resolve of this race into a weapon of their own defense as powerful as any technology
  7. To keep the heat up, encourage the dissemination of theories that paint their leadership as a conspiratorial cabal bent on world domination through financial manipulation even when their people are almost entirely absent from the organizations that are “responsible.”

That’s the Jews. There’s a reason that Israel has fought two wars called the “Seven Day War” and the “Forty Day War.” It took them less than two months to fight off Syrian and Egyptian invasions and defeat them so badly that at least Egypt thought it would be easier to continue as something of an ally.

So what’s the relevance? America, I believe, does not properly understand what an ally we have in Israel and just how deep the bonds of loyalty are from a people for whom promises are a matter of life and death. We have elected a President who listened to anti-Semitism from his preacher, his professors, and his confidants before bringing a cold shoulder to bear on the Jewish state. With Joe Biden as the errand boy, the Obama Administration won’t “meddle” when Iran promises a nuclear weapon and makes not-so-veiled threats about using it to “wipe Israel off the map.” The President, though, is completely willing to meddle when Israel plays the “dangerous game” of building apartments in their capital city.

Allies are valuable. Allies that know how to persist in the face of a world arrayed against them are invaluable. When the lives of you and your loved ones is on the line, who would be foolish enough to turn their back on the master race?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.