On Race and Political Elections

I lapsed on writing this for a while because I jump to conclusions easily and when I saw that I got like no hits during my initial run I decided 'whoa, my blog sucks' and forgot it existed for like a year and a half. But then we as a country elected Barack Obama to the presidency and I remembered that I wrote in this thing for a while, and figured that if anyone stumbled onto it in the near future it would be worthwile to record my thoughts here on the matter.

First off, I will be referring to Obama as 'president-elect', not 'president.' I know it doesn't matter in the end, and that by the time you read this, faithful and/or accidental reader, he'll have probably dropped the 'elect' part. (or maybe added a 'former', I don't know.) But as for my current place in time, he ain't the president yet. Whether you agree or not with what President Bush has done, he still deserves the respect his office deserves. President Clinton stood up and lied outright to Congress and the American people and still has the honorific attached to his name. (I honestly could care less about him getting blown in office. Honestly, my biggest beef is that the woman he picked is so friggin ugly. Seriously. You're the President, surely you can get some decent tail.) Bush hasn't done anything during his 8 years besides do what he thinks was best for the country, and that's deserving of respect in and of itself. So, President Bush and President-Elect Obama. A little respect, please.

Anyway. Back to President-Elect Obama. Good for him for getting elected, seriously. The majority of America thinks he's the best man for the job, and the rules (read: Constitution) say that's the criteria for getting elected, so good for him. I'm a Republican myself, but you know what? In the end, the President is more a figurehead than anything. Maybe not as much so as whoever has the English throne (at least the President gets to command the military) but everything else he does gets checked by Congress. Seriously, really read the Constitution again. There's a reason the Legislative part is Article 1. Congress is where the real power is at, you just never think about it because it's so decentralized.

Wow, tangents. Back to President-Elect Obama (again). What's really interesting to me is that this is being held up as a triumph or whatever for black people. It really isn't. It's a triumph for Barack Obama, and to a slightly lesser extent, the American political left. The ridiculous black people holding this up as a triumph for them, whether it be athletes or rappers or some random gangbanger on the street; seriously dude, you had nothing to do with it. Whether you agree with him or not, Obama gets up in the morning, goes to work, gets shit done, and comes back home to his family. Same as me, and hopefully same as you, whoever's reading this. White, black, yellow, red, green with orange polka-dots, whatever color you are. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin. So he's the first black president. It's a genetic curiosity, not any particular accomplishment. Someone had to be first, and it's not divine influence that it happened now. Come down off the pulpit, if you please.

And another thing. Isn't it interesting how 95% of black people who voted went with Obama? Not like that's any surprise, though you wouldn't think it if you were listening to the news reports. They were all reporting it like it was the most surprising thing to happen since that white stuff that comes out of cows was actually pretty tasty. (And made your teeth shiny white and way strong) So yeah, black people voted Obama. Surprise, surprise. If next election we elect Mr. Chang, I'm sure they'll be all surprised when 95 of Asian people voted for him, regardless of party. But what if next election 95% of white people go out and vote for Mr. Bob 'Whitey' Smith? Oh, the uproar! I giggle to think about it. Or maybe if It's a guy vs. a girl next election, and 95% of males vote for Mr. Mann? Oh my, my. That would be wrooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong.

I am a white male. In a couple years, I'll probably have to be sporting a bumper sticker that says 'White, Male, and Proud.' I'm becoming the new minority. If I'm in a candidate pool right now for 'Job X', and I'm up against a white chick, a black dude, and a hispanic dude, I might as well go ahead and fill out an application at Target right after the interview. It's absolutely ridiculous. And somehow President-Elect Obama getting nominated is supposed to be this great triumph for American Equality. Psssssh.

On baseball and marketing

Howdy all. Hope you had a better weekend than I did.

In any case, check this out. This is a very interesting story to me, and hopefully to you all too. From a historical perspective, it's almost like there's two ends of the prejudicial spectrum: the way things were when Jackie Robinson first came up, and now. we're currently going through a kind of anti-racism, where we do our best to, I don't know, 'make up' for the things that happened decades ago. As far as I'm concerned, this is as bad as racism. Through things like affirmative action, we tell the world that people of different races or creeds need to be coddled. This sets them apart from others, which is exactly why there's so much tension. I'm reminded of a South Park episode, where Chef tried to get the South Park flag (which portrayed a black stick figure being hung while white stick figures danced around) changed. In the end, everything was made better when he realized that people (the main children in particular) were arguing for it because they didn't see it as white people hanging a black person, just some people hanging someone else, which I guess is part of the history of the town. While the example is a little off (due to the nature of the show, naturally) the feeling is a good one. People of different colors are just that: people. Why do we insist of reminding people of our differences?

Woo, tangent. Back to baseball. I personally don't think that the teams mentioned in the article that didn't have any ties to Robinson (St. Louis, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Houston and Philadephia) but decked the whole team out in 42 should have done so. I think all that it does is turn a pivital event in American cultural history into nothing more than an opportunity for some feel-good PR. I wonder how players who were the only people on their teams to wear the number felt about seeing dozens of 42s on the field for other teams. At the same time, how can it be justified to say to these teams that they can't honor the occasion in the way that they want? How how about people like Arizona's Eric Byrnes, a particularly white person, who wanted to wear 42 as well? The D-Backs had 5 players and a coach wear 42, and Byrnes was the only caucasion one. Does a white man wearing 42 change the emotion behind it at all? It's a tricky situation, to be sure.

As far as I'm concerned, in the end it was a classy move by (I think) the classiest of the major sports. Kudos for Ken Griffey, Jr. for the good idea. The silly social questions that came up in the end don't take away much from the gesture, but we should still think a little bit on whether or not the feeling behind it would have been the same if just one player for each team was chosen for the honor. Just a thought.

On Vonnegut and the Future

Hmm... so many interesting topics (well, 3) and so little time to write. Well, let's see. Imus can probably wait another day, as can Nifong.

Ok, so anyway. Yesterday we lost one of the great novelists of our time, one Kurt Vonnegut. But why am I mentioning this in a political correctness blog? Well, besides the fact that it's nice to remember those who have passed, I wanted to write for a bit about one of his works, Harrison Bergeron. This short story is probably the most influential to me in terms of the way I view society and in a larger part the way I think in general. It can be read here, so go read that before continuing if you haven't before, or even if you have. It's a quick read. I can wait.

...

Ok, everyone back? Good. I think Bergeron as well as Richard Bachman's (AKA Stephen King's) The Running Man, and to a lesser extent, Bachman/King's The Long Walk are perhaps the most poignant reading out there, in terms of the way our society is headed. Obviously, Bergeron is a worst-case scenario type book, and even I have my doubts that we'll get that far. But, think about it. Isn't that kind of where we are headed? People (*cough*dems*cough*) are tripping over themselves trying to make everyone 'equal', when any fool can see that people are NOT equal in all respects. Yes, people should be equal in terms of rights, but in terms of ability and status, no. That's kind of what our entire social system is based on. But more an more, we see things like 'No Child Left Behind,' where we can at ourselves on the back because the stupid kids are keeping up better, but nobody thinks about the smart ones, the ones that should be leading the country someday, and how they aren't given the opportunity to live up to their potential. What's worse, realizing that some kids aren't going to go to college and get skilled positions even if we pander to them, or stunting the growth of the best and brightest?

Which brings me back to Bergeron. Once we start pandering to one group, where does it end? Do we start making allowances for, say, weak people, as in the story? Do we say, these stronger people are leaving these weaker ones behind, we should hamper the strong so that the weak can keep up and feel better about themselves? Or how about the rich? Do we punish them for being more successful than a person who lives on the street? Is this a direction we as a people want our society to take? The basis of economy is based on skill and social structure. Some people are smarter than others, they get better jobs. Some people are richer than others, they own businesses and employ those from lower classes. It's the way capitalism works. But for some reason, it seems that some parties in the government *cough* are taking the curious approach of shifting us ever so slightly towards communism. And we all know how that turns out.

On Doctors and Apologies

Check this out, faithful(?) readers.

This highlights an issue plaguing our medical system that I've been wondering about for some time now. Malpractice suits are just through the roof nowadays, which makes it tough for some doctors to keep their practice going, due to insurance costs. (As an aside, isn't it interesting how most of America 'works', but doctors and lawyers 'practice'?) Apparently, even an apology is grounds for a suit.

Now, I understand if a surgeon accidentally sews his keys up in you, or maybe sets your liver on fire. By all means, he should be better than that. It's just the little things that people seem to hang on to; if a family member dies, they immediately think the doctor did something, complications after surgery that are unavoidable.

As far as that link goes, I guess it's good that a doctor can apologize now without immediately being sued. That's a step in the right direction, but I for one wish it was a step we didn't have to take. Lawsuits, lawsuits everywhere. It's like America's favorite 'get rich quick' scheme. Don't you think things are getting a little out of hand if people can't even apologize any more?