Arrogance & Division

I have seen and heard several examples of arrogance in the past twenty-four hours. I’m not looking for it, or paying attention. Today I spent most of my time writing and posting one of my stories up on WriteOn. I played Farm Heroes and Bubble Witch. I didn’t sit in front of the television and watch or on my computer and browse. These things just popped up.

On Scribblers, one person declared Friday’s Planned Parenthood shooting a “terrorist” attack, even though no one from the police, FBI or media had or has called it that. That declarative statement is pretty arrogant – an ‘I know what no one else does’ declaration.

This morning I was watching CNN while I fixed and ate my breakfast. They were talking about the Syrian refugees and the fact that a lot of Americans don’t want people who might include a small subset of violent people to be let into the country without proper vetting. Our State Department and FBI and a bunch of other law enforcement and security agencies have warned the government that we can’t vet these people because the systems aren’t in place to do it. Yet, because the Republicans in the House and Senate want to slow the process down and make sure we take reasonable precaution, one of CNN’s talking heads declared that “the GOP is jingoistic”. What? That’s a trait exclusive to the GOP and no one on the left is? No one registered as a Democrat sees the need to check these people before we let them into our country? Nope. Apparently not because this individual seems to know what is in the hearts and minds of everyone who happens to affiliate themselves more closely with the GOP than the Democrats.

Individually, these are small things but they’re coming more often and it’s disturbing if you think about it. It adds to the mind and thought control – you must think this way or you’re “evil” – and divisive nature of discourse.

The Scribblers comment obviously wasn’t considered. It was a word that’s in common use and the larger underlying meaning wasn’t taken into consideration when it was used. However, is anyone who does something evil automatically going to be labeled a ‘terrorist’ from now on? What about the declarations made by some in the Black Lives Matter group?

"Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon!" was one chant that was quickly and deliberately ignored by the leftwing media. Searching for the following clip, only Fox seems to have carried it on their broadcast.

Another was "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want 'em? Now!"

That was a few months ago and the liberal media rushed to cover it up - whitewash over it - and it’s been a while since we’ve heard about that, but the declaration was made – why wasn’t that labeled a “terrorist threat”? Or if that’s not palatable, how about a less powerful label – “hate speech”?

Oh! I know. Like duh! It’s because it was uttered by some black Americans.

Because the vocal minority insists that the rest of America “owes” something to blacks for historic events that took place more than one-hundred fifty years ago. African Americans get a pass. They can do and say anything and white Americans are supposed to look away and not comment because, since we happen to have been born with white skin, we’re supposed to feel guilty.

Now that raises, in my mind, the question of where is the equality in that? If people – an individual, a group or a segment of society wants to be respected and treated as an equal, they have to abide by the same rules and meet the same standard as everyone else, or they’re not equal.

The CNN comment is just another example of the arrogance of American media – and it is not restricted to the “left” outlets – NBC and its subsidiaries, ABC and its subsidiaries and CNN. It also includes Fox News which has an agenda all its own.

They suppress stories and “Fair and Balanced” is nowhere in sight anymore. Listen to their talking heads and it’s all a very rightwing slant.

CNN has declared that if we don't want to let anyone and everyone who wants to come across our borders in without checking their backgrounds and trying to discern whether they're coming in to do us harm, we're jingoists.
 

I’m not looking for this stuff. I have other things to do, other things I’m thinking about. But it’s just popped up into my awareness which tells me that it’s probably happening a lot if I were to pay attention.

So what does it mean? I don’t know, but it is worrying.

We have a President who advocates special treatment of black over white and giving a pass to black people.

Remember Ferguson? Obama came out and added his voice to those declaring the cop was in the wrong. But when black people started rioting through the streets, burning businesses and wreaking havoc, nothing was said by our “leader” or his Attorney General, Eric Holder. In the end, the evidence showed the officer was well within his rights to shoot Michael Brown since Brown was trying to get the officer's handgun and he was afraid for his life and was defending himself. Obama spoke out against the shooting but was deafeningly silent on the rioters.

It was the same with Baltimore, and the same with Trayvon Martin in Florida. Obama didn't wait for the evidence in either case. Black person assaulted by white? Don't wait for the investigation. Don't wait until the evidence is in. Just declare the light skinned person was in the wrong and the dark skinned people who are burning cities are just fine. Persecute the light skinned person but give the darker skinned person a pass, no matter what they did.

Now understand me here. I look at people as people. I do not care one whit what color of skin or eyes or hair they have. I look at their behavior - what they do and how they act.

Personally, I think Barack Obama is a dangerous incompetent who looks on the presidency as an on-going golf vacation.

I think John Roberts is a manipulated fool, a tool of the left who hasn’t the first foggiest clue about what his role on the United States Supreme Court is supposed to be.

I admire, greatly, Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson, Alan Keyes, and J.J. Watt.

I despise Hilliary Clinton and John Kerry. Two more unqualified people would be hard to find. Their positions are purely and simply the result of political award ceremonies.

In the case of Hilliary, I am utterly convinced it was a conversation between her and the Democrat party back in 2007 that went something like:

“Drop out of the presidential race and let the black guy win, and you can be Secretary of State. Then, in a few years, we (the DNC) will do everything we can to put you into the oval office.”

"Oh, okay."

To distill this further, anyone who expects, demands or promotes special treatment of one group over another warrants my disgust. Anyone, an individual or a group who promotes or advocates special treatment of one group over another is destructive and ensures equality will never be achieved.

Unfortunately, and worrying to me, is the fact that the divisions appearing in this country are growing and I don’t know that anyone or anything can stop them from spreading. Every time I turn on the “news” – the talking heads who offer opinion and commentary instead of reporting – it’s obvious. Just listen to what’s said, how it’s phrased the meaning of the words spoken.

What we need going forward is honest conversation, respectful and a clear understanding of what is 'fair and balanced'.  Otherwise we'll have to get a boatload of epoxy filler and hope it all holds together.

Think before speaking and stand up to correct those who create division - if we start small, we can move mountains!

Have a lovely day.

Best~

Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

Fundamental Differences

I did it again. I threw myself headlong into the cesspit, knowing that I wasn't going to do anything but wallow before having to extricate myself. I wallowed, extricated myself and now, about twenty-four hours later after a shower, I am trying to decipher what it all means.

After deliberating, I have decided that when we break down the conceptual divide in this country to its simplest state, there are two types of people who pay attention to politics.

The majority are the idealists who believe Utopia is possible. They see it as potential reality, completely ignoring the economic realities of the situation. It's like they've got their fingers stuck into the sides of their heads and are perpetually chanting lalalalala because they don't want to take the time or make the effort to step back from their emotional idealism to look at the economic reality of what IS.

Then there are the realists who realize Utopia, as an ideal, is great, but the reality is that we're never going to get there.

The problem is money. It is, well and truly, the root of all evil, but it's a necessary evil and you ignore the reality of it at your peril.

The idealists in this country (America) are listening to Bernie Sanders and practically wetting themselves, not looking at the real world with a speck of question. They hear the words 'fair' and 'equal' and all the feel-good declarations but do not once, not a single time, stop to ask 'how'. As in 'how are we going to pay for all of this?' 'How are we going to legislate, across the board, what works economically for all businesses - big and small?'

From where I stand, on the reality side of the fence, it's emotion driven, not logic driven.

Where will the money for all the programs the 'progressive' (socialist) left come from to pay for all the things they want to give away?
They want a 'living wage' as the minimum. $15.00. Okay, so we pay all entry-level, just starting out workers $15 per hour. What's that going to do to the cost of goods, materials and services? What is it going to do to the already high unemployment rate if businesses cannot afford to hire workers because it just isn't economically feasible?

It means that all of those goods, materials and services will cost more. They don't see the vicious cycle they're perpetuating. Raise the wages, raise the prices of everything, 'no one' can afford everything, so raise the wages again, and repeat, endlessly.

This morning, on a thread over on Authonomy, I asked some hard and fast questions - and I haven't got any hard and fast answers. I told them I don't want / won't read external links. I want them to persuade me. Two people have responded. One tried to answer the questions, but their information is faulty. The other threw out a bunch of links. I still responded to a couple of 'answers' he gave me - one of which said:

"You're asking for an argument based on common sense, Philippa, but you cannot argue such complex matters on such a basis."

Huh? That I don't get. Should I argue based on pure emotion? How does that work? Fact provides reality. Reality tends to lead to commonsense. At least it does in my world.

I don't know that I'm going to get anything that's going to persuade me, because I'm pretty intractable. But it will be interesting to see if getting them to step away from the 'feel-good-ism' of Utopia will have some effect on their thinking.

Personally, I am conservative. Grass-roots and more of a Constitutionalist than anything else.

I do not like the Republican or Democrat political ideals because I don't think you can squeeze a hair between the two parties anymore. They talk and talk and spout different things - what they think the people want to hear - but, fundamentally, they're no different. When they get into office, they all start doing precisely as the other party does. The only difference is they use different words. Both say this and do that - often against the best interests of the people they're in Washington to represent because they are owned lock, stock and barrel by the special interest groups - the PACS and activists and business owners - who paid for their campaigns.

As The Donald says, "I would pick up the phone and they would do whatever I asked because they owed me." That is the state of politics in this country today.

As for electing Bernie Sanders: The definition of insanity because the American people will get another politician doing what all politicians do.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories