Being white in Philly is not a crime, but talking about it is

A regional Philadelphia magazine recently made national news with an article titled “Being White In Philadelphia.”  I read it, and it seemed to me a rather timid piece of journalism.  That some noncommittal but honest anecdotal musings in a second-rate publication could create such a stir tells you that not only is this country a long way from putting racial animosity behind it, it’s a long way from even wanting to.

The tsk-tsking in the media and the hysterical, sanctioning statement from Philly’s always candid but rarely on-point mayor (who is following Obama’s lead of wading into public discourse’s fleeting moments instead of actually governing the public) were all wildly out of proportion responses that must have been referencing some other article, because I couldn’t find anything in this meandering piece worthy of controversy, much less discussion.  It appeared that everyone who came out in force against the magazine had simply taken one look at the cover and decided what it was about, so the gist of the criticism was all the same – white voices shouldn’t ever get to speak about blacks without a black counterpoint, and whites that want to talk about their experiences living in and around urban black neighborhoods should shut up now because they are just prejudiced people who are going to make blacks look bad.

At one point in the article, the white male writer confesses he goes out of his way to hold the door for his black neighbors, for fear that something as innocuous as letting a door close too fast on a stranger could be perceived as antagonistic or prejudiced to someone black.  Blacks immediately pointed to this self-consciously polite behavior as condescending and prejudiced toward blacks, demonstrating more eloquently than the story itself could have hoped to the catch-22 of being white in Philadelphia – you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t so make damn sure not to say anything.

Being white in Philadelphia means you have to always be conscious of race while pretending it doesn’t matter, and regardless of your intentions, your outlook, or your behavior you will be called a racist at some point.  Also, you are supposed to accept this demonization because your ancestors had the upper hand in this country for a couple hundred years.  And no, you’re not allowed to talk about any of this because the mayor himself will ensure affirmative action rhetoric is enforced.

The author could have saved himself the trouble of composing an essay exploring whether or not whites can speak freely about matters of race (everyone already knows that the answer is no) if he’d just slapped the race-baiter-baiting title on the cover and written a 3-letter article:

 

Q.E.D.

Presenting the abridged sequestration debate

The political rhetoric and action (or, I should say, inaction) this week in Washington just validated every single thing I think about Obama and the current crop of elected Republicans.  Increasingly those thoughts are unifying into a single sentiment:

A Plague on Both Your Houses!

You are mistaken if you think because I dislike the current president and loathe liberal ideology that I therefore embrace the Republican party wholesale.  I think Obama is spineless and gutless and inelegantly snide, but throughout his campaigns and his tenure Republican candidates and elected officials have proven to be equally spineless and gutless, and even more so inelegant in wielding their barbs (on those rare occasions when they are not too scared or too principled to use them).

The recent rhetorical battles over the sequester have been especially pathetic, and I found that as the dreaded “sequester” date loomed closer I started to care less and less what the politicians had to say.  Because it was clear that none of them really had anything to say.  All of this baiting and bluffing boils down to games being played with the money that hard-working people have earned and are forced to hand over to the government.

Although I’ve been tuning it out more as the days go by, I feel that I can succinctly summarize the gist of this particular political war of words. I have used the vernacular appropriate to the level of discourse:

Obama: OMG!

Republicans: wat?

O: idk

R: tl;dr

O: imho–

R: –LOL!

O: wtf?

R: j/k

O: fyi

O: shtf asap

R: O RLY?

R: gtfo!

O: stfu

R: nbd

O: Srsly?

R: brb

O: ftw!

Out of the binders and on to the battlefields

In yet another victory for idiotic policies grounded in wishful thinking, last week the Pentagon announced that it is ending the ban on women in combat.  This will effectively allow women to serve on the front lines of conflicts in the same capacity as their male counterparts in the military.

In my attempt to understand how anyone could think this is a good idea, I came across a statement from a (female) Democrat member of the House Armed Services Committee, Loretta Sanchez, that I found telling:

I have been a firm believer in removing the archaic combat exclusion policy for many years.  I am happy to hear the secretary will be making significant changes as part of an effort to expand opportunities for women in the military.

Excluding women from warfare is indeed archaic, but I don’t find it archaic in the same sense that, say, stoning a woman who can’t prove she’s a virgin on her wedding night is archaic.   But the progressive doctrine is that it is exclusion itself that is archaic – any kind of exclusion of anyone from anything.  Any possible justification for that exclusion is irrelevant.

Based on the polls and media coverage of the last few days, support for women in combat roles definitely skews left.  The left would say this is because conservatives Hate Women and want to force them to have those Awful Babies.  In reality, I think the argument against women in combat is far more broad and nuanced then what I have heard coming from those in support of it.  The congresswoman’s statement above makes it clear what this is really about: opportunities for women.  Because damn it, a girl wants to do things and put things on her resume!

When it comes to matters of national security, I do not care about creating professional opportunities — for anyone.  I care about fucking national security.  But the primary argument I’m hearing in favor of opening combat roles and elite forces opportunities for women is that these should be available to women now because before they weren’t.

And here is where we stumble across one of the more interesting aspects of that central tenet of the liberal worldview, Inclusion:

Ask a leftist if they support the wars in the Middle East; with very few exceptions, they will tell you Hell No.  Immediately ask the same leftist if they support allowing women to serve anywhere in the military in identical roles as men, and they will say Of Course.  War is a Very Bad Thing, but not allowing someone to participate in a Very Bad Thing is an Even Worse Thing.  There is no consideration of the actual merits or value of a Thing, it’s the access to a Thing that matters.

If liberals wonder why so many conservatives think of them as facile lemmings, it’s because this is what so many of their arguments boil down to:

If a white male capitalist oppressor jumps off a bridge, then everyone else should be allowed to jump off the bridge too.