COMMON SENSE - Race in America. Who is a Person of Color?

Back in the 40's and 50's when I was growing up people used to say somebody was "colored". It wasn't really a pejorative term then. In fact, the NAACP used the word in their name. Then came the 60's and it became a bad word. If you said that a person was "colored" the really hip people would mock you and ask what color he or she was. During those civil rights days the point was that a superficial thing like skin pigmentation wasn't supposed to be how you judged someone. The idea was for everyone to integrate together in the melting pot and become Americans.

 

Nowadays skin pigmentation seems to be a person's most important quality. We now have our society divided up into "people of color" ("colored" is still not permissible) and "white". But it's hard to put your finger on exactly what is meant by these terms. Southern Italians are a lot more pigmented than Norwegians, but that doesn't seem to count. Is it that you have some African heritage? But "Hispanics" seem to be included too. AOC says she's a person of color, but it would be hard to pick her out of a crowd in Calabria. Same with Kamala Harris, who is the daughter of a lighter skinned Jamaican father and Indian mother.

 

Well, maybe it has to do with social standing. And yet both of the aforementioned individuals are pretty prominent and well to do and so neither would have the slightest problem moving into any neighborhood or joining any social club they desired to. So their skin color doesn't really seem to have any importance there.  And it can't be wealth either. To be sure there are lots of poor "people of color", but lots of rich and famous ones too.

 

Maybe genetics is what really counts. Look at Barack Obama, for example. He's just as much white as he is black, but he's said to be our first black president. So, it looks like if one of your ancestors was black, then you're black. It's kind of like in ante-bellum New Orleans, where they labeled people as quadroons and even octoroons, so if even one of your great-grandparents was black, then that settled it. You were black. You'd think we'd want to get out of that box by this time. Maybe we should be more like Tiger Woods, whom the sports writers have criticized because he insisted on seeing himself more as a really great golfer than a black symbol. He calls himself a Cablinasian (which stands for Caucasian, Black, Indian and Asian). Makes sense to me.

 

But wait a minute. What about conservative high achievers like Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Thomas Sowell and Ben Carson. They get reviled, called Uncle Toms, and worse. Despite their pigmentation they don't seem to count. I guess to be in the "people of color" category, the real color you have to be is blue rather than red.

 

If you ask me I think we should just start over and do what Martin Luther King wanted. Just forget the color and judge people by their character. 

ELECTION 2024 - What about abortion.

    Ms. Harris and the media are trying their best to keep this election from being about policies or administration track records. For them there are two major issues, Trump is personified evil and abortion. The Trump thing doesn't lend itself to rational debate, so let's talk about abortion. It's a thorny issue. Supposedly it's big with single women but it's a mixed bag for the rest. The Democrat's argument is that it must be left to the pregnant woman and her doctor. That kind of makes sense, at least superficially. Tim Walz says the government should mind its own damn business, (although it is kind of funny that he's from the political side that is a fan of the government controlling most everything else).

    But let's look at the question another way. There's no doubt a woman has the right to decide about medical procedures to her own body, e.g. an appendectomy or joint replacement. The issue is whether the growing fetus is really "her own body", considering that it has an entirely different DNA and the full potential to develop into another person.

    Well, what of that? What moral import is there in removing tissue, even if it has a different DNA? Here's where reason steps aside and feelings and emotions come into play. Now that we have ultrasounds, we can see the little tyke's faces, and arms and legs moving around, etc. So, we're told that whereas the majority want abortions to be available, not so many want them past a certain point in the pregnancy. In other words, they think the mother and doctor should make the decision – but only up to a point.

    Where is that point? i.e., the moral dividing line where it changes from your business to – "well, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to do that". Here we get into the justifying reasons. Everyone seems to be OK with "the life of the mother" and then it gets murky. How about the health of the mother, including mental health? And then there's the likelihood of fetal abnormalities. I read that these days about 90% of fetuses with potential Down's syndrome are aborted, even though we see people with that problem around functioning pretty well. So that makes me uneasy, but I guess for most people these things all fit into the "mother and doctor choice" category morally.

    But now we get into other reasons, the ones that the overwhelming number of abortions are done for. Losing your job, having to drop out of school, can't afford another child, and so on. Or just – didn't mean to get pregnant! I get that. These can be weighty problems. But balanced off against eliminating the new life it starts to become problematical as to the best option for handling the problem. Still the mother and doctor choice? Well … for the average focus group, … I guess so as long as it doesn't look like a little baby moving around on the ultrasound.

    But now we come to the point I think about. We're getting towards being good enough with DNA to tell a lot from the amniocentesis. How about it's got a gene for possible diabetes, or rheumatoid arthritis, or hypertension. How about it's a different sex or a darker skin color or even a different eye or hair color than I was interested in? Still the mother and doctor choice?

    So here we come to the nub of the problem. If we're a little queasy about saying get rid of it if it's the wrong sex, then maybe it's not "just a blob of tissue", even early on when that's what it looks like. Bill Clinton said abortion should be safe, legal and rare, framing the issue as a moral one rather than simply one of "woman's healthcare". Roe v. Wade and the "right to privacy" deemphasized the moral aspect and made abortion the go to method of handling problem pregnancies as indicated by the subsequent giant increase in the numbers after that decision.

    The new Supreme Court decision has made us rethink the moral aspect of a million abortions a year, and I think that's a good thing. We have militants on either side, but the great majority are in the middle on the question. In that respect, Roe v. Wade came down squarely on one side and so was not a good solution. Turning it over to the states and letting it be up to a vote of the people in the various localities seems like the right idea to me. That way the people in California and New York can't tell the people in Mississippi and Alabama what their morality should be and vice versa.

    But boy, we've come a long way since 1973. What's with all the problem pregnancies anyway? How about looking at that side of it. And what about streamlining adoption procedures. After all, it takes a village!

ELECTION 2024: My thoughts in 2020 about the George Floyd riots. What did Mr. Walz do?

Well now the inevitable shootings and killings are accompanying the riots in the big cities. If they are allowed to continue it will get worse. Here's what I think is common sense about the issues.

 In order to avoid general violence, we defer the use of force to the police whose functions are law enforcement and maintenance of peace and order in the community. They must use this force only in specific circumstances such as the protection of their lives or those of others. If a citizen is harmed by an officer's use of force the circumstances are reviewed and if it is concluded that he has used force in a way contrary to the law he is charged by a prosecutor with criminal behavior. Then there is a trial. At the trial both the prosecutor and the defense present their evidence and a jury, selected in accordance with predefined legal procedures, decides the outcome.

 There are some that think that handling these issues in a case by case manner is not sufficient. They contend that police in general are guilty of systemic racism such that they use excessive force preferentially in their dealings with minorities, most specifically young, black men. There is much disagreement as to whether this is an accurate assessment, but if it is, it seems fair to ask the question that, since systemic racism in the police would presumably be a longstanding phenomenon, why something hasn't been done about it previously by those civic leaders who are in charge of the police and generally seem to be sympathetic to the complaint.

 Assuming for the sake of argument that it is true, those who are upset about the matter can assemble with others who are similarly concerned, organize and protest. They have full right to do this under our constitution and laws. In order for their protest to be effective they should clearly state their demands as to what they feel should specifically be done about the problem and, assuming there is general agreement by the local public, their desires should be carried out by the local political leaders, most especially since these leaders have expressed sympathy with the protestor's complaints.

 The aggrieved people do not have the right to riot about the matter and to destroy the property and livelihoods of innocent bystanders or of public property. We are a nation of laws, devised by our elected representatives, written down beforehand and enforced in specific manners. If instead we riot to obtain our wishes evil consequences will result as we are seeing.

 Some civic leaders are condoning the riots and allowing them to continue. They argue that they are not as bad as they look, that they are limited to relatively small areas and that they are somewhat justifiable considering the severity of the grievances. They appear willing to disregard their oath to uphold the law, and to accept the destruction of property and lives as long as it is in keeping with their political benefit.

 Mr. Trump has strongly expressed his unhappiness with the situation, but has constitutional constraints limiting what he is allowed to do about it. He has said publicly that he considers the local leaders in these areas to be fools. Mr. Trump is open and direct. Our recent Presidents, Mr. Obama, Bush and Clinton would express such things in private but would speak in public more diplomatically to disguise and make their real opinions more generally acceptable.

 As I said, these statements appear to me to be common sense. Alternatively we can just say that it's all Trump's fault and be done with it.

ELECTION 2024: Kamala Harris' policy changes

Kamala Harris has now reversed her position on Medicare for All, gun confiscation, disbanding ICE, and eliminating fracking and offshore oil drilling, among other things. She now proposes Trump-Vance policies and ideas such as increasing child tax credits, no taxes on tips and building a border wall. It's a lot of changes but let's grant that it's reasonable to have a change in thinking.

At the same time it's also fair to state that if adopting Trumpian policies makes her more palatable, why should we not just elect the bona fide Trump. Well, I guess you can say that you don't like Trump's style and you'd rather have a substitute that promotes Trump's policies but is nicer.

But then we should ask Ms. Harris the reasons for her various conversions to judge her sincerity. That was asked in her recent CNN interview and she responded that she "continues to have the same values". That one gets your head spinning. I guess we'll have to follow Nancy Pelosi's recommendation that we'll have to elect her to see what's in the package.

ELECTION 2024: Israel Policy - Trump vs. Harris

Israel faces a no-win situation fighting an enemy who tries to break the will of the Israeli public by raping and murdering civilian hostages while influencing world opinion by using its own civilians as military shields. Apart from any military assistance, U.S. policy can help its Israeli ally immensely by the draining of the terrorist funding source from Iran and supporting cooperation between Israel and the Sunni Arab states who are both antagonists of Iran and have other common interests.

Iran's main income source is oil sales. During the Obama administration Iran's oil sales sanctions were lifted and its annual revenue increased to $60 B. In 2018 Donald Trump reimposed sanctions after which Iran's revenue dropped in 2019 to $19 B and then in 2020 to $9 B. After President Biden took office Iran's oil revenue has steadily increased again and its revenues for 2024 is estimated at $35-40 B. Under Biden-Harris there are once again discussions regarding removal of all sanctions.

During the Trump administration the Abraham Accords were signed, reopening relations between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco. There were strong indications that Saudi Arabia was ready to join but negotiations were halted when President Biden took office. Instead under the Biden administration Saudi Arabia has developed closer ties with Russia and China and is reported to be strongly considering accepting currencies other than the dollar for its oil sales which would have potentially devastating results for our economy.

President Trump has repeatedly claimed that if he were in office we would not have the present Middle East conflict. Considering all the facts stated above it seems highly likely that he is correct. Kamala Harris has no significant foreign policy record or evident negotiation skills. She has made no specific foreign policy statements in this matter but both she and her present party members seem to favor the status quo, or worse. Those who would vote for her because of their distaste for Mr. Trump should think long and hard about the implications of that action.

ELECTION 2024. Dick Cheney supports Kamala

Dick Cheney now supports Kamala Harris. Strange bedfellows united against a common enemy, Donald Trump. But really not so strange when you get into the issues.

Cheney was one of the chief architects of the Iraq War, in the end a terrible idea. Trump vigorously opposed it from the start, decrying the loss of life and fortune built on false premises and assumptions. No mystery why Cheney and his daughter hate him. He was more insightful than I was, as well as most Democrats, including Joe Biden, who gave their support until it turned bad. Then they pulled the plug and blamed George Bush. Shades of Vietnam.

Trump is not in on the Washingtonian Military-Industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about. In his administration he preempted wars with negotiation, and he's good at it. Like Ronald Reagan did, he bypasses the diplomats and gets personal with his opponents, and then, like Teddy Roosevelt, speaks softly but carries a big stick. Recall how he dramatically put a stop to the North Korean missile launches over Japan in his famous meetings with Kim Jong-un. With Isis he acted decisively when he had to but kept other conflicts at bay.

No need to recite what's happened with Biden-Harris in Afghanistan, as well as the two other major conflicts. Trump has repeatedly claimed that none of that would have happened had he been in office, and there's plenty of reason to think he's correct.

Harris has been a Warhawk on Ukraine-Russia. No talk about using U.S. influence for negotiation or her administration's definition of the military end-game. But she equivocates on Israel-Hamas, supporting Israel's right to defend itself, but not really. In this case she insists on pointless and impossible negotiation. These are not attitudes that incline toward ending death and destruction and give a pretty clear idea of what we are in for in foreign affairs if we happen to elect her.

IMMIGRATION - The good and the bad.

Most of the residents in the community where I live in Southwest Florida are seasonal, so we have an employee problem, particularly in the food services. This is solved mostly by getting staff during the heavy season to come up from the Caribbean, mostly Jamaica and Haiti. These are great people, friendly and good workers, and are well liked. They get housing and other benefits and the money they make goes a long way when they get back home. This year I hear that we're running into a big problem getting workers because of delays in getting passports and visas from the immigration bureaucracy.

On the other hand, almost every day I watch Bill Melugin on Fox News reporting from the southern border, showing drone videos of multiple groups of hundreds of people coming in long lines, crossing freely. They're taken in and dispersed into the country. No fooling around with silly details like passports and visas. It's now up to about 200K per month we're told, as well as untold undetected others. And along with the young Hispanics looking for the good life and adventure, as did many of our forebears, come others from all over the world, including some who wish to do us harm, and tons of fentanyl taking its gruesome toll.

This gross disregard of one of the Administration's primary functions is getting beyond even Mr. Biden's amazing capacity to deny obvious truth as if he's insulted by your even asking. The sending of busloads to Democrat stronghold big cities, as well as to the hoity-toity hypocrites in Martha's Vinyard, has made some progress in overcoming the major media blackout of the problem, but the insanity persists.

Who's benefitting, besides the Mexican drug cartels? Likely, lots of people in the Washington labyrinth. Certainly not the immigrants themselves who'd much rather come, as did my dad and grandparents, through a less hazardous, and legal, process.

Mr. Trump, whatever your judgement of him, had made significant progress on cutting back on illegal entry, a necessary first step in making sensible reforms to the system. The subsequent Democrat Congress has taken zero interest in following up. Now the Republicans have the House. Let's see if they have the guts to take the problem on.