How do you tell a racist?

Ever notice how even racists don't want to say they're racist?

You'd think there were no racists in America.

And if by "racist" we mean only those dozen or so losers who show up at a Klan rally to wear silly robes and carry about Nazi, Confederate and obscure White Nationalist flags, then yeah, I suppose racism is dead in America.  By that standard, the one where a person genuinely wants all minorities to be killed, enslaved or deported, and loudly and proudly says so, then there are an insignificant number of racists in America.

But if by "racist" we mean those who consistently espouse views, ideologies, beliefs and positions that consistently have a negative effect principally upon minorities, then I assert that racists are a vast percent of the white population of America.  As in at least half.

How do you tell a racist by that standard?

Well, don't look for them to go about saying "Hitler was right".  But do look for how they come down on a variety of issues pertaining in the main to minorities.

Almost any issue can effect minorities, and one can hold some positions that might harm a minority without necessarily being racist, but when all the positions held harm minorities, then yes, it is safe to say the person is racist.

How many positions must one hold that hurt minorities to be a racist?  Only each of us can judge that.  Certainly holding "none" of the positions that would harm minorities would tend to have us all agree that the person is not racist.  And certainly holding "all" of the positions that would harm minorities would tend to have us all agree that they are racist.  Well, all of us but the conservatives who hold an alarming number of positions that hurt minorities.

Where's the cut off?  Again, each of us must decide.  But oddly enough, one of the surest indicators of a person being racist would be the person who is already saying, "You can hold all those positions that might harm minorities and still not be a racist!"

Immigration.  One is for more people coming in or not.  When those who are not in favor of more coming in principally speak about those south of our borders, as opposed to all those who come from the north, east and west, then yes, that is a possible sign they are racist.  Not enough by itself, but it is one position in which they are espousing a position that harms minorities.

Affirmative Action/Quotas.  One is in favor of it or not.  If one is not, then like with immigration and all other issues listed, they'll have great reasons for it, but that side of the position is still harmful to minorities.  

Voter ID.  One is for something that tends to disenfranchise minority voters or one is not.  No good reason for being "for" this changes the fact that it does harm minorities.  

Mandatory Minimum Sentencing/Three Strikes.  One is for it or not.  That it hurts minorities disproportionately is a fact whichever side they take.  If they are for it, they may cite good reasons.  But it hurt minorities all the same.

Death Penalty.  One is for a system that disproportionately executes African Americans or one is not.  I actually get that this one issue could have non-racist supporters.  But they need to educate themselves to the fact that the death penalty is destructive of minorities all the same.

Black Lives Matter.  Does the person support Cliven Bundy using guns to occupy a Federal facility but go on and on about unarmed black kids blocking traffic?  Does he love memes about running over protesters with cars?  Well, he may have a book worth of explanations to give you, but that stance still hurts minorities.

Law Enforcement Officers.  Is every shooting a justified shooting?  If one thinks so, then maybe they were raised by cops and married a cop and are a cop.  But it still is a stance that harms minorities.

Prosecutorial discretion.  Does the person see nothing wrong in every black man being charged if he fired a gun, even in obvious cases of self defense?  And nothing wrong in almost no policeman ever being charged or indicted for firing a gun, even in the most outrageous of cases?  Then no matter what he then says about "worse" things like "black on black" crime, his position still harms minorities.

Sports Teams.  In a nation that for the most part names it's teams after animals, does the person you're talking to think that naming a team after Native Americans is a sign of respect?  

Minority Concerns.  Does a person label every minority concern "PC" or "reverse racism" or "entitlement"?  Is there never a minority concern that has any validity?  It should make one wonder.

Welfare.  Is this a person who believes that you can never spend too many billions of tax dollars on Veterans, the Elderly, Wall Street bankers and CEOs, but is furious at how food stamps and Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Section 8 housing is bankrupting America with godless socialism?  One might respect the conscience of any who simply advocate "no government spending on anyone", but when it just happens that the only stuff that is "evil socialism" is used by a lot of minorities, then it can be suspect.

Socialism.  Is every program for them - street lights, college loans, social security, VA bennies, and such "earned", but every program that aids minorities "welfare"?  Closely related to the welfare example, but distinguished by this "I earned it"/"You mooched it" dichotomy.

Confederate Statues.  Is this person long on speaking about the importance of preserving "heritage" - but also long on why statues of slaves and Underground Railroad operators and such are "PC crap"?  Are they the first to scream about the darker skinned Muslim officer Nidal Hassan who killed 13 people at Ft. Hood, but the first to defend America's greatest traitor, Colonel Robert E. Lee who was responsible for killing 600,000 plus Americans?  Then that might indicate some racism.

If by "might" I mean "does".  

Crime.  Which crimes are they speaking of, in conversation and on social media?  If it is always about some minority doing this or some Muslim doing that, but never a word of any white or white collar criminals, then yes, that could be a sign of they being racist.  And if they think they're making a triumphant intellectual point by pointing out that the faith of predominantly brown and black nations is not a "race", then yeah, that's a racist.

Politics.  Are they in a party that at least pays lip service to helping the disadvantaged and downtrodden who - for obvious reasons - include many minorities, or are they in a party that pretends that we've had a level playing field here since either 1865 or 1964?  It does not mean that they might not be in the more minority harming party for reasons of the old ideals that such a party might once have had, but it is another indicator.

Civil War.  Do they believe - and love to bore you with - how the war was over "State's Rights", while deliberately not understanding which "right" those State's were fighting to have?  A very sure sign.  Do they look blankly at you when you point out that the southern states had NOT supported the right of northern states to fail to return runaway slaves?  Then they're an ignorant racist.

Just sayin'.  Are they self-avowedly not racist, but always "just sayin'"?  And then trotting out something that lets all know why they'd have to preface their comment with the "You know I'm not racist, but..." intro?  A very sure sign.

Protests.  Do they boldly proclaim that they'd have marched with the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, but now they never see a single protest that they don't find to be over the top wrong, offensive or inappropriate?  Maybe they think that bent knees truly harm the apparently very delicate American flag, or that it somehow gives disrespect to the troops, 33% of which are black, but more likely, that they always find fault with another race protesting, no matter what, makes them...racist.

Language. Are the same code words being used as were in the 1920s during the height of the Klan?  America First, diseased foreigners, dirty immigrants, criminally minded, illiterate hordes and such?  One might charitably assume a terrible coincidence in characterizing those outside our borders - and some within - with such dehumanizing language.  Or one could assume the obvious - that the same types speak the same ways. 

Presidents.  Could a black President do no right, even when he was pursuing to the letter the goals of the previous White Republican President?  Was the black President's rather middle of the road eight year administration over-sold as the "worst in history"?  Was his good and decent Christian wife of decades called names, and accused of being everything from a transsexual man to a monkey?  All in good humor, of course?  Then that is a real sign of a racist.

This Article.  Is the person who read this mad as this is "really just describing conservatives" while missing the point that it's also describing a variety of positions that do - in every case - harm minorities no matter what the good reasons stated?  Then that says a lot.  Especially as conservatism as it is today is NOTHING like it's roots, and that the author of this article is more conservative - pre-Goldwater - than any alive today who claim the name are.  Most who couldn't tell you who Goldwater was to save their lives.

The N-Word.  Can the person say, "If President Trump used the n-word, then he was disgustingly racist and wrong" or will they say anything else but that?  Will they treat you to a lecture on what rap singers say, or will they simply say it was wrong?  Will they say it should never be used, or wish to hear more of the "context"?  If they can't just say that it was wrong if it was used, then yes, that speaks to being racist.

Trump.  Enough said.  It's an "indicator", not sufficient by itself, but it sure gets you a long way down the road.

Antifa vs. Nazi Flag wavers.  Do they always defend one as free speech with some outside agitators making it violent?  And which one is that they always defend?  A no-brainer here.  For while both groups have their issues, the defense or condemnation of one and not the other is damning.   

Religion.  Do they support prayer in schools but hate the idea of kids learning about Islam?  One could defend both, and one could oppose both, but supporting one without the other is of concern.

Tally this list up.  Take your own score.  And if you're a conservative, and don't like the score you got, then I suggest you discover the Libertarian Party.  It's a lot more like old fashioned conservatism than the racist vomit that passes for it today.

Be This Guy

I'd like each morning for every worker in the United States to stand and face the flag outside their place of work, place their hand on their chest and sing the National Anthem.

I'd also like President Donald Trump to start his work day that way.  And the Board members of the NFL. 

And those who don't need to be fined, for the ThoughtCrime of not loving America, the Flag of America and the National Anthem of America enough.

Or is that just a penalty that we impose on football players who want to quietly kneel in protest of what they believe to be a wrong?

Meanwhile, I encourage all professional football players to "be this guy":

Another Four Star General, another dead black kid

Like peanut butter and jelly, you just can't have a dead black kid without some poster boy for white privilege standing before microphones in all their four star glory.

The latest General with a self-awarded rank higher than that of Founding Father and President George Washington, is Sheriff Joseph "I outrank Grant and Lee" Lopinto.

Now, while most stolen valor posers will don the four stars on each shoulder - or each side of their collar - like the real men of the real military does, this baby boy, unsure as to how real men dress themselves in our armed forces, went for the overkill.

And thus you behold him in all his SIXTEEN STAR glory, as this ignorant poser has donned four stars on his left shoulder, four stars on his right shoulder, and in case you didn't notice them, another four stars on this left collar and another four stars on his right!

Pity his poor wife who has to pin those on to his shirt each morning after starching and ironing his Superman underoos.  I give him credit, though.  The bath towel cape he is without a doubt wearing is well tucked in, and unnoticeable in his pretty white faux military attire.

But what of the death of the black kid?  Oh, his name was Keeven Robinson.  Why, does it matter what his name was?  He was found with "significant traumatic injuries" that were "consistent with asphyxiation".  Had he been white, this would be called "murdered by strangulation".  This happened while he was in the custody of four of the General's white soldiers.  Er, I mean, four of the Sheriff's deputies who happened to be Caucasian.  

But really, must we dwell on that death?  I mean, it's not like anything is going to be done about it.  The mealy mouthed coroner already assured the press that "homicide by medical diagnosis" is not the same as "legal homicide", so really, it's not like there's a crime here.  I mean, what part of "black kid" don't you understand?

The General, when asked by our "free press" if chokeholds were used (because they're not supposed to be, given how they cause death so routinely) answered, "Well, golly now, we don't tell our deputies to use bricks, but if they're under attack and defending their lives, and a brick is laying about, then sure, you use a brick."  I paraphrase, but besides it being expressed a bit dumber, that was the jist.

Cop-ese for "Yes, we routinely use strangleholds on crack addicts, crazies and coloreds, because we can.  Had he had the sense to be born a white girl or rich man, this non-tragedy could have been averted."

Well, let us pray our thanks tonight that Jefferson County, Louisiana is guarded not by some mere officer of the law, but by this sixteen star Generalissimo.  And that he had four husky armed soldiers to "defend" we the people against that unarmed black youth who - in fairness - did have a gun in his car 200 yards away.  

And you know how quick they can run and jump, eh?  Yeah.

In the end, the only important thing is that those "men" got home safely.  And they did.  And it's not like they've not been punished.  Each of them is drawing full pay while sitting at a desk telling jokes about watermelons and fried chickens, so really, justice has been done, eh?

At least such "justice" as is to be found in General Lopinto's America.  

Good Germans

I suppose it would be easy enough to pan on the cops here.  And they are definitely worth panning on.  Or I could pan on the Starbucks employee who called the cops. 

But I'm calling out the filmers.  Those who are no doubt patting themselves on the back right now for "promoting awareness" and doing their part for the "Revolution" by quietly watching a gaggle of cops lead away in chains two black men.

Any of them act like they'd have hid Anne Frank in their attic - but their own phone footage damns them.  They'd have filmed Anne Frank being led away by the Gestapo.

That's all they'd have done.  Of course, that raises the question, "Dean, what would you have done?"

Hmm.  Well, I guess I suck, too. 

Thinking about it, I realize that I'd have done little more than the filmers.  Maybe a few token protests, but then I'd have subsided under fear of arrest.

Or such.

Because I do fear arrest.  "Or such".  And no doubt those there do, too.  We all know, even those who know and love some cops, that to draw their attention always has some element of danger to it.  Far more than it used to.

Far more than it needs to.

Far more than it should.

And if the cops are already wound up, like we each know they are when they're on to some black guy?  Even more danger, even to us white folks.  And especially to us non-Porsche driving white folk. 

Is this the country of our youth?  Our granddad's youth?

Is this the country we want?  Where we know now why the Germans didn't complain back in the forties?

Where we're now the Good Germans?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gegA9GsJ26A

Modern Conservatism is Racist

Did you know that many years - decades even - that Conservatives used to be in favor of small and limited government, and an upholding of the Constitution?

I know that's hard to believe for any born after the Carter Administration, but it's true.

In the old days, like the fifties and sixties, the Conservatives were against the practices of Totalitarianistic Communist regimes.  They despised Universal IDs, travel permits from place to place, suspension of civil liberties, Iron Curtains, all the things that made such places rightless hell-holes.

Our government was in a quandary.  What was a fascism-loving government to do when so many of the producers and workers of the nation were all conservative like that?

Well, they figured they'd scare the conservatives out of those views.

Conservative:  Only the Soviets require State IDs!
Government:  But hey, you know who is voting illegally?  Brown people! 
Conservative:  Okay, we need State IDs!

This worked for everything.

Conservative:  I'm not showing any papers!  And you ain't searching me!  This ain't Communist Russia!
Government:  But Brown people did 9/11!
Conservative:  Okay, the TSA and 100 mile Constitution free zones are fine!

Conservative:  It was Reagan that made them there Commies take down that Wall!  Because, Freedom!
Government:  You know who comes here, steals jobs, steals welfare and dates your daughter - er, spreads diseases?  Brown people!
Conservative:  We need to build a Wall!

So here we are.  A strange inversion took place in the last fifty plus years.  Now the hippy dippies of the sixties who were all pro-Socialism are the ones screaming about protecting the Constitution and not turning our nation into a Totalitarianistic hell-hole.  And the conservatives are the ones agitating for everything that made the Soviet Union the Soviet Union!

Oh, don't get me wrong, the Left is hardly perfect, and hardly is blameless.  But at least when they give up rights, they give them up for some noble sounding ideal or the other, not because they're told that some Brown person is out to get them!

Now I know, I know - some conservatives are saying, "We are not racists!", and I do know many conservatives who are NOT racist at all.

But you know, in speaking of the bulk of the conservatives that you hear of online, in the news, and such, well, they all look and act pretty racist. 

Yeah, yeah, I get it - the remarkable love of the Confederate Battle Flag is due to the conservative's deep and abiding love of history, so long as it's a very specific four year period of history involving Brown people in chains.  Not so much do they know or care about other times in history.  I mean, have you ever seen a good ol' boy with the flag that was carried up San Juan Hill during the liberation of an island of Brown people displayed on the back of his pick up truck?

No, not the big one.  That red and white one at the far right.
That's heritage.  Unknown to any conservative you're likely to have met.

And yeah, yeah, I get that any opposition to Affirmative Action is due to the incredible love of exact fairness that burns within the conservative heart.  So long as it's the fairness that keeps others (Brown others) from getting an extra boost, but not the type that keeps the conservative from inheriting tax free, benefiting from gerrymanders and getting legacy bumps for their kids.

And yeah, I get that this is all over their over-riding love of pure Laissez-faire Capitalism.  So long as there can still be fascistic bailouts, quantitative easings, tax breaks and other dodges for their boys, but none of this "minority preference" stuff for others.  Brown others. 

And I get that a lot of this is their sadness - and righteous anger - over the many plunderings for our welfare state - well, the welfare that goes to others.  Brown others.  The welfare for veterans, police, their own grandparents, themselves, that kind of stuff is fine, and not even "real" welfare.  They earned it.  No one else apparently ever did.

And I get that even on stuff like statues, that it's that same love of history and heritage - if we mean that same four year period involving slavery, and the statues are to those who betrayed our nation and fought for the State's rights to enslave Brown people.  I never hear them speak in support of having statues of Hirohito or Tojo or Fidel or Saddam.  Or Sitting Bull.  Or Malcolm X. 

What does that all mean?  Well, yeah, it still means that I know conservatives who aren't racist.  But I think even they should fairly admit that on the whole, taking the broad view, an outsider from Mars, or another country here on Earth, or even just "outsiders to the system" like anarchic old me, could be forgiven for seeing a smidge of racism coloring the whole Modern Conservative Movement.

I mean, how else is it that on every issue that comes up, the bulk of conservatives - always for the noblest of reasons, of course - are on the side of that which hurts Brown people?  Always on the side of that which annoys Brown people?  Always on the side of that which tends to demean, distress or be destructive of Brown people?

Admitting that the Left never saw a policeman do a thing that they didn't find to be wrong - are the Modern Conservatives any nobler for never having seen a policeman ever do a thing that they couldn't justify?  Yeah, I'm speaking of the previously unmentioned tendency of conservatives to - while claiming that they need to be armed in case the government ever turns on them - endorse and support the police no matter how outrageous any of their actions look on video tape.

Conservative:  We have to have guns to stay free, if only the police have guns, that there is a police state!
Government:  Brown people are running wild in the streets, we must do something!
Conservative:  Give unlimited power to a militarized police, with no meaningful oversight or accountability! 

See?  Again, sure, it's not about racism, the conservative is only worried about "inappropriate protests".  Or "criminals" who won't instantly obey the police.  True, they didn't mind Cliven "Whitey McWhite" Bundy illegally occupying Federal land and holding off the police with guns...somehow that was okay.  But Brown people taking a knee at a football game...wow, how angry they were at how disrespectful that was to their beloved "boys in blue".  Brown people blocking traffic?  Remember the calls for them to be run over and killed?

But there's no racism? 

I'm crying foul. 

Yes, yes, I still know individual conservatives who are not racist.  But the movement as a whole, this "Modern Conservatism", is by any reasonable standard overlaid with racism.  Overlaid, infused, stuffed with, drizzled with, baked in.  This may not be the individual "non-racist conservative's" fault, but it sure is not the fault of the liberals, either. 

It is, in fact, the conservative's fault as a whole.  It is on they as a whole, and each one individually to fight to get rid of the racism inherent in the views that are being displayed to the world.  The individual non-racist conservative needs to take back his own movement and get conservatism back to it's Goldwater Glory days of minimalistic government and iron clad Constitutions.

Frankly, I see far more of old-school conservatism (the good kind) in the Libertarian Party, and to be more frank, most non-racist conservatives I know would do themselves a favor by leaving the now thoroughly disgraced Republican Party and entering the Libertarian Party.

Likewise, though for a whole batch of different reasons, I'd say your average Liberal/Democrat would do better to leave the Democratic Party and join the Green Party. 

But back to the conservatives, please, do something.  Leave the party for a cleaner one, or stay and reform, but whichever you do, please understand and accept how it all looks.  It is not on any liberal, no matter how goofy they are.  And it sure isn't on me the anarchist. 

It's the conservative's movement.  It's on them how it looks.  And it looks racist and terrible.  Each individual thing could be - and will be - argued.  Plausible sounding reasons can - and are - trotted out for each odd racist looking thing.  But past a certain point...past a certain point...past a certain point long since past...the whole looks racist, and realistically, pretty much is racist.

There's just too many examples.  It's like the guy late for work each day.  Sure, each individual reason he has is great, and may even be true.  But golly gee, by the 23rd time, no one is going to care any more, are they?  If they care even that long?

And no one cares, past the two dozenth "explanation" from Modern Conservatives about how even though more terrorists come from White Canada, it's Brown Mexico that we need a Wall with, because something or other, blah blah, some of their best friends, blah blah.  It looks racist.  It sounds racist.  It has the effect of being racist.  Past the many examples displayed for the world, only some of which I listed here, we all just throw up our hands and declare that it is racist.

Not on you, if you're a conservative reading this.  Just your movement.  It's only on you what YOU choose to now do about it.  Excuse it the more, step away, or step up.

Teenage Level Accountability

"Teenage Level Accountability"

I saw an article today in which someone pointed out something that I've pointed out - and been to all appearances alone in pointing out - for years.

That middle aged policemen should be held to the same standards as teenage soldiers overseas.

The article was about a policeman who was found "not guilty" of murder, even though he had shot to death some unarmed white guy after five minutes of making him do a bunch of weird circus tricks in the hallway of a hotel.

The writer made mention of the fact that he'd seen Al Qaida terrorists treated with more dignity and decency while being apprehended in war zones. The writer mentioned that we do in fact have "rules of engagement" for our teen soldiers, but none apparently for cops.

I know from my own service that the Air Force Security Police could not - and do not - get away with what I see in the non-military world. And would anyone claim that the danger is less for policeman on a 20,000 person base than a 10,000 person town?

At 17, I was in the United States Armed Forces Police Academy for the police forces of the Air Force and Marines. I graduated shortly after I turned 18, on the 16th of December, 1986. So pretty soon, it will have been 31 years since I left the Academy.

But I still remember the Rules of Force. And I can say calmly and dispassionately and with no malice towards any particular cop or cops in general that I see them violated each day in the news.

Civilian police are simply not held to the same standard - or any where near - as teen cops in the military. Or teen soldiers dealing with militants, insurgents and terrorists.

The writer of the article I saw pointed out most of all that "fear" - a fear that police can legitimately feel - is not an end all be all excuse for shooting first and never having it questioned later.

Fear can be felt - yes. But they are trained and paid to deal with this kind of thing, and paid far better than Privates in the Army are.

This is NOT an attack against the good and decent policeman out there, however many many or few the individual reader of this feels there are. Those good and decent policeman in many cases voluntarily DO hold themselves to the high standards of a soldier in a war, because they are moral, and because they signed up to aid people, not to exercise power trips.

It is a plea, though. That all people, including the good cops, start to realize that having a touch more accountability - even that minimal amount we expect of 17 to 21 year old kids - should apply to those civilians (and yes, cops are civilians) at home.

"To serve and protect". Good cops make that mean something. Every day. It's time for they, and the rest of us, to not shy away from expecting a touch up of accountability.

Chickenhawks

It's funny how fragile non-vets think we vets are. They apparently imagine that we vets see an NFL player kneeling in peaceful protest and we all clutch our hearts, or cry a single tear, or some such.

We don't.

And if only they'd have ever bothered to serve the country they claim such love for, they'd realize we soldiers and veterans are a bit tougher than that.

Most of us don't really care either way whether a civilian wants to protest. They can kneel, they can sit in, they can march, they can yell. That all is, after all, the First Amendment that we agreed to defend when we swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

You know what most vets think "disrespects the flag"? Not being willing to fight for it. And while that's anyone's right, to stay safe at home building careers and families while others sign up to protect them while they do that, they don't then get to go about with their chests thrust out loudly proclaiming offense at what some do or do not do while the flag is flying.

You value that flag so much? Show me your discharge papers. Never served? Well, good news, you can fly to Syria, right now, grab a rifle from the hands of a dead soldier there and show us what you got.

Because you telling off football players for kneeling isn't doing jack all to help America. And I include our cowardly chickenhawk President and his children in that. None whom have ever served anyone but themselves.

White Women Matter

Remember that Utah Police Officer who handcuffed the white woman who sassed him?

He was fired.

Remember the dozen or so stories you've heard the past year or so about a policeman killing an unarmed black man and then getting paid leave and reinstatement?

This is why Black Lives Matter protests, and why football players kneel peaceably in silent protest.

And this is why piously saying back, "All Lives Matter" is facetious and hurtful. All lives do matter - but the point of BLM is that the Black Lives seem to matter a lot less.

Fired for handcuffing a white woman. Paid vacation for killing a black man.

Doesn't mean all cops are bad, or that all cops are racist. Just means there's some issues that need addressing. Sooner that's realized, the better.