Collaboration is the ONLY Possible Answer to America’s Race Issue

There is a LOT of dishonesty surrounding America’s “race problem” today. Dishonesty on BOTH sides.

On the part of “liberals”/“progressives” it is based on a disinformation and a craven pandering for votes, while on the part of Conservatives, it’s mostly out of a consternation, born of, “Given how much progress has been made, just WHAT are “they” complaining about?”

Fact, there HAS BEEN a LOT of real progress made on this front.

Fact, there is STILL a long way to go, in dealing with some of the most intractable disparities.

Just a cursory look at the executive suites of our national media conglomerates, the partner lists of our major law and accounting firms and the rosters of America’s major engineering firms confirms what most of us already (probably) suspect, VFB (VERY Few Blacks). Now, many look at that reality and blame blacks for not trying hard enough. Others look at it as proof of an intractable “racism.”

Neither of those is actually correct.

There is NO “racist cabal” among all those companies trying to keep blacks out. HOWEVER, there IS a tendency among all of us to favor and feel most comfortable among those “of our kind.” That goes for blacks and whites...and EVERYONE else, EVERYWHERE on earth!

So, what’s the big deal?

That really IS a big deal. Just change the dynamic in your own mind...imagine it was your group being left out and another group running most of the businesses and industries. Regardless of how much outreach and recruitment those entities did, it would be tempting for most of us to suspect bigotry as the primary, if not ONLY reason for your group’s poor showing, just as surely as it would be equally tempting for the other group to complain, “We’ve already bent over backwards to accommodate such diversity.”

Many might well argue that, “There’s no overt bigotry going on, just the natural affinity of like individuals to prefer others like themselves.” Now THAT is correct, there is NO overt bigotry in that, BUT there really IS a major problem with it, as it ultimately separates us and segregates. Worse still, that simple bit of human nature is self-perpetuating.

That is malignant and toxic in a truly open and multi-cultural society.

I always keep the things I’ve written, which at this point in my life, has become a fairly voluminous tome. At any rate, back in 1974 (a time when I was filled with a naïve youthful exuberance and wondered aloud why welfare wasn’t far more generous...ANSWER: Because it would make an existing disincentive to work/productivity even more of a disincentive...I also proposed what was almost certainly an overly enthusiastic idea, that ANYONE starting a business, or any group (from a business group, to a singing group) would be mandated to reach out and take in at least one partner from another ethnic/racial group.

As you’ve probably guessed, that idea was NOT at all well received and for very good reason. I was often reminded how “hopelessly naïve” it was by a number of professors - I was in College at the time.

Recently, I looked back on that and I have to ask now, what I didn’t ask back then; IS that really such a naïve and ill-conceived idea?

Just look at the images at the top of this page (https://www.google.com/webhp…) and what do they all have in common?

Yes, it’s pretty obvious. They’re ALL white.

Now, of course, ALL of them are innovators and they ALL either singularly created an entity (like Elon Musk), or brought significant contributions to the table on specific contributions, like (Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer).

The vast majority of Americans, who are free market oriented, would say, THAT is their own intellectual property. WHY should they share it, or be forced to bring in partners that DON’T bring much, if anything to the table?

The last part is the rub. Indeed WHY should such people bring in anyone who doesn’t actually and significantly improve their existing project?

The problem is that the vast majority of such people have a circle of friends who look exactly like themselves, just as surely as that’s true for Asians, blacks and others, as well.

The problem with my idealistic idea, born of a youthful exuberance, which I no longer have...I am no longer young, nor all that exuberant...was far too authoritarian, requiring a group of government sponsored “over-seers” to micromanage all of our startups, making a largely incompetent (especially when it comes to business) government a silent partner in ALL such entities.

No, that’s unacceptable in a free and open society, but that doesn’t make the entire idea invalid. We COULD, instead, incentivize such an outreach, with various tax abatements, etc.

The question is, “Are we really serious about addressing inequities in OPPORTUNITY (NOT necessarily outcomes/results, but OPPORTUNITIES),” or are we OK with “kicking this can a little further down the road.” It IS extremely difficult for those of either race to put themselves in the shoes of the other. It is as difficult for many whites to understand how alienated a black citizen can feel, when every Fairy Tale they’ve ever read centers around people different than themselves, when they rarely see people who look like them in any great numbers in high places outside of government, as it for blacks to understand why poor (mostly rural) whites are actually even MORE disenfranchised, with far LESS access to government assistance than urban blacks are!

Few of us seem very adept at understanding the plight of others.

But one thing’s for sure, segregating standards (via race/gender preferences) and ethnocentrizing opportunities via “set-asides,” amounts to putting a band aide on a severed artery. To date, we’ve spent most of our efforts and resources on masking the symptoms and few to none on addressing the actual systemic issues. Our current “solutions” STILL pit group against group, when real collaboration is what is genuinely needed and which needs to be encouraged.

I Mention This (ALL to Frequent) Tragedy Because it Highlights the Very Nature of Violent Crime...

David Poole - Race Crime Victim

Actually it (http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/07/01/walking-while-white-family-of-victim-david-poole-he-will-not-recover/) highlights violent crime in a number of ways....YES, violent interracial crime is OVERWHELMINGLY black-on-other, BUT even more important to note is the DYSGENIC effects of such crimes.

The perpetrator(s) are virtually ALWAYS LESSER (dumber, less skilled and more life-wise incompetent) than their victims...and THAT harms ALL of us, because it harms the very foundation of our civilization...elevating/encouraging the productive and punishing/discouraging the non-productive.

A friend saw this before me and commented, "And this guy's STILL smarter than the guys who attacked him."

Mmmmmm....this ISN'T a joking matter, nor should it be made light of in any way. The FACT is that this guy (and I don't know, nor need to know what he did for a living) possessed skills that CANNOT be duplicated by any, or even all of his attackers collectively. Those skills...that productivity is GONE now and gone for good...and we are ALL diminished by it.

Dysgenics is no laughing matter. It's a pathetic aspect of our current reality. We DON'T punish violent felons enough, nor protect victims and their families enough.

Eventually that HAS TO change...on BOTH scores.

Corporate America RUNS the Agenda, Their Lackeys in Government Dutifully FOLLOW

THAT'S a basic fact of modern life.

For better, or for worse, we live in a corporatist state. The entire Western world (Europe, the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, etc.) is corporatist - run by a partnership of government and business and, in case you're wondering, BIG business is very definitely the SENIOR partner.

And to be honest, that's probably how it should be. After all the "best and brightest" don't go into government. The best lawyers don't work for government salaries, they're busy billing clients at $1,000/hour. SAME for every other position. The best researchers and managers ALWAYS go to the private sector.

That's why it's kind of funny to hear government officials occasionally opine that, "If I were in the private sector..." Yeah, IF you were in the private sector, you'd be several rungs lower on the totem pole. You work for what you do because that's what you're worth.

ANYWAY, I came across this the other day and it appears to be a rare bit of ham-handed overreach in the private sector. That tends to be much rarer in business than in government, BUT make no mistake BUSINESS LEADS and GOVERNMENT FOLLOWS.

Apparently, a document was provided to Breitbart News originating from JP Morgan Chase that shows that company (like many others) putting pressure on its employees to sign up for the cause of gay rights, and according to Breitbart News, "They have not-so-subtly let each employee know not signing up will be noted."

Employees are being told “to help create an environment for open and honest dialogue.” The document notes descriptors such as “wife” and “boyfriend” are frowned upon, and “partner” is preferred. Not referring to your wife as your wife “offers up the opportunity for more inclusive conversations.”

As to that last line, "No...it doesn't, at least not necessarily."

FIRST off, the terms "husband," or "wife," girlfriend" or "boyfriend" are no more "offensive" to gays then "partner" is to straights.

Looking to make straights capitulate and surrender their terms is not only "offensive," it amounts to a "tyranny of the minority." The correct approach would be to assure that ALL such terms, "partner," "husband/wife," girlfriend/boyfriend" etc. be mutually acceptable. THAT is the "fair and equitable" way of dealing with that.

WHY do I always have to explain such things? (I guess because so many people today don't read) Apparently I have a much clearer "Big Picture" view than the people running JP Morgan Chase....and for the record, I AM available, at the right price, of course.

I know, I KNOW...maybe I should set my sights a little lower, perhaps I should be running an HR Department or an EEO Office somewhere, but alas, that's not where my interests lie at the moment, although I COULD BE persuaded...if the compensation package was right.

Highlighting MORE Racism, From Different Backgrounds STILL Highlights....RACISM

This is a sad story for all involved...AND a story about the real and very positive value of whistleblowers (people going public with "inside information").

This Ohio teacher's bigoted abuse of a handicapped child was reported by her own teacher's aide.

The sad fact is that there are ignorant mutts from EVERY group and from EVERY background, BUT the vast majority of people; black, white and other aren't as obsessed with race as our politicians are...and WANT us to be.

The "race issue" is a divide and conquer strategy...and it works! It's worked EVERY time that it's been used.

It's also a great distraction, from the fact that you're getting ripped off every day...NOT by your neighbors of a different background, but the politicians...the "political class."

The really depressing thing is that it seems that not enough of us will ever fully wake up.

You know what would be truly subversive to the political class and their race strategy? 

To highlight positive interactions between people of different backgrounds...but we'd have to find them ourselves. The media doesn't cover such stories. They don't fit their corporate master's agenda.

Trump Enunciates an Inconvenient Truth About Illegal Immigration...and NBC Shows its Corporatist Colors

Donald Trump

Donald Trump can be really tough to take. He’s pompous, bombastic and incessantly self-congratulatory, but he also often confirms a lot of inconvenient, even ugly truths, as he did in speaking about illegal immigration from Mexico recently; “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best...They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

All of that is (mostly) true, despite its clumsy, ham-handed wording. (http://variety.com/…/nbc-donald-trump-immigrants-1201530568/) An awful lot of drugs, as well as many criminals do cross that border every year. HOWEVER, the PRIMARY problem with illegal immigration from our southern border ISN’T the drugs and crime (although those ARE serious problems), BUT the migrant workers themselves.

To be sure, the vast majority of the illegal, migrant workers that cross our southern border are desperately poor people, looking to earn a little money to help fund a little better life. That's completely understandable, UNFORTUNATELY, that amounts to "In-Sourcing" - companies bringing in cheaper labor that undercuts American wage rates and lowers the wage floor across the U.S..

The Spanish language station Univision had previously canceled Trump’s “Miss USA” pageant. Mr. Trump, no fan of subtlety, subsequently sent Univision a strongly worded letter in response. Yahoo News reported, “Broadcast Company Univision announced Thursday it would not simulcast the pageant on its Spanish language channel, UniMas. Then Trump sent a letter to the company’s CEO on Friday, barring its employees from stepping onto his Miami golf course and country club, which are adjacent to Univision’s headquarters.

“Trump reportedly added a rather ominous P.S. to the typed letter:

“Please congratulate your Mexican government officials for having made such outstanding trade deals with the United States. However, inform them that should I become President, those days are over. We are bringing jobs back to the U.S. Also, a meaningful border will be immediately created, not the laughingstock that currently exists.” Trump wrote.” (http://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-taking-toys-going-home-1…)

NBC, which had already severed ties with Trump due to his announced candidacy for POTUS, used those indelicately worded charges to sever all ties with Trump (allegedly) permanently, in issuing a statement; “Due to the recent derogatory statements by Donald Trump regarding immigrants, NBC Universal is ending its business relationship with Mr. Trump. At NBC, respect and dignity for all people are cornerstones of our values.”

That last line sounds great, but it is anything but, for with that stance, NBC merely amplified the Corporatist anti-working-class American viewpoint.

Again, illegal immigration amounts to “In-Sourcing” (bringing in cheaper labor to undercut American workers and lower the American wage floor). Big business LOVES that, because it LOVES cheap labor. Trump apparently DOES NOT like that, because the real estate market relies upon Americans being able to afford new homes. Cheap labor does not do much to help real estate developers.

There are TWO ways to directly attack American workers and by extension, the American middle class. The first is through “Out-Sourcing,” moving factories and businesses overseas where taxes and wage rates are much LOWER. The other is “In-Sourcing,” bringing the cheaper labor into this country. Of the two, In-Sourcing is much, MUCH, more cost effective (cheaper). BOTH are equally damaging to American workers.

THAT is the ONLY issue surrounding illegal immigration – “In-Sourcing.” And “In-Sourcing” harms all working Americans. There is no other issue, there is no other rationalization for illegal immigration.

It has ALWAYS been an “illegal employer problem,” NOT “an illegal worker/immigrant problem.”

On this issue, NBC stands squarely with the Corporate entities, of which it is one, and very much AGAINST working Americans.

Meryl Streep Stumps for a Revived ERA

Meryl Streep

Below is a story covering Meryl Streep's lobbying Congress to revive the ERA.

Aside from the cynical consideration that, since she never did this when the Democrats controlled BOTH Houses of Congress, perhaps it's not a cause she believes in too strongly, since she is only lobbying now that the opponents control both Houses.

Moreover, the ERA, absent "Comparable worth" (making jobs considered comparable in skill levels, ie. office manager & long haul trucker, or miner equivalent in pay), which was removed in a 1991 rewrite and eliminating the "seniority" disparity - the idea that those who leave the workforce for extended periods should NOT lose ground in pay to those who stay in the workplace (this was NEVER a part of the ERA) will do nothing to address the real reasons for the disparity in pay between male and female workers.

The ONLY practical way to eliminate the "seniority" disparity would be to bar women from leaving the workforce for "family" or any "other" considerations...difficult to do under Western Law, BUT, ironically enough, very doable under Shariah Law, which mandates a "Mutual Responsibility to Society," which, aside from demanding "wound for wound" penalties for violent crimes, would also eliminate such options for workers not legitimately disabled and unable to continue in that work. Still, under Sharia, the "disabled" would be forced to find work that they CAN do despite their disabilities.

WHY can't supporters of the ERA be honest? The ERA Movement is primarily a white women's movement, not as much geared to male/female disparities, but black/white disparities. African-American women out-earn white women by a significant margin (because they take much fewer workplace absences) and earn very close to what white males earn. THAT is the real issue the ERA seeks to redress.

The truth is that white women can easily address that issue themselves by STAYING in the workplace longer and more consistently.

The Supreme Court Affirms Gay Marriage

America isn't "CHANGING"....it HAS CHANGED. Today, all polls show that over 70% of Americans support gay rights. That number obviously includes a LOT of Conservatives.

Religious Conservatives are now a minority among Conservatives, with that group ebbing, while Libertarians are growing.

Libertarians tend to support things like gay rights.

Probably at least SOME of this is in response to the religious extremism of the Muslim world.

You know who doesn't support gay rights and opposes homosexuality?

The adherents of Shariah Law.

Even as the West's religious institutions continue to evolve their stand on this - the Pope of the RC Church (one of the most Conservative religious institutions in the West) has softened its stance, albeit slightly, on homosexuality.

This LEGAL fight appears to be effectively over. YES, those opposed to homosexuality CAN still oppose it, BUT they're going to live within a Corporate structure (America has long been a Corporatist nation) that has long been on-board with such views. (http://www.ijreview.com/…/354051-35-companies-just-told-a…/…)

Those who'd boycott such companies will have a VERY long list. NOT only that, but it's as if they just woke up. ALL of those companies have long supported gay rights. Just take a look at ANY Corporate Human Resources guide.

In his response to the ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts cautioned, “Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it...Indeed, however heartened proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs.”

In response there have been idiotic and poorly crafted calls for Justice Scalia (the preeminent Constitutional scholar on the court) to resign (http://theweek.com/articles/563276/why-scalia-should-resign) and commentator/comedians lamely mocking Justice Roberts (http://www.boston.com/entertainment/tv/2015/06/27/stephen-colbert-mocks-supreme-court-gay-marriage-dissenters/SC2WYMwEQ4lIE5eor0LDhO/story.html) calls for

Moreover, there is the very real possibility that defeat may yet be pulled from the jaws of victory, should government bureaucrats, for instance, seek to threaten the tax-exempt status of churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages. Recent polls show that just as over 70% of Americans now support gay rights, over 80% (some polls have 81%, some as high as 84%) support religious institutions preaching traditional religious doctrines (that homosexuality is sinful, etc.). A less overwhelming, but still sizable majority support the tax-exempt status of Churches.

Any attack on religious liberty carries with it the seeds of real and very severe civil unrest. Hopefully, government will not undermine the gains that have been made by gays. Any attack on religious organizations, could do irreparable harm to those gains and threaten the gains made to this point.