Racist? Why Not Multicultural?

When I read that a school principal in Oregon said that eating or even talking about a peanut butter and jelly sandwich could be considered racist, I began to wrack my brain. What about this staple from my childhood and still a quick go to favorite have about it that's racial?

Is it racial if you use white bread?  Maybe because the white bread is encompassing the brown peanut butter and the red jelly?  What about where the pb and j are combined in  nice even stripes in one jar?  What does that do to the equation?  Besides, not all jelly is red.  Some is yellow or orange or purple.  How is that racist?  Especially the purple?

Then I thought that it's really more of a symbol of multiculturalism.  White and red or yellow or orange along with the brown all together, combining to make one beautiful and tasty repast representing a multitude of races.

Then I read on.  It isn't about the peanut butter and jelly at all.  It's about the bread and the name we've given the concoction.  A - sandwich!

This, according to the powers that be is indicative of our exercising our "white privilege".  I didn't even know there was such a thing.  But, for those poor souls coming from other cultures who do not have sandwiches as such don't seem to perform as well.  They have pitas or maybe wraps or tortas or some such.  This supposedly makes them feel inferior?  This particular school has what they call Courageous Conversations, an examination of news items to see what racist "white privilege" is displayed.  This to fulfill a mandate to improve the education particularly of black and brown boys.

First it was a war on words that are considered racist - like squaw and Redskins.  Then came the war on books which exposed the youngsters to things they already knew but their parents didn't know they knew.  Now it's words of common usage regarding the food we eat.  No wonder they don't learn anything practical in school.  The teachers are too busy trying to unteach them.  Forget it.  There's this thing called the Internet.  Kids can find out about anything their little hearts desire.

Me?  Well, I am finally going to quit fighting the obvious.  I spend a lot of time criticizing the policies of our President and his administration and am considered a racist because of it. Oprah says so.  Al Sharpton says so.  So many say so I'm tired of denying it.

 This is just the final nail in my coffin.  I am  a racist.  That's a "White Privilege" word too isn't it?  If you think about it.  But the real reason is because I do eat sandwiches.  Besides pb and j's, I love BLTs and French dips and Ruebens.  I also love tacos and gyros and egg rolls.  They are all sandwiches of a sort aren't they?  Maybe I'll be okay if I quit thinking that way and see the error of my ways.

No, on second thought,  I'm going to give up.  A sandwich by any other name is still a sandwich.  If that makes me a bona fide racist, so be it.

Obama Is No Jean-Luc Picard

Remember when on Star Trek Jean-Luc Picard would say, "Make it so" and the very competent 'Number One' would do just that?  I find myself wondering why our President couldn't do more to align himself with Picard. Well, for one thing he doesn't have competent 'Number Ones' and he doesn't hold anyone, including himself, responsible.  He just blames others.

As such, he gives the order and no one makes it so.  Especially with Obamacare as more and more faults are being found.  The lesson, of course, is read the legislation before passing it.

It goes further, however, and that takes us back to foreign policy.  Nothing in ours is concrete. If we even have something that is called policy.  Take the promise of having our troops out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014 being negotiated into a broken promise.

We have the National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, at odds with Secretary of State John Kerry as to whether we back Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood or the Military who is on track to having elections and a new constitution rather than an entrenched Islamic regime.  Side with Kerry on this one.  One wonders where the President is.  Probably with Rice.  The wrong side as usual.

Then there is Syria. By partnering with Assad and Russia over the supposed destruction of WMDs, if anyone will take them, we have left the Syrian people exposed to systematic slaughter.  The cause, of course, is Assad who is practically guaranteed to stay in power and continues to be a strong ally of Iran, an even bigger nemesis. Plus, if they need WMDs again, North Korea stands ready to help them out from their ample supply.

Stay tuned to Syria.  The al Qaeda rebels have brought in their own mercenary to run the show, a well known Chechan terrorist who was looking for a new gig.  We fear him.  The Russians fear him.  Assad fears him.  And the time when we could have intervened to help the 'good' rebels has long since passed.  Nothing good can come of this.  Now everybody's lives will be at stake! What lengths will Assad go to in order to remain in power?

Back to Iran.  Some have been suggesting that sanctions should not be tightened while negotiations are pending. Every minute of every day the Iranians continue their march toward weapons grade enrichment.  There is nothing in their past history with us nor the rest of the world that suggests they will stop that march or dismantle or destroy anything already at hand.

No one trusts them.  Why are we so willing? I don't believe one phone call between historically adversarial leaders should carry that much weight.  What can I say other than Vive la France!

Come to think of it Jean-Luc Picard was French!

The Tasteless Side Of Politics

What do you do when you're considered royalty within your party due to your parentage, are running for office the very first time (the Senate no less) and haven't been able to get beyond a shaky 50% in the polls against your opponent from the same party?

Do you bow out gracefully and admit maybe a lesser office might be a more appropriate goal or do you pick one of the most controversial items on the social conservative agenda, gay marriage, on which to take a very vocal stand?

If you're Liz Cheney you choose the latter.  Never mind that your sister is gay and married.  Now Mary, the sister, and her wife aren't exactly free from criticism here.  They both took to Facebook to criticize Liz about the stand she took during an interview on FOX, saying it was offensive.  Nothing like keeping a family matter private!

I haven't visited the Facebook spat.  I have no desire to watch a cat fight between three women in one family in a public venue. Especially when there seems to be political motivation behind it.

I could be mistaken, but this doesn't seem to me the way to woo Wyoming voters to the Cheney side.  From my perspective, I'm not really sure if what Liz says is true even though her Dad confirms her stance.  He had to dance that tightrope when he was still Vice President and found himself with a gay daughter and therefore at odds with his boss.

Even as more and more states are legalizing gay marriage, it's still a touchy issue. All indications, however, point to it becoming universal in the not too distant future. It is also a states issue so I wonder why it's necessary for Ms. Cheney to be taking a stand at all.  Especially because of the family situation.  Then I guess that's the very reason though since she never seemed to mount much of a challenge to her primary opponent before this spilled over into social media, I don't see it being used against her either.

Wyoming is itself a state in flux.  While it doesn't allow gay marriage it does recognize those married elsewhere.

If I were the candidate I'd make a non-issue of it.  Yes, my sister is gay and married and happy. I'm happy for her and have nothing more to say on the subject.

I think far more voters would accept that stand more than a dust up on Facebook which makes all sides look petty and yes, certainly lacking in good taste.

I Liked Oprah Better Before She Got Political

There was a time when millions of women wanted to be the BFF of Oprah Winfrey.  She was successful beyond belief, had the same great looking beau for years and despite all she seemed down to earth, real.  One of the girls.

She was never political until Barack Obama ran for President. I can understand why she changed.  Lots of us did.  We wanted so much to believe in this young man, for him to succeed, to bring the country together.
Race wasn't a factor to enough of us who did not share his to make him the resounding winner.

But what happened to Oprah?  Is it because she gave up her daily gig to promote her own TV network and has found it wanting?  Is it because her last movie, The Butler, has been a box office bust?  I don't know, but suddenly she is on a racist kick.

Okay, maybe she believes the President has so many detractors because of his race.  To be sure there are  people of that persuasion.  But they are not the cause of his problems and by suggesting so on foreign soil is a disservice to both herself, the country and the President.

The President's problems are of his own making.  Attitude, personality traits, management style,  inexperience and unpopular policies are contributing factors. It's disingenuous for her to suggest it's all due to his race.

What makes it even worse she blames that attitude on aging whites and goes on to say the problem of racism won't be over until we all die!  Well, Oprah, I'm in no hurry to oblige you.

I also don't think my generation is the problem as much as the behavior of the younger set in places like Chicago where the whole city lives in fear of the racial gangs.

You don't hear those like Alan West, or Ben Carson or Herman Cain harping on race as the cause of their successes or failures.  They talk about policy and that's where the discussion should be.

Look at yourself and what you accomplished regardless of your race.  Are you now going to blame the lack of success of your network on race?  Please.  Don't.

Look at the President you defend.  He had a questionable educational background by his own hand in not releasing his transcripts.  His mother was an avowed communist.  His preacher was one you chose not to be affiliated with. Many of his associates had less than stellar backgrounds when it came to patriotism. His work experience was no more than being, for a short time at that, a community organizer.  He came to office on a wave of hope. He ran into trouble because he cared more about furthering his ideology rather than the country.  People finally noticed as it began to affect them personally.

Had he been white with that background he'd never have become President. That his agenda is in trouble has nothing to do with the fact that he isn't white.

The country has forgiven him more than deserved.  To accuse that same country of racism in the beholding of his problems is just not true.  There was a time I thought Oprah was above brandishing the race card under false pretenses.  I guess I was wrong.

The "Fix" Is In

Ah, the Sun King has waved his scepter and all is well!  Obamacare lives! Don't believe it.

I've been wondering for some time if the President is really as dumb as he sometimes appears or if  he thinks we're so dumb we'll buy anything he says. Remember too, he has no authority to any of what he's said he will do but then that's never stopped him before.  Perhaps now is the time to challenge him.

If he really believes what he said in today's remarks he isn't cognisant of the facts. Continuing the plans now being canceled is not as easy as his waving the magic wand.  There are rewrites, filings, insurance commissioners' sign offs not to mention finding the people effected, notifying them and their doctors and hospitals, etc. of yet another change and the process of changing those areas to reverse once again what has already begun. Kathleen Sebelius, having been an insurance commissioner, should have alerted him to the impossibility of doing this, especially in a timely manner.  Remember we're talking about millions of policies.

Some insurance firms have even quite writing health insurance, not wanting to get into the Obamacare mess.  There is no easy fix.

Even if a fix were possible it will take months.  He only extended the timeline for one year.  Then what?  It begins all over again, he did not exempt insurance companies for having to comply nor people from having to be insured.  He has, if a fix is possible, allowed for a huge gap in funding which will mean higher premiums when it does finally kick in.  Those who can't afford ACA policies now, even with subsidies, certainly won't under increased premiums.  Remember too, a lot of those young people his slightly sleazy ads are aimed at will be on their parent's plan until they're 26, leaving another funding gap.  What he has essentially done is collapse his signature legislation by his own hand.

Nope.  Nothing happened today other than more politics in an effort to get the people off his back. When the actual insurance people begin to weigh in the tide will change again considering he has just set them up to take the fall for one more unachievable task.

The fault, however, does not fall on the President alone.  We have 100% of the Democrats who voted in lock step for this monster. I almost feel sorry for the Democratic "strategists" who continue to spout the daily talking points in support of the law.  They look so foolish expounding about something of which they haven't a clue other than what they've been told to say.

 Have you wondered what the qualifications are to be a strategist?  Both sides seem to have so many, mostly women with long blond hair who sit with legs crossed to show to best advantage.  May the better looking side win the day! Pardon my being snarky but its emblematic of the whole process.

Anyway, it's not over by a long shot.  The Republicans cannot just sit back and watch hoping the damage is sufficient to sink the law.  They must present a comprehensive and less costly alternative.  I'll give them a couple of days to get their act together but won't hold my breath.

It's a shame that the little that is good about the law is being obscured by the majority which is bad. If the Republicans come forward with a plan, they should indeed include those parts.  Being smart and
magnanimous would really be something and definitely give them the march on the Democrats!  It would be, however, for the wrong reasons.  They should be doing it for the American people.  Not to win one for themselves.