Fight the Whiteness

I have come to despise the term "white". It takes people who come from widely disparate ethnic backgrounds and lumps them into one group.

While it is true that we share a common language and culture, but the smashing of different ethnicity's into a homogenized category. The destruction of ethnic identities is an issue that we as a nation should discuss.American is a nationality, not an ethnicity.

African-Americans, Native Americans, and Latinos, have all fought to maintain their heritage with varying levels of success.That is an example that people with European heritage should follow.

I don't mean in the sense of "white pride" crap.--that is racist garbage--but more as a celebration of the culture of your roots.Italians come from the Boot that gave the world Roman Law, pasta, and the Renaissance. The Germans gave us Beethoven, Mercedes, and Blitzkrieg.The British gave us the Shakespeare, The Beatles, and the Wooded Walls of the Royal Navy. Why shouldn't people who originate from those lands celebrate those cultures?


There is something appealing about exploring your past. How you got here and why. Seeing where you came from in the old country can give you an appreciation of your ancestors and a firmer grasp of the values and beliefs that have been passed down to you. To know your past is to know yourself.

We have as a country decided to categorize people by applying simplistic labels to them.But it doesn't really work. How do you classify someone who is black, but speaks Spanish and is a product of Hispanic culture? How do you classify a person whose father is black and mother is white?How do you label someone with Asian and Asian Indian. They clearly are two separated ethnicity's, but are placed in the same category.

Like Europeans, Asians face a enforced homogenization. Someone of Chinese descent is legally classified as being of the same stripe of someone of Vietnamese or Japanese descent despite physical differences between the two.

The color coded labeling is even more ridiculous when you consider how many African Americans have European ancestry or European Americans have Indian or African ancestry.

This is applicable to those of Arab, African, Chinese, Indian, and every other ethnic group in the US.Investigate your past, cherish your roots, and fight the homogenization that has destroyed the identities of generations of Americans already.

We are a country that is for the most part,a nation of immigrants. That can be to our advantage in an increasingly globalized world because our lives will be impacted by what happens over there and vice versa.If we have a populace that is knowledgeable about a certain culture, then we can expect a better chance at achieving a satisfying conclusion to the issue between the two nations.

I am not white, but of Italian, German, English, Irish, and Scottish extract.A mutt I maybe, but it is still better than being white.

Left and Right are two peas of the same pod

It is really quite interesting to see how people rail against something(the government, capitalism, etc) while at the same time having directly benefited from the object of their scorn. What is it that causes people to do this?

Why do the Left rail against the inequities of capitalism all the while enjoying the benefits that the American system of capitalism has permitted them to enjoy? Why does the Right assail the government that has provided the atmosphere which has permitted conservatives to acquire affluence?

This hypocrisy grates on my nerves. How can you damn a system that has brought so many benefits to you?

I believe that much of this traces to the fact that most people tend to be prisoners of their own experience. That is, they take the information they have gathered either empirically or second hand, and construct a belief system. Often times these beliefs are unrefined and require another person to mold them into a coherent, structured, ideology.

This ideology once formed, creates a follower who is certain of the superiority of their beliefs and morality, to those who differ. Liberals are convinced that because they support universal health care that they are doing so because their views are intrinsically greater morally than those who oppose it. Similarly, conservatives who oppose gay marriage do so because they believe themselves to be operating from a higher moral plain.

The psychological "prison" that we call beliefs can and do distort one's perception of the world. The believer may not be aware of the inconsistency of their beliefs with their actions or may believe that they are not being inconsistent. Liberals may believe that by advocating reform that they are practicing what they preach. Conservatives may believe that they have achieved their status without much assistance from government. That both maybe wrong does not occur to them.

Simply advocating for social justice does not alter the fact that you have benefited greatly from the system you damn. Arguing for small government does not change the truth that government has been a great boon for those who have achieved a level of financial success in the country.

Each side is oblivious to the cracks in their logic. For example, social justice. How do you determine what is just? Justice can mean different things to different people. How is it just to forcibly dispense wealth? How can you paint yourself as a devotee of Christ all the while advocating a form of Social Darwinism? How can you say one is superior to the other when both are seriously flawed?

Ultimately, the very weakness of their beliefs will make sure that neither will achieve status as the preeminent system of thought in this country. The Left and Right for all their arrogance and myopia, exist simply because the other does.

The pestilence of Conspiracy Theorists

What is it about events that cause people to invent "alternative explanations" that purport to tell the "truth"? Why is it so hard for people to understand that much of what happens happens because someone made a mistake or that the political or military infrastructure was not prepared for such an event?

Pearl Harbor happened because the United States did not take seriously the threat from Japan until it was too late. Who would have thought that Japan would have the audacity to attack the much larger United States?

Who would think that a nobody named Lee Harvey Oswald would have the nerve to kill the President by shooting from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository? After all,it had been 62 years since the last assassination. The three previous shootings had been from up close and not from distance. So why would anyone think of that?

Lastly, who would seriously imagine that 20 hijackers would be able to take 4 planes and either crash them into buildings or attempt to? While there was an alert of such a potentiality who could honestly predict that such a thing would occur?

People who resort to belief in conspiracies to explain events are either stupid or intellectually lazy people who do not want to do the research necessary to understand why something happened. These people are generally not knowledgeable nor do they seek to acquire knowledge about history, politics, warfare, or people from other regions.In place of actually seeking the reasons why these events happened,they construct an interpretation of the events from a scraps of information they get from dubious sources. They do so in a manner that coincidentally conforms with what they already hold to be self evident truths.


The genesis of these logic and fact-deficient theories are the crackpots out there who ARE learned in certain fields.These people develop their theories of certain people or institutions. Then once something big happens--like a 9-11--they take said event and spin it into a yarn that involves story that is as complex as it stretches the very limits of believability. They then transmit their theories to these like the rat flea does to the rat, to souls who then spread the contagion like the rat spreads the Bubonic Plague.

The most infuriating aspect of conspiracy theorists is how much credibility they give to obscure persons on the internet whose only claim is their theory or their involvement in some controversy. That these people have no established credibility among people in their respective field matters not to the faithful. What they say is the truth. It is everyone else who is gullible, stupid, or blind to the truth. It couldn't be that they themselves are stupid, gullible, or so wedded to a particular view point that they will believe anything that appears to confirm it.They can never explain why we should believe so and so over the government or other independent researchers.

I despise conspiracy theories because it isn't a honest interpretation of events, but the excrement of warped minds who manipulate facts of a case in order to fit their world view. Like-minded people still give credence to the infamous forgery The Protocols of the (Learned) Elders of Zion that so influenced the Nazis' and other anti-Semites.The physical and emotional damage caused by the purveyance of that ignoble tract has been incalculable.

Furthermore, it impedes the honest efforts to get at the truth. We all know that the government hides things from the public in order serve their own interests or even out of a legitimate desire to protect us. The fact is we should not know everything. Anyone who thinks that we should does not understand mass psychology or war.

But there are times when we do need to know. That is why we have the Freedom of Information Act(FOIA), investigative journalists, researchers, scientists, etc. That is their job.They still will present it in a biased light, but at least you know that they are giving an effort at telling the story in a forthright manner.Their reputations are on the line. They have to be or else they won't have a job.

What does the generator of a conspiracy theory have to lose? He already is relegated to obscurity. If certain "facts" he uses are proven to be without merit he can always chose to dismiss or alter his story that minimizes the contradictory evidence. He can basically say what he wants without much fear of losing his reputation or job. Who will care enough to scorn a nobody?

"All we want are the facts, ma'am" are the words Detective Joe Friday used to utter on the 50's TV show Dragnet and just like Friday what we seek are the facts which will hopefully lead us to the truth.You can only get there by studying all relevant subjects of a specific event. You have to be diligent, scrupulous, and open minded towards any idea that is supported by logic and facts.

What you cannot ever to do is to surrender your cognitive faculties t to misguided persons who long ago succumbed to their own prejudice and ignorance.

Intellectual laziness may not be a sin as religion defines a sin, but it is one in my book.Nothing is worse than a person who eschews the explanation based on research acquired in a methodical, logical, manner for one that is based on the selective use of facts and which openly appeals to the bias of the ignorant and naive.

If you want to know why something happened, study it. Be thorough. Do not limit yourself to studying that one incident, but also look at similar incidents in other places and different times. The best way to understanding is to approach it as a historian does a subject or a good detective does a case.You'll be much closer to understanding why something happened than watching Zeitgeist on Youtube.

The news today that two US rockets destroyed a house killing 12 Afghans' in Marjah highlights the extreme difficulty of successfully implementing the US plan to reduce civilian casualties in the Marines drive to crush Taliban resistance.(for more info see this article http://http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/09/world/la-fg-afghan-civilians9-2010feb09)

On the surface the tactic makes sense, Winning over the civilian population in the midst of an insurgency is the most direct way of impacting a force on irregulars. Guerrilla warfare depends upon assistance--coerced or willingly--from the local populace to keep their effort afloat.The US plan acknowledges this fact and seeks to undercut the Taliban by trying to earn the trust and goodwill of the locals.

As the article notes that means everything from announcing planned offenses months in advance to restricting the use of artillery or air power to as well as tightening the rules of engagement to rebuilding roads and infrastructure to gain the help of the people in combating the Taliban.

That is all well and good, but is it realistic? In an area that is excellent terrain for guerrilla warfare, the difficulty of exercising restraint is 100 on a 100 scale. In the difficult terrain of southern Afghanistan(canals created by the US decades have further complicated things) death can come at any time from almost anywhere. Fire discipline is going to severely tested.

What happens if more civilians are killed in mistakes? War never goes as planned, so further civilian deaths are almost certain. How will the inevitable pressure from the international community impact the United States effort?

What if the restraints lead to a increase of American deaths? What if the Taliban--who are not concerned by the laws of war--resort to using civilians as shields? How do you surmount such tactics?

How this will end up is any one's guess at this point. But with 52% of Americans opposing the Afghanistan conflict, pressure is high on McChrystal to get this right.

Caught in a No Romance

Here I blog on the eve of the most romantic night of the year alone with my netbook and Faygo cola wondering if I'll know the love of a good woman.


The U2 song "I still haven't found what I am looking for"http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X7QGCmIZl0 captures perfectly my emotional state at this moment. I search the room and still haven't found the woman whose face enthralls me;that causes my heart to flutter; the one who's mere presence is my greatest joy;the one whom I'd die to protect.


Is she out there? I don't know. Will I ever meet my Juliet? Will I ever be someones Romeo? At 32--soon to be 33--I am starting to seriously doubt that I will have the opportunity to immerse myself in the love of another.

But do not mistake this as a pathetic plea for rescue from loneliness. Loneliness is a state of mind. You are as lonely as you believe yourself to be. While I deal with bouts of loneliness, I do not consider myself "alone". I have great family and friends whom I cherish.I have other passions that redirect the unused affection.

I won't date just to date.I won't seek company from scantily attired, inebriated women at the local bar in order to fulfill carnal desires.It has to be right. I have to feel that my pursuit is genuine and not motivated by something other than a sincere interest in exploring the potential for an emotionally deep and satisfying relationship.

Anyone can have casual dating relationships. Not everyone can or is capable of long lasting relationships. This is a harsh reality that few want to acknowledge, much less admit that it could apply to them. It is characteristic of humans to engage in self deception. Some for example believe that peace is possible despite the long record of violence on a macro and micro level in human communities.

To admit to oneself that they might never love like Tristram loved Isolde would mean admitting to the POTENTIAL of failure. That is a difficult thing for people to do. They simply HAVE to believe that the "one" is out there. If not, than why go on living? What is life without love?

It is this fear that drives people to seek ways to avoid being alone. Some are temporary(prostitutes, hook ups), others are impersonal(online relationships), and then there is the carousel of relationships that most people have gone through. All this to avoid admitting "defeat".

But are they happy? Is it better to be with someone you don't love with all your heart than to be alone? My answer is this: nyet.I'd much prefer to live out my days a single man than to live them with a person I don't love to the core of my being.It is better to live life alone than to live it under false pretenses.

I may not have found what I am looking for, but I surely am going to continue my search for the sweetest thing with the understanding that it may not be in the cards for me. But with or without love, I will keep walking on.

The peculiar nature of love

I hate eHarmony. It isn't just because they use the same people over and over again--I have a strong desire to throw my TV out the window every time Tanyalee comes on my screen--or that they charge a ridiculous amount for something that one can do for free on Facebook. It isn't even the fact that their absurdly long questionnaire's do nothing but waste one's time.

However, none of what I listed above are why I loath websites like eHarmony so.

I hate them because they are trying to bring logic to something as illogical as relationships. Who a person ends with or if they end up with anyone at all, depends much more on circumstance as it does on anything that can be quantified.

My grandfather met my grandmother as teenagers in a Detroit movie theater when both were there to meet other people. That chance meeting lead to a 30 year marriage that ended only with my grandmother's passing from cancer.

My father met my step-mother while working at Federal Express. It wasn't an instant match. She was married and he was burdened with a troublesome lad.But over the years--through the berth of a child and the dissolution of her marriage-they became the best of friends and eventually husband and wife.

On the surface, those two circumstances are dramatically different. One was the rarest of all romantic encounters--instant match. The other took a significant passage of time for love to blossom.

But at deeper level, both relationships happened because of chance. Who could predict that two people who came to the same place to meet other people would fall in love? What personality test could see the match of two co-workers with very different personalities?

Love is indefinable. You cannot subject it to a battery of psychoanalytical or physiological tests and expect to determine what exactly causes a "match". It is a unpredictable thing that most times results from a casual meeting.It can at a bar, through the machinations of friends, or the result of some mundane activity such as riding a bicycle or walking through a store. It just happens.

That is why I see dating websites as nothing more as gathering places for the lonely to arrange booty calls or to meet new friends. The occasional couple can result from the use of such sites, but most of those relationships fade to black. The rare ones that do last do so out of chance. As stated before, love can be found anywhere--on land, sea, air, or on the internet. It knows no boundaries.

Sitting here in a cafeteria, I glance around at woman sitting by themselves and think "Is she the one?Will this be the day?" More than likely they are not.But Love like Life, is unpredictable. You never know when that casual meeting will occur or even know at the time that it has, until later on. That is what makes the game of love so utterly nerve wracking and exhilarating.