What is privilege?....

This is only my second blog post, after a hiatus of almost four years, but the current state of the nation has finally triggered a second attempt at reaching out to the masses.
I'm writing this post in response to a Facebook post that I saw that raised the hairs on the back of my neck. I've copied the post here for reference:

If the shoe fits....

What is privilege?....

Privilege is wearing $200 sneakers when you’ve never had a job.

Privilege is wearing $300 Beats headphones while living on public assistance.

Privilege is having a Smartphone with a Data plan which you receive no bill for.

Privilege is living in public subsidized housing where you don’t have a water bill, where rising property taxes and rents and energy costs have absolutely no effect on the amount of food you can put on your table.

Privilege is the ability to go march against, and protest against anything that triggers you, without worrying about calling out of work and the consequences that accompany such behavior.

Privilege is having as many children as you want, regardless of your employment status, and be able to send them off to daycare or school you don’t pay for.

Privilege is sending your kids to school early for the before school programs and breakfast, and then keeping them there for the after school program...all at no cost to you....paid for by the people who DO HAVE TO DEAL WITH RISING TAXES AND COSTS!...you know, us so called “PRIVILEGED” the ones who pay while you TAKE TAKE TAKE! I’d rather you said thanks and went on your way!

Copied and pasted. Not my words.

America you better stand up

I can understand the reasoning behind this post, but I feel like the logic is seriously flawed. Let me explain why.

There are a couple of implied statements in this piece. First, the use of the word privilege brings race into the picture. So it's pretty clear (although not explicitly stated) that this rant is about blacks. One of the things that keeps us divided by race is this idea that it's only minorities that are taking advantage of the system that is laid before them. The fact that blacks have a higher probability of being poor, and therefore having to take advantage of public assistance, cannot be laid at the feet of blacks. We are making progress in this country, but generations of improving - but still failing - policies have left blacks as a group at a serious economic disadvantage compared to society as a whole. So yes, they are much more likely to have to rely on public assistance, and the statistics show that to be the case. But how in the world can anyone consider living on public assistance a privilege? If you are "living" on public assistance, you might waste your money on things that seem frivolous ($200 shoes or $300 headphones), but could that be because it's the only way you have to look like you're "making it"? How many white suburbanites do you know that live way beyond their means, buying huge houses and boats and second homes that they can't really afford, only to give the impression that they are "making it"?

The part about living in public subsidized housing, where you don't have to worry about property taxes or energy bills... What? Have you seen what most public housing projects look like? It's a privilege to live there? I think not.

The part about being able to go off and protest and not have to worry about calling in to work? Let's not forget that if these people were able to get a good paying job, they'd have far less reason to go protest in the first place.

All I'm trying to say is that we as a society have created this problem, through years of policies that have inadvertently (or in some cases I think purposely) left blacks as a group at a serious economic disadvantage. There is a long history of discriminatory practices that have kept people from investing in inner city neighborhoods. Look up "redlining" to learn how mortgage practices have limited home ownership and business investment in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Now move onto the education system, which is largely funded through local property taxes. But if people can't own homes or aren't investing in businesses in these poor areas, then there aren't a lot of tax dollars to invest in the schools. So you end up with pretty crappy schools that don't give students the tools they need to succeed. You can make the argument that you don't need to go on to college or technical school to succeed in life. Lots of people "pull themselves up by their bootstraps". This is true, but do they do it in an economically depressed area, where your best prospect for a job is flipping burgers at McDonald's? Or maybe selling crack on a street corner?

I am not suggesting that the solution to this problem is "more free stuff". I think that in general, the welfare state has done far more damage than good for the poor. When it becomes as easy to sit back and collect your assistance check as it is to go out and get a job, and the payback for getting that job barely exceeds the assistance check, some percentage of people are going to fall into the "welfare trap". Increasing the welfare outlay only means that more of society is going to get pulled into this trap. My less cynical side says that this is just an unintended consequence of policies that were truly meant to help the disadvantaged. My more cynical side says that this has been done on purpose in order to make more people dependent on the government, and thereby win the votes of the poor.

Because blacks as a group have started off at such a serious economic disadvantage, they are far more likely to end up in the group that has to take advantage of the "privilege" of living off the public dime. So they are disproportionately identified as "takers". This in no way indicates that blacks in general are more likely to take advantage of the system. They are simply more likely, through no fault of their own, to end up in a position that requires them to rely on the system. In my opinion, the real solution to the problem is going to be hard. It's going to mean that we truly invest in poor neighborhoods (not with handouts, but with real opportunity development). At the same time, it's going to mean that we gradually "wean" those that are dependent on the system. But at its core, the problem that we have today lies with the system, and not with those that take advantage of it. To steal a silly sports cliche, "Don't hate the player, hate the game!"

When Hillary Wins, Don't Blame #NeverTrump

This is my first blog post, so don't expect anything too earth-shattering. Also keep in mind that these are my own opinions, and the fact that I hold them does not mean I think less of you if you disagree. I'd like to think that you will show me the same respect.

I don't often offer my opinion on politics unless asked for it. OK, so I might have been known to go off on someone when they express a viewpoint that I think is beyond the pale, or when I feel that they unfairly categorize an entire group with broad brushstrokes, but I'm not really a political person by nature.

In the interest of full disclosure, I would classify myself as a Libertarian. I tend to fall on the left when it comes to social issues, and on the right when it comes to fiscal issues. I honestly find that on almost every issue, one or the other (often both) of the mainstream political parties are far too extreme.

This puts me (and a lot of others, I believe) in the unenviable position of feeling that we don't really have a political party. In recent elections, I have found a way to hold my nose and vote for one of the candidates. I have almost always leaned on the side of the Republicans, because the issues where I lean to the right are issues where I feel the "greater good" is served by the conservative view. Issues where I tend to lean to the left typically involve individual rights. While I feel that these are also important, I agree with Mr. Spock when he says "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." (I had to get some sort of nerd quote in here.) In other words, I believe that decisions that affect us all carry slightly more weight than decisions that affect individuals.

OK, enough background. The reason that I'm writing this blog is that I can foresee what will be coming this week, and I would like to say that I think it's unfair.

When Hillary wins this election on Tuesday (and she will, unless all of the polls are going to put "Dewey Defeats Truman" to shame), there is going to be a rush to blame the #NeverTrump movement. Those stubborn SOB's that were willing to sacrifice the country because they are afraid to try something different. Someone who isn't afraid to say what he thinks. Someone who is willing (even eager) to offend for the sake of ratings and votes. Someone who's going to go to Washington and not take any sh!t from anyone. He's going to drain the swamps.

When Hillary wins, we will be told, "See, we told you so. A vote for anyone other than Trump was a vote for Clinton! It's your fault that we have to put up with another 4 or 8 years of the same crap that we've dealt with for the last 8 years. We hope you're happy!"

Here's my problem with that. Trump was not my candidate, nor will he ever be. You can't come back to me now, and tell me that he's my only choice if I want to keep Hillary out of the White House, and tell me, "There's nothing more important!" Really? My vote will not be for Hillary, but it certainly won't be for Trump. If you say that's a vote for Hillary, my response is, "No, your vote for Trump in the primary was a vote for Hillary!" If keeping Hillary out of the White House is the most important thing, then you all kissed that one goodbye at the Republican convention. Of the 17 candidates that initially entered the Republican primaries, over half of them would be kicking the living crap out of Hillary in the general election. Were any of them perfect? Of course not. There were things that I didn't like about most of them. There were a couple that I had only minor problems with. But with any one of them I could have at worst held my nose and cast that vote. I could cut my nose off completely, and still not bring myself to persevere through the stench of a Trump vote.

I know I'm not alone in this. I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of people who either will vote Democrat for the first time in a long time, or will not vote at all. It's this second group that had me pretty concerned for a long time. I was worried that the polls would show such dismal prospects for Trump that many conservatives would just stay home, putting down-ticket candidates at greater risk than they might have already been. In the last few weeks, the polls have tightened enough that I hope the disheartened will still show up at the voting booth.

I can't vote Trump for several reasons, but primarily one.

It's not because I think he appeals to a latent racist and xenophobic streak that exists in most of us. (It's OK, you can admit it. None of us is 100% free of some level of racism or xenophobia.) Trump has brilliantly determined that these traits exist to a large enough extent that if he were to tap into them, not openly, but subtly, while offering an (unspecified as it might be) alternative to the corruption and insider government access that everyone is really sick of, then he could build a strong base of support. He would simultaneously tap into the "kick all the bums out" mentality, and the "we're sick of all the PC overreach" sentiment. At the same time, he (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say unintentionally) makes being a little more racist, a little less polite, a little more violent, OK. I find this to be abhorrent, but this is not the reason I would never vote for the man.

It also has nothing to do with the fact that he seems to have very little respect for women. Personally, I find it a little laughable that people expect me to be shocked at some of the recent revelations, but I'm just supposed to forget about the sins of Mr. Clinton, and the extent that Hillary went to to try to protect him. I also think that anyone who listened to the recently released audiotape and found it over the top has not spent much time around a group of men in a locker room or at a local bar. I've heard worse from men, and I've heard stories of "girl talk" that can get a little raunchy when the guys aren't around as well. I find this type of talk distasteful, but I have to admit that if you played back the audiotape of my life, I've made some comments about women that I would not be proud to have repeated in front of my mother (Sorry, Mom!). Do I want to think that my President is capable of the same level of gutter talk? No, but this is not the reason I would never vote for the man.

Neither does it have anything to do with the cries of corruption and improper business dealings that have been thrown at him recently. Once again, I find corruption to be an amusing criticism coming from people who are willing to back possibly the most corrupt candidate ever other than Oswald Cobblepot (look it up). If you are looking for a candidate that is free of even the appearance of impropriety, then you might as well stay home on November 8th. I would love to get corruption and greed out of politics, but I'm pretty sure selecting either of the major candidates is not about to make that happen, so that is also not the reason that I would never vote for this man.

The main reason that I am and will always be #NeverTrump is that I don't think the man has a plan. I think that his policy decisions are made at the time that the question is asked. I think that his ego gets in the way of him having a thoughtful, reasoned opinion on anything. He is a series of soundbites. He uses these soundbites to gain media coverage and promote his "we're gonna kick @$$ in the world" platform, but I think that he also carefully chooses his words to appeal to the base of support that I've described above. I don't really think he believes most of what he says. Sometimes his musings are amusing, but as often as not they are dangerous. So if he doesn't believe these things, if he's just "blowing smoke", then how can they be dangerous? They can be dangerous if you make him the leader of the free world. When the whole world is listening, a "cute" soundbite can have a catastrophic impact on respect for the US around the world, affect the stability of world markets, and could even lead to proliferation of unnecessary (possibly even nuclear) war.

"But what about the Supreme Court? If Hillary is elected, the court will lean to the left for the next several generations!" That may be true, and I do think it's one reason I would like to keep her out of the White House. I actually came fairly close to using this one fact to convince me that it would be OK to vote for him, but I was dissuaded by a (conservative, surprisingly) local radio personality, who summarized the Supreme Court issue by saying, "We can survive some bad court decisions, we cannot survive a nuclear war."

So, when Hillary wins on Tuesday, I promise not to say I told you so, as long as you promise not to blame me or the rest of the #NeverTrump brigade.