Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness. — Mary Frances Berry

This is a rather poignant statement from Mary Frances Berry. She summarizes the strategy that is most effective in discrediting one’s critics–a strategy I have discussed on numerous occasions. The method? That of labeling an opponent as holding some socially unacceptable position that is nearly impossible to refute; this is a most effective strategy because any arguments against such charges are not believed due to the heinous nature of the charge.

The Tea Party has been called out on numerous occasions as a racist group. A group that must denounce racism within its ranks, or else be forever tainted as a political movement. The only problem is that real evidence of supposed racism is hardly prevalent. It is, of course, entirely possible that some small percentage of members hold views that are racist in foundation, but this does not manifest itself in the Tea Party ethos any more than ant-white sentiment manifests itself in the NAACP’s core principles.

What we see evidence of instead is a group attempting to steer political discourse and fight for principles they truly believe will benefit all citizens. This can be said for the NAACP, Republicans, Democrats, and just about any other political organization. Disagreements around core principles and philosophies on governance have become toxic and are hardly good examples of discussions and debates, particularly when such charges effectively end it.

While the Tea Party isn’t my bag–haha–I do have a certain affinity for the small government philosophy they seem to be espousing; with that in mind, it is difficult for me to tell how racism has any part in debates concerning their ideas. From the few meetings I’ve attended, which makes my sample size prohibitively small, I’ve seen very little to no evidence of any racism to believe they are discussing anything other than what they claim.

Why is defending one’s character against this charge such a difficult proposition? Imagine having a lively discussion about the color of the sky. You and your opponent are deadlocked in a debate about the shade of blue the sky typically is on a sunny day. “I feel it has more purple undertones,” you might say. Your opponent claims, “it is more blue-green.” The discussion continues like this for another ten minutes, when suddenly your opponent says, “well those who see purple in the sky probably dislike children, and are inherently unfriendly to them.”

Well now, the debate has shifted from the color of the sky to whether or not your like children. You’ve gone no further in discussing the sky or the implications of it being one color or another, you’re stuck defending something that has nothing to do with the debate at hand. While this illustration is rather crude, it should give you a good idea of why accusations of character being related to certain political philosophies have no place in most discussions involving matters of government.

Take my man of straw with a grain of salt, but please don’t accuse me of a character flaw because of my beliefs; instead, debate my philosophy on its merits alone.

What this means is that no matter how often Tea Party members claim to have not seen any racist displays amongst other members, outsiders will say, “but that is only your small group, what about the others you aren’t a part of?”

From NPR¹:

The NAACP has approved a resolution condemning what it calls “racist elements” within the Tea Party. The vote has sparked a war of words between the two groups, and NAACP leaders hope the move will help fire up its membership with midterm elections approaching.

The fray began when NAACP President Benjamin Jealous issued a challenge to the Tea Party:

“You must expel the bigots and racists in your ranks or take full responsibility for all of their actions.”

Liberal groups, like the NAACP, are rarely ever responsible for the actions of a few fringe members. And they shouldn’t be. Those elements rarely ever represent the thinking of rational members, or the overarching goals of the group–one hopes–but painting this sort of picture of conservative groups is a rather routine occurrence. Why?

Why is the belief in limited government racist? I’ve been to a couple of Tea Party gatherings. The speeches aren’t particularly unique, noteworthy, hateful, racist, et cetera, but what they have to say is representative of a group of people that are troubled by the actions of the government; this is simply because they have an opposing view of governance. Nothing more.

Since I guess I’m a little dumb, could anyone out there explain the racist angle to me?

The trouble for me will be in identifying Republican voters and convincing those who vote for other parties that their interests are better served by the ideas of the Republican party in Michigan.

I see their interests being better served by Republicans, particularly if long term community viability is a goal, simply because the ideas being implemented in our community today have created an environment that is no longer sustainable. Which is why I’m so interested in becoming a part of the political process to begin with. My community has seen better days. What was once a major manufacturing and shipping community, has become a center of poverty and depression with little hope of recovering former prestige. The bottom line is, it won’t recover that prestige, but it can gain another kind. It can grow and become a viable community again.

In recent years there has been an active investment in bettering the area, and some new business has made it’s way in, but those businesses have a focus on community consumption rather than production; businesses focused on selling to consumers will never meet the employment needs of the community if certain standards of living are to be met, though it should bring in plenty of tax dollars. What can be done to entice the right kind of business? Offer the right tax and land incentives to the right manufacturer and you’ll have a viable employer and tax base for many years to help sustain the community, bring it growth, and better the conditions of everyone.

Unfortunately, our city has mismanaged its affairs, and we are currently under state control while we get our books in order. While the position I seek can do very little in regards to any of these problems, I can help to get the right folks elected that will foster the environment necessary to bring about the kind of operational changes we need to build a healthy sustainable community. And of course, we need to prepare for the difficult road ahead of us.

It is my hope that in running for this position, and perhaps serving if elected, that I can help to foster some of the change needed to make my city viable again, in addition to getting a better understanding of what the community is looking to accomplish.

Step 1 There will be cameras. Photographers for sure, but perhaps a local news channel on a slow news day will show up. Find an appropriate outfit for the occasion. Something tasteful perhaps, not too colorful, as the occasion is indeed quite somber. If the weather is warm, a pair of short pants may be the ticket.

Step 2 Come up with a really great slogan to put on your sign. You need to let others know that you’re witty and socially aware when you protest. Something like “BP = Selfish Greed” is the shit…tiest one you could use, mostly because it doesn’t really jive with the whole two letters equals two words beginning with those letters motif. Why not “BP = Barn Poop.” At least that makes a little bit of sense.

Step 3 So, is it time to head on down? Should you really protest?

First off: don’t do it. Your message may be the right one for your cause, but you’re inflicting economic harm on the wrong people in most instances. Owners of gas stations, whether they are BP or Citgo, are not tied to those corporations. They’re more like fast food franchises in that they purchase their fuel from the parent corporation. Essentially, by the time you’re out there protesting, you’re really harming the owner of the station, as well as its employees, more than the parent corporation, which I would hope is not your goal. Hurting local business is really a very negative thing if you’re concerned about the welfare of your community.

Second, if your cause is to make the government move towards asset seizure, then your cause is wrong. Where in the hell do we live? When in history class did you learn that one of our founding principles was the asset seizure of entities that inflicted economic harm from a situation that can only be described as an accident? Just because contingency plans are inadequate does not make the corporation criminally negligent. They may be liable for clean up, which is likely to lead to bankruptcy, but government seizure seems antithetical to our notions of what ‘property rights’ mean. Another topic perhaps?

However, if BP is guilty of skirting the law, we must absolutely prosecute them and all of those involved in said activity, and make decisions on the future of the company in the United States based on the findings of the case rather than a knee jerk reaction to what we might feel in response to the massive disaster we’re experiencing.

Lastly, keep on protesting abusive and illegitimate corporate practices, but learn to recognize what those practices are and what they aren’t. Our government is often in bed with corporate interests that are harmful, simply because of the campaign money that is involved, and so it is difficult to rely on government for proper regulation. Voting with dollars is your best bet. I recognize the hypocrisy of this statement in light of what I’ve written above, but in terms of economic effect, this will have a greater impact if you’re not spending money on the right things.

I also want to address this rather interesting situation we’re experiencing with the six month moratorium on drilling: the current administration is making the claim that BP should be held responsible for the wages that workers affected by the government ordered moratorium have lost. They say BP is at fault for the wages lost during the government imposed work stoppage. I’m not sure that I really understand the logic here.

Blame a corrupt government, a corrupt regulatory process, and a corporation that did not have a proper contingency plan in place, but do not think BP evil for this disaster.

I’m a big believer in harnessing our resources as often as possible in order to maintain our way of life. As a caveat, I’m a proponent of working towards harnessing sources of energy other than fossil fuels. It just makes economic sense. More efficient methods of generating the energy we need exist (or not), but we really need to utilize the sources (nuclear) that all ready offer the promise of efficiency with little to no pollution. Until we do that, we need coal, oil, and natural gas in vast quantities to maintain a certain societal equlibrium.

What is it that convinces so many that oil companies are hatching nefarious plots in an effort to make a huge, largely evil, profit? The fact that they provide a commodity that happens to be in great demand? That this commodity has largely fueled the emergence of the great industrial empires in the last several hundred years, created a vast network of communication, and essentially built the world of cheap energy within which we live (or once lived, depending on your view of energy’s costs)?

Frankly, without the oil companies you couldn’t run your shitty little Apple iPads (damn’t I want one), drive your Prius, or run any other true electric vehicle that won’t take me to work and back on a single charge. That all requires oil, coal, nuclear, and other forms of energy (this is all in various quantities that is a big fucking mystery to everyone but the power distribution people) that you folks decry as evil. Progressive ideology is more nuanced than this, but it seems that any form of profit is evil, and these companies should just be in the business of providing a product for shits and fun, and to provide jobs to the jobless, and the sun to the sunless, bringing songs of joy to all, and a Ford in every driveway. *Fuck-it-all*.

Is my strawman enough for you, or do you require more?

In any event, this whole mess is certainly a tragic accident. Many of the players involved, up to and including government regulators (one could argue the President’s lackadaisical attitude is a result of some very intriguing campaign contributions from folks associated with BP), are at fault. BP should pay for this mess–as indeed, their actions certainly created the problem–while the government should be contracted in, at BP’s expense, to assist them in the cleanup.

But–you knew this was coming, right?–this event should not be taken as an excuse to end off-shore exploration. These accidents are few and far between and we need these domestic sources of energy.

Whatever the consequences of this are, what say you, fine reader, about the future of off-shore drilling and this event?

My notion of what libertarianism meant was one of absolutes, in that any and all government involvement was inherently wrong and, I think you run into a lot of folks who have this view, it becomes a little murky when determining what is acceptable as opposed to what is off limits. It is hypocritical of me to claim all involvement is unwarranted, though isn’t it?

In the case of seat belt laws, and road regulations in general, it is perfectly acceptable for government to regulate in any way they wish in relation to a system of roads they developed, built, and encouraged the use of for the expansion of the nation. The roads are public and government property, and so in order to maximize utility and ensure the safety of everyone, these laws become necessary as deterrents, as well as punishments, for this who would shirk their responsibility as a user of public goods to follow the rules.

Whether the government should be in the business of building and regulating roads is another matter, but one I suspect most would find to be an agreeable proposition.

So, essentially what I’m saying is, there are legitimate uses of the long arm of government; and for the most part this includes the regulation of public properties and their use.

In general, though, I’m highly suspicious of the police powers of the state. Such coercion can be dangerous when given the kind of power they regularly exercise. This is indeed an affront to liberty and something that is unlikely to be corrected anytime soon.

So, what about it? What makes enforcement so controversial? Why is it such a travesty to ask an individual, whom you have first detained because of another unrelated infraction, to produce proof of their status to reside in or visit this nation?

Population of Arizona by Race. ‘Infographic’ by Mike Mattner, data from the U.S. Census Bureau accessed May13, 2010.

The idea that such a proposal is racist is ridiculous to begin with. Let’s use a little reason to determine this assertion. First, in Arizona the immigrant population, by the very nature of geography, is going to be made up almost entirely of Mexicans. It also stands to reason that those entering Arizona illegally would also be from Mexico. And so, law enforcement is likely to single this group out when detaining an individual that has all ready committed some infraction to determine their residency status. And why shouldn’t they? It has nothing to do with race, rather it has to do with deductive reasoning in this case.

What’s the racial break down anyway? As expected the dominant race in Arizona is White at about 58% of the population, followed by Hispanic at about 30%, American Indian at about 5% (which is unsurprising considering the native history of the region), then Black at 4% and Asian at 2%.

So, with such a large Hispanic population that happens to emigrate legally or otherwise from the United States southern neighbor of Mexico, it only seems natural that law enforcement would want to target this group–when individuals have all ready been detained based on having committed an infraction of some kind–as they are the most likely to be here illegally. American Indian, Black, and Asian residents happen to make up a much smaller proportion of the population and are therefore less likely to be a substantial problem in terms of residency. White individuals make up a large portion of the population, but immigration from Europe has not been as robust as immigration from Central and South America, and will likely not recover any time soon, meaning they are less likely to reside in the United States illegally.

Put another way, if you know for a fact that residents from Fakistan are constantly entering the domain of Nationistan illegally, why wouldn’t the government of Nationistan check those of Fakistanni origin when conducting some other lawful search?

On the flip side, none of the points I made about the other racial groups in any way mean those groups are excluded from the law. On the contrary, this is meant to cover everyone, to ensure folks are here legally. This isn’t kristallnacht by any means. The law does not allow for the round up and deportation of any specific groups, or any individuals at all. In fact, it is meant to cover a case where an individual has been detained, and the law enforcement officer in question suspects that the individual is here illegally. In this situation, and this situation only, can the officer demand to see proof of residency, and that can be as simple as showing a state issued ID card.

Maybe someone can explain to me why this is such an issue because I’m grasping in the dark here.

Secondly, I’ve been pushing my self directed rehab on my knee pretty intensely for the past couple of weeks; couple that with a healthier diet, and another workout that washed out but helped me get in a groove, and I’m getting into respectable shape again. Except the knee still hurts. Either way, the past two months have been me working out, eating better, and strengthening the leg, which has resulted in hitting sub 180 pounds for the first time since I initially injured my knee in 2008. Not that I put on a lot of weight, I just couldn’t do enough work rehabbing the knee to stay in shape.

And finally, the one little bit that just has me in stitches. I’m running for a political position of sorts. A small, but relatively important one in terms of the power the position has in determining the composition of the party. I have decided to run for the Republican party Precinct Delegate in the third precinct of Benton Charter Township. I actually don’t know if what I’m doing is running for the office so to speak, but my name will be on the primary ballot on August 3rd for the position, so if you live in the third precinct, vote for me.

I’ve been interested in political matters for much of my life and it seems this is one of the best ways for me to get involved a little more seriously. I look forward to the primary, and hopefully the next two years of my life involved in politics.

In a recent post discussing rights and duties, James Otteson lays out the interplay between the two very well and the important roles each play:

Whether one has a “right” to something is whether someone else has a duty to provide it. The two—a right and its correlative duty—are logically inseparable; like mountain and valley or ebb and flow, one exists only with the other. Hence if no one has a duty to provide you something, you have no right to it; and you can claim a right to something only if it is someone else’s duty to provide it for you.

He goes on to say that if one really, really wants whatever it is they’re clamoring for, it does not then become a right, nor does it become a duty for another to provide it for them.

The whole post is a pretty interesting discussion concerning positive and and negative liberty, one that I’ll leave to you to read and digest, but it brushes nicely over the current health care debate.

The question we have is, if health care is a right, as claimed, who then has the duty to provide it at their expense? Anyway, read the article and the accompanying discussion for a little balance.