I am smarter than you, so does that mean I owe you nothing? I have had more success in my life than you but does that I mean I owe you nothing? You do some really stupid things that hurt yourself or your family members, but does this mean I should do nothing for you to help you out of your situation? Is a church the best place to go for a handout or should the government give something to those who have not done well? I started out by constructing these questions after receiving an e-mail which can best be described as angry. I feel entirely comfortable giving it that label because the e-mail describes a supposedly disenfranchised portion of the American electorate, the angry white male. It is rather ironic that the e mail was forwarded to me by a person who would entirely fit David Letterman's description of the average member of the Republican party being an old white guy waiting to tee off at a restricted country club golf course.
The following is an excerpt from that e mail which will set forth its flavor: "He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.
"He's not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He's willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.
"Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don't pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.
"He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It's not that she is a woman. It's that she is who she is. It's the liberal victim groups she panders to, the 'poor me' attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.
"There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush."
The vitriol in these statements literally takes my breath away. Let's start with two of the comments so we can try to understand these so called angry white guys who would still probably vote for the President who would be King. Contrast "It's not that she is a woman" with "He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner." Whew! My wife is sleeping as I write this early in the morning and I am tempted to wake her to elicit her reaction. I don't need to because I know what it would be and it wouldn't be pretty. I'd like to take a look at the divorce statistics of the four million angry white men who belong to the NRA if this statement accurately describes a shared attitude toward women. I expect that it does. Women who stay in a marriage with that kind of man are probably cowed by the threat of the loaded semi-automatic weapon stored under the marital bed so the actual statistic could be skewed.
Now let's look at another which is no surprise whatsoever; The phrase "people of certain backgrounds [who] exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race" is double speak for blacks. The writer is graciously willing to give them a "chance" if they "play by the rules". Playing by the rules is our government giving massive welfare to large multinational corporations who reward their devotion to this largesse by building plants in foreign countries and hiring foreign workers at near slave wages rather than "his tax dollars that she [Clinton] wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves," but requiring blacks in America to "work hard." Query: How does one work hard at a job that is non-existent?
Some of what this diatribe discusses is true. For example, Al Sharpton does irritate me. I disagree with what he says about 80% of the time. However, I adamantly support his right to make a fool out of himself on occasion, just as I support the writer of the e-mail under discussion. The willingness to discuss and share ideas based on rational thought, rather than emotion or how someone looks or sounds ("Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him") is the very essence of our way of life. If I had voted against the President who would be King in 2000 and 2004 because of the ever-present sneer on his face it would have been wrong, too emotional. Instead, I voted against him both times because I thought he was too dumb and that his stupidity was likely to have negative consequences. If the truth were known, I take no great pleasure in the knowledge that I was right.
No comments:
Post a Comment