There are posts all over the internet about Elizabeth Warren and her claim to Cherokee heritage. I hear a lot of talk about how she lied, and how that lie may end up costing her an election. It may, it may not. Politicians lie, everyone knows it, and they still elect them.
What I don't hear people talking about, is why someone would falsify a claim to minority status.
I have your answer, and I'm very surprised more people aren't talking about it. The Answer: Affirmative Action (no no, it's not 42).
Affirmative Action may have had it's place, but the only thing it does now is single out certain races/genders/religions, and hands them special benefits. Not the same benefits, special benefits. All while assuring these Affirmative Action candidates that, without this policy, they couldn't possibly be on an equal playing field. Maybe the left is right. Maybe racism IS alive and well, and it's best representation is Affirmative Action.
Why would Ms. Warren claim Cherokee Heritage? Maybe because in doing so she got a better student loan interest rate. Maybe because it made it more likely that she'd get that job at Harvard. Maybe she just wanted to have the same shot all those Affirmative Action candidates get. If it turns out that she lied, which by all facts to this point it looks like she did, this isn't an excuse. But surely we can start seeing Affirmative Action as a roadblock to the "colorblind" society Martin Luther King, Jr. envisioned.
Now we move on to the latest Breitbart scoop, that an author biography of President Barack Obama stated he was Kenyan born. I am NOT a Birther. I have no reason to believe that President Obama is not a U.S. Citizen. We are hearing this was a fact checking error. Well, it was a 17 year long fact checking error, and if a literary agent can make an error that big, maybe they shouldn't be a literary agent. I have also heard numerous authors state that author biographies are always given to the authors to proof. I have reason to believe that President Obama told people he was Kenyan born, because it would have opened up a bunch of special benefits to him. Are his college transcripts sealed because they might prove he applied to Ivy League Universities as a Foreign Student? (which, by the way, opens up a whole other set of special benefits.) And if that's the case, he lied. And if he lie, once again we have to ask why, and the answer I'm coming up with is...Affirmative Action.
How sad is it, that people feel they have to lie just to have the same options as other people? How do we not see that this policy not only erodes our culture, makes people believe they can't really obtain their goals on their own merit, and singles out races for special treatment, but it encourages people to be less than honest in the hopes of obtaining something more than they would get otherwise?
Saturday, May 12, 2012
a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
That's a dictionary definition of the word. Fair, Objective, Permissive attitude. What is missing from that definition is the word: acceptance.
favorable reception; approval; favor
When you look up those two words in the thesaurus, they are not synonomous. For those who need a small grammar lesson, synonyms are words that mean the same thing. Tolerance is not equal to acceptance.
Why the small lesson in the English Language? It's important to understand that over the course of time, our news media, our politicians and our activists have changed the meaning of the word tolerance. To them, tolerance means acceptance. Tolerance means we don't only have to allow people to live the way we choose, we have to tell them it's fine to live that way, and that their belief system is just as right as ours. We don't have to tolerate, we have to accept.
Here's the footnote: We have to tolerate. They don't.
Recently, an anti-bullying speaker, Dan Savage, spoke at the National High School Journalism Convention. While speaking of anti-bullying, he proceeded to have a high octane rant against Christianity. "We can learn to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people." At that point, several Christian students got up and left the room. After continuing his screed against the Bible, he proceeded to call those who left during his speech, pansy-assed. I didn't hear the whole speech. I'm sure he said some good anti-bullying stuff. Problem was, in the midst of that, he chose to bully high school students who believe the Bible. The media came out in force (at least the mainstream portion of it), to defend Dan Savage. Dan Savage doesn't have to accept what other people believe. Dan Savage doesn't even need to be tolerant of what other people believe. According to our 4th branch of government, Dan Savage can do what he did, and really, no one should complain.
On the other hand, if say, Rush Limbaugh stood in front of a group of students and told them "we can learn to ignore the bullshit the Gay community has to say about Christians", what do you think the reaction would have been? What if I stood up and said "We can learn to ignore the bullshit Jessie Jackson says about race.", what would people say about me? I can think of a few words that come to mind. Bigot. Racist. Intolerant.
I was waiting to hear where Dan Savage said "We can learn to ignore the bullshit in the Koran about gay people". I'm still waiting.
The only thing in this country you don't have to be tolerant of, is Christianity. And I mean tolerance, not acceptance. Christianity is a faith. Some people have it, some people don't. No one needs to accept the tenets of a faith they don't have. But in the great United States, you don't even have to tolerate that people have those beliefs. You are permitted to bully them all you want. No tolerance necessary. We made Columbine into a message on the evils of Gun Ownership, passing over the fact that people died for simply admitting they believed in God. In Paducah, KY, at Heath High School, 3 students were killed and 5 injured, shot by a student while they were praying in front of the school. No cries of "hate crimes" or "bigotry" in that one. (In truth, the student turned out to have a mental disorder. But still, we seem to put people on trial for hate crimes all the time, even if they aren't really hate crimes). In Texas, a man walked into Wedgewood Baptist Church and opened fire during a church service. Before doing so, he shouted anti-religious statements. And yet, most news media headlined it with "the reason for the shooting is unclear".
If it's someone who could have possibly been a Christian or Conservative or White, the motive is clear before the bodies hit the floor. But if someone walks into a church, shouting anti-religious sentiments and killing people while they pray, the reason is unclear.
Tolerance is a catch phrase. It's used by our celebrities and our politicians, and it's the favorite word of almost anyone who leans a bit to the left. And yet, the people shouting tolerance the loudest, are so intolerant of Christianity, they can't even admit someone may shoot Christians simply because they are...Christians. They cry for tolerance while labeling tea party members "teabaggers". They cry for tolerance while calling Christians and Conservatives fascists and little Hitlers. They cry for tolerance while telling the precious few in their inner circle that people who don't believe like they do are bitter, angry, religious nut jobs who are ignorant and stupid. The people screaming the most about open-mindedness and tolerance, turn out to be the most close-minded intolerant people of all. Yet it's acceptable because they are only intolerant of those crazy Christians, right?