Officers, gentlemen and democrats

You do not have to look very hard these days to find disparaging comments made by politicians about our armed forces. Not surprisingly, this kind of rhetoric seems to consistently lie at the doorstep of the democratic party, and contrary to what liberal democrats would desperately like to believe, it does not constitute a healthy exercise of the protected right to free speech, nor is it an undiluted manifestation of the patriotic right to dissent, but instead reflects the basest kind of politically motivated vitriol which has characterized that misguided assembly ever since the war began and has a direct detrimental effect on the morale of the troops. And if that wasn’t enough, such perfunctory revilement of the troops by those in seats of power is also a wonderful source of inspiration to the terrorists.

Affirmative Action : A Most Unkind Karma

Recently I went to a mandatory diversity seminar designed to raise awareness about the problem of discrimination in the varied areas where we conduct our lives. This ambitious program involved watching a video which, by the looks of the hairstyle the teacher was sporting, was made probably around the 1950’s, and was about a real life classroom of what appeared to be third or fourth graders.

In the video the teacher separated the children by the color of their eyes and then instructed the blue eyed children to deliberately ignore the brown eyed children. She also enumerated a list of privileges that only the blue eyed children were entitled to.

As was to be expected, it didn’t take long for the experiment to cause very visible distress in the children who had not been given privileges.

The experiment was designed to paint a picture of how people react when they are treated differently by the rest of the population or when they are intentionally marginalized because of their benign physical traits. It also purported to illustrate how those who are treated unfairly presumably develop a low self-image which forsakes them to a life prone to failure. At least this was basically the focus of the discussion which took place after the movie had ended.

The premise that those who bear the burden of unfair treatment in our society are doomed to fail because of the devastating effect this treatment has on their self-esteem seemed to weigh heavily on the discussion, but no one seemed to fathom that it was the fact that some had been singled out for preferential treatment which created the conditions of unfairness in the first place.

Eventually the children who were being treated unfairly began to show signs of resentment for their peers who had been singled out for special treatment, and the awareness that preferential treatment was denied to some and conferred to others had a more powerful negative effect on the children’s behavior than the obscure reasoning behind the new protocol.

When you think about it, this is essentially the legacy of the affirmative action experiment.

Affirmative Action has always meant that steps should be taken to increase the representation of those who are described as minorities in areas of education, business and employment. As a result of this noble crusade most institutions in today’s society have to take aggressive measures to include in their roster a fixed percentage of people of different gender or ethnic background in order to accurately reflect the minority ratio of the general population.

These measures have inevitably become determined efforts to extend benefits to groups socially identified as minorities because they possess immutable characteristics which cast them as such, and sometimes even characteristics which should arguably not be classified as immutable, namely sexual orientation or religious beliefs. Thus for those who do not possess those specific characteristics the process seems highly capricious and unfair because, obviously, it is not their fault that they are not minorities. And in that sense the video provided an interesting microcosm of what tends to occur in a larger setting such as the society we all live in.

The children in the video felt that their peers who were given privileges had been elevated to a superior status by means of an arbitrary choice from a figure of authority. This treatment was not predicated on any form of discernible talent but merely a native physical characteristic.

But the experiment did not readily prove that the children who were not given privileges began to experience feelings of low self-esteem. The sentiment of resentment towards their peers seemed to override the notion that they were perchance beset with a low-self-image. The notion of a low self-image resulting from the lack of attention appeared to be a purely subjective assessment from the teacher.

After the viewing most people kept talking about how easy it was to create a society in which some people were discriminated against by simply denying them the same benefits that all should enjoy. But they failed to recognize the inherent problem with ascribing special benefits to some for no veritable reason other than their distinguishing physical features, and how this approach simply begets a new class of elites and deprives others who do not have the same coveted physical features that entitles some to special treatment. This was an analysis which seemed to have escaped those who engaged in the post-video discussion.

I believe the reason why this type of debate was conspicuously avoided is because we are afraid to publicly admit that affirmative action no longer works in today’s society in spite of our obsession with the concept of diversity. Contrary to conventional wisdom, arbitrarily decreed preferential treatment in order to address social inequities is not necessarily conducive to harmony, but is in fact the unintended catalyst for hostilities and resentment.

Obviously it is impossible to give everyone preferential treatment. The concept of preferential treatment in itself implies an inequality in the dispensation of the very manner in which we deal with different people. But that is precisely the point.

All should be given the same opportunities, and the same treatment, unless extenuating circumstances such as a disability which puts one at a clear disadvantage is present, in which case the preferential treatment is to some degree warranted.

Ironically, in order for Affirmative Action to work as it was originally designed, even benign physical characteristics will necessarily have to be perceived and catalogued as handicaps in the long run.

I doubt that those who are receiving preferential treatment truly believe that those immutable characteristics represent a kind of disability in this day and age. One could argue that even implying such is the case sounds more like an insult. In fact many people who do suffer from some kind of legitimate disability often wish to be treated in the same way as everyone else and refuse to be cast as the object of pity.

Ultimately, when society confers preferential treatment to some because of qualities like race, gender, age, or whatever new minority status not rooted on merit liberals may be able to conjure up in the future, it eventually gives rise to a brand of elite misfits who are alienated by virtue of their own government assigned status as deserving victims of special entitlements. A kind of government sponsored karma if you will, for those who happen to be born under a foreordained social class set apart by attributes based merely on distinguishing physical features.

But anyone with an ounce of self-respect will naturally take more pride in the assurance that they were hired by a company, accepted at an educational institution, or welcomed into a particular club simply because of their personal qualifications, rather than live under the gnawing suspicion that they were only chosen because of physical characteristics bestowed upon them by a serendipitous stroke of heredity and blind fortune.

Things we are likely to see and not see in 2006

2005 has been a somewhat eventful year.

As we approach a new year, it is always fun and practical to look at the past year and review the lessons that we have learned, the obstacles we have overcome, and the blessings we have enjoyed. This fond approach to reminiscing about what we may no longer be able to recover will sometimes give us a glimpse of what is to come and offer some insight into what we can look forward to, which will help us be better prepared for the often unpredictable future.

With that in mind, I have compiled a list of things which, judging from past performance, I believe we are very likely to see and not see in the next year.

Likely to see: Another Harry Potter movie.
The pubescent magical crew will eventually beat Rocky in number of sequels. Fortunately they have youth on their side, not to mention a surplus of baby boomers that simply refuse to grow up.

Probably won’t see: Another Zarkawi or Bin Laden home video.
Once word gets out that torture has become an unpopular approach to getting information from global terrorists who may be privy to vital information that could save the lives of untold numbers of innocent people, and the plush living accommodations procured for their comrades at GITMO, they will probably stop forwarding their video productions to Al Jazeera and turn themselves in to the benevolent hands of the U.S. military rather than their own authorities.

Likely to see: An emergence of Birkenstock wearing vegetarian new age converts.
With the rise of oil prices and increasing popularity of hybrids, more tree huggers will see this change in the horizon as further indication that their wacky Mother Nature worship oriented theologies are legitimate ways of looking at the world. If this trend continues unabated Ralph Nader stands to get an increase to 2% of the vote in 2008.

Probably won’t see: A winding down of the Bird Flu pandemic hysteria.
This is bound to continue as it follows the Natural Disaster hysteria, which will temporarily subside as the weather gets cooler and Global Warming provocateurs find other reasons to blame Bush for the imminent destruction of the entire western hemisphere.

Likely to see: More dysfunctional family T.V. sitcoms.
Fears of Bush’s governing style devolving into a traditional family oriented full fledged theocracy will propel more self-important script writers to combat this development by hatching out more dysfunctional TV characters as role models for the “evolving” families of the future.

Probably won’t see: Fewer entertainers behaving lasciviously.
Seeing how Janet Jackson and Pee Wee Herman’s sagging careers were temporarily revitalized by their lewd behavior, other would be washed up entertainers will risk being fined by the FCC and expose their genitalia to millions of unsuspecting viewers in order to enhance their popularity.

Likely to see: Increase in teenage suicide.
An unprecedented number of teenagers will succumb to an irreversible state of depression as the batteries in their Ipods run out and they are forced to temporarily engage in a limited amount of human interaction and possibly experience the sometimes bleak realities around them.

Probably won’t see: A decrease in reality based TV shows.
In spite of the detrimental effect on society of reality based TV shows, and given their lucrative value, the new rage will lean towards trendier reality TV shows that depict the making of former reality TV shows.

Likely to see: A continuing downward spiraling trend of intelligent Democrats.
Members of that assembly endowed with critical thinking faculties obviously went by the way of low gas prices and SUV’s after the appointment of Howard Dean as their chairman, and John Kerry ignoring the script in another interview and comparing U.S. soldiers with terrorists.

Probably won’t see: A continuing downward spiraling trend of Bill Clinton cameos.
Bill will not have to let his wife share some of the post-presidential spotlight he has enjoyed from the adoring media anymore, as she will be concentrating in other endeavors like crafting ideologically compatible dualistic stances on hot button issues and writing her inaugural speech for 2008, much in the same way Kerry was engaged in the last election. But can she say: Reporting for Duty?

Likely to see: Saddam Hussein action figures.
This lovable collectible will come equipped with its own human shredder, noose, and when you pull the string on it’s back it will utter things like: This is an illegitimate Court of Law and I did spent a couple of months hiding in a hole in the ground but I am not afraid to be executed.

Probably won’t see: Competitive car insurance rates for members of the Iraqi insurgency.
This is pretty self explanatory, although it pains me to call it an insurgency. The term lends an air or legitimacy to the barbarians presently blowing up perfectly good vehicles in Iraq.

Happy New Year to all.

A Holiday that dares not speak its name

I feel somewhat apprehensive about wishing people a Merry Christmas these days. This, mind you, in spite of the fact that recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others is supposed to be a sign of tolerance for diversity.

I am not sure if it is because I feel pressure from my multicultural peers suggesting me that I may offend someone by uttering such incendiary words in public or because I do not want to appear narrow-minded. But honestly, saying Happy Holidays sounds so insipid and shallow doesn’t it?

I admit I have sometimes depended on the adherence to pleasantries dictated by today’s definition of tolerance to help me maintain a semblance of cultural sophistication. One may risk offending others by regaling them with a paltry joke layered with sexual overtones or a tasteless anecdote about some catastrophic event, fully persuaded that a person who finds such expressions of free speech unsavory is obviously a prudish bore who suffers from an excessive concern with propriety and decorum. But it is clearly outside of the boundaries of proper social etiquette to presume we are free to openly celebrate a religious holiday. Evidently there must be something sinister and offensive about that.

Yet I am still not sure I fully understand what it is about Christmas that so outrages the moral sensibilities of some people, even though the one after whom the holiday was named did warn that the mere mention of his name would be an affront to many. I wonder how curious a notion it may have seemed even to his early followers to hear that anyone would actually be offended by his name.

They must’ve wondered. Here was their gentle leader, a man who made a habit of healing the sick, touching the untouchables of society, giving words of hope to the hopeless, and comfort to the suffering; imparting freedom to those under any kind of physical or emotional bondage; preaching peace and good will to the poor, the outcast, even the unrepentant; making a point of spending time with those who were by their very presence offensive to others, and encouraging those who were repulsive to the outwardly religious, many of whom he deservedly humiliated publicly. And finally, offering his life for the undeserving. Which one of those aspects of his daily existence was it that offended people back then and still offends so many today?

Unless one can claim to be prodigiously wealthy, emotionally fulfilled, morally blameless, utterly self-sufficient and positively certain of our final destination, in which case one may perhaps deign to cast, at most, a mere glance of indifference toward his person, why would anyone else be insulted by one who should instead be the object of our undying gratitude and adoration?

I bet the answer to that question lies not in Christmas itself but rather in those who are outraged by it.

Most opponents of public religious observances stand on the nebulous premise that there needs to be a strict separation of church and state. What that really means in less refined terminology is the enforced isolation of religion to the private sphere only, and the eventual marginalizing of any kind of public religious expressions.

But Religion, particularly the Christian faith, can not be quarantined.

The message of Christ is to bless the ungrateful, to cure the ill, to give hope to the hopeless, food to the hungry, clothes to the poor, life to the dead, and an eternal home to the lost. It was not destined to avail only to a few elite do-gooders, but intended to be publicly proclaimed so that the lowest of the low, the lonely, the lost and even those who fiercely oppose it would be free to hear it, and do so clearly and unequivocally. Those who want to suppress religion under the presumptuous guise of civility are not doing the outcasts of society any favors, for they deny hope to those who actually need it most.

One has to wonder if those who are opposed to giving Christmas a public forum understand the implications of their opposition. To oppose evil is a noble pursuit. But to oppose a simple thing like calling Christmas by its name or erecting a religious display in the public square for a short season is a rather curious thing.

They must either see something intrinsically evil with that practice or be blindly following the ever changing flock of extreme non-conformists. The latter can safely plead ignorance for a season, for it is possible that they grossly misunderstand the real meaning of Christmas and what it truly represents. The former must hold to a worldview which sees Christmas in an entirely different light, which means they believe their worldview to be on the side of good and Christmas on the opposite side.

After examining some of the principles its founder consistently stood for, I think it’s fairly easy to discern who is actually standing on which side.

Perhaps it is that final analysis of the facts which causes such an affront to the self-righteous opposition of public religious observances in the name of tolerance. So without much further ado, let me wish all of you a Merry Christmas.