I reckon you're an OUTLAW, son...

09 LC 94 1031

House Resolution 673
By: Representatives Heard of the 114th, Murphy of the 120th, Smyre of the 132nd, Heckstall of the 62nd, Randall of the 138th, and others

A RESOLUTION

Honoring President George W. Bush on becoming the 43th President of the United States and recognizing President George W. Bush as an honorary lifetime member of the Georgia Legislative White Caucus; and for other purposes.

WHEREAS, on January 20, 2001, George W. Bush became the 43th President of the United States and the forty-third caucasian to hold this most important and powerful of world positions; and

WHEREAS, prior to becoming president, George W. Bush faithfully and diligently served as the Texas Governor from 1995-2001.

WHEREAS, President George W. Bush was a highly distinguished member of both the sState of Texas and United States and has a long and distinguished career as a public servant and representative of the people; and

WHEREAS, the Georgia Legislative White Caucus is a nonprofit charitable and educational organization established in 1973 with a vision to set the standards for white legislators and other political leaders in the years to come and to boldly assert the power of the white vote and the power of the white voice: and

WHEREAS, the primary purposes of the Georgia Legislative White Caucus are to promote the general welfare of minorities and other citizens of Georgia in matters of health, welfare, education, criminal justice, employment, and economic development; to stimulate professional and intellectual growth; and to advance the study and implementation of solutions to the problems of all citizens of the great State of Georgia; and

WHEREAS, throughout his political career, President George W. Bush has enjoyed an unimpeachable reputation for integrity, vision, and passion for public service, and no one could be more worthy of special honor and recognition by the members of this body and the Georgia Legislative White Caucus than this extraordinary leader.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES that the members of this body recognize President George W. Bush as an honorary lifetime member of the Georgia Legislative White Caucus; join in commending him for his exceptional service to his community, this state, and our nation; and congratulate him on becoming the 43rd President of the United States.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the members of the National White Caucus of State Legislators and other state white legislative caucuses are urged to adopt similar measures recognizing the extraordinary achievements of President George W. Bush.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the House of Representatives is authorized and directed to transmit an appropriate copy of this resolution to the chairman of the Georgia Legislative White Caucus, Senator Emanuel D. Jones; the president of the National White Caucus of State Legislators, Representative Calvin Smyre; and to the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

Oh...wait...my error. This must be the one from 8 years ago. Here's today's copy.

Bring a Bigger Hammer...(OUTLAW)

I’ve been following, with interest, the various posts on Protein Wisdom related to the application of “community perception.” Essentially, it burrows down to selective interpretation followed by malicious accusation (purposeful misrepresentation) in the form of a means to realize a goal (usually maginalizing the messenger or distracting from the uncomfortable issue at hand). “Communities” have escalated their self-proclaimed position of “victim” to a higher level that allows them to control the discourse from both sides of the discussion.

Words are levied by a party to which they may be ideologically diametrically opposed. The words are twisted or interpreted to reflect badly on the speaker with nothing to support that position other than conjecture or just pure malevolent application. Having no context or insight into the line of thinking used by the original speaker leaves the receiver significantly uninformed and unable to make the association between the comments and racism, sexism, xenophobia…or any number of different labels. Even more egregious is when the "victim community" does, indeed, know the intent of the speaker (that happens to be innocuous) and still takes false offense in an effort to enlist more indignation from peers towards that person(s).

I had touched on this a while back. Do you think this is racist?

Question: How is a Mexican like a billiard ball?

Answer: The harder you hit them, the more English you get out of them.

I used the "joke" in discussing the then President-elect’s propensity to apply the “race card” in the face of criticism. Actually, he applied the “race card” in advance of the criticism so as to discount anticipated opposition and marginalize the messenger. This is just another example of a “community” (in this case, a minority), attempting to control both sides of the discussion. The opposing view’s message is shaped by the “victim” to reflect racism. The sole authority receives that enlightenment based only on his skin shade. It is patently dishonest most of the time. It is blatantly ignorant all of the time.

Here’s a more recent example:

The group contends it is a patriotic organisation that seeks to ensure US immigration and border security laws are enforced. But critics contend Minutemen are racist vigilantes who use intimidation and harassment against immigrant rights activists.

"If they were people of colour, they would be labelled a gang," said California assemblywoman Lori Saldana, a San Diego Democrat. Saldana said she has been repeatedly harassed by group members at public events in her district.

The irony here is astounding, and is only outdone by the ignorance of Assemblywoman Saldana. She is acknowledging that since the "Minutemen" are white, they must be racist. However, if these "Minutemen" were "people of colour"...they would be labelled a gang. In other words, a higher level of melanin in the dermis dictates what a person is thinking, and what motives are held. Assemblywoman Saldana formed an opinion based on her own prejudices and preconceived devisiveness, then presented it to the rest of us as fact while being the interpreter of her own position, as well as that of a group of individuals whom she never met. But, the quote doesn't stop there. It, also, entangles every other person figuratively sitting on the side lines. All whites would call the "people of colour" a gang. All "people of colour" would agree with her "factual" representation of the scenario.

In fact, the outright generalization and uninformed conclusions of Assemblywoman Saldana prove her own...racism. Yet, she controls the conversation from both sides, and in the peanut gallery, so no one (not of colour...presumably albinos) can argue against her. Anyone trying would be discounted and marginalized based on the lesser amounts of melanin in their dermis.

Basically, we're screwed when it comes to "community interpretation." Ironically, it was a Reagan appointee to the Highest Bench that screwed us. In Harris v. Forklift Systems (1993), Sandra Day O'Connor presented her comments on a run of the mill sexual harrassment case, and solidified the righteous indignation into our law.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor went on to say that as long as the environment could “reasonably be perceived, and is perceived, as hostile or abusive there is no need for it also to be psychologically injurious.”

What this means is that the "victim" of sexual harrassment defines whether it is offensive. I shutter when a litmus test for offense is reflective of what is "reasonably perceived" because so many these days are not by any stretch of the imagination...reasonable. Reasonable qualities require individual contemplation and constructive evaluation. However, generalities, group think, and indoctrined agenda driven messages have become more and more commonplace. The "community interpretive" crowd thrives in such a polar ideological environment. When you lose the concept of rugged individualism and introspective evaluation, you lose the ability to form well thought out and honest opinion. We end up in a society of "us" against "them." The critical thinkers end up being villainized by both sides when they stray from the consensus mentality.

Here is a prime example of "community interpretation" making an unfounded determination of "racism" despite the denials of the advertiser.

The advert for a chocolate and vanilla bar shows Obama standing in front of the US Capitol Building with the caption, Everybody's talking about it - Dark in White.

What it comes down to is that Russia has not yet succumb to the eternally offended mentality.

The company which produced the advert has defended itself, saying the image is not consciously or unconsciously racist.

Voskhod advertising agency said: "We see nothing wrong with this... We believe pointing to race is not racism.

"With our ad we are celebrating the fact there is a black president in the White House."

The only thing missing from the equation is the motive of those complaining and identifying racism. They don't gain standing or derail an opposing candidate. What they do, however, is promote the scheme such that it becomes commonplace, accepted, and applicable in just about any situation the "interpretive community" desires.

The "interpretive community" is pervertedly propped up at every turn by the media. They are, definitely, complicit in the propogation. In this particular example, Sky News went to "anti-racism NGO, Sova.

Alexander Verkhovsky of anti-racism group Sova, based in Moscow, told Sky News: "Violations of political correctness in Russia are clearly acceptable and adverts like this just reinforce ethnic divisions.

"The fact this is a mainstream advert is potentially dangerous - the image is not aggressive in itself - but it can foment prejudice in a more insidious way."

"Violations of political correctness" should tell you all you need to know. How do you violate an ideology that differs from one person to the next? Well, first you throw a far-left thought police type non-governmental organization into the mix. They'll think for you...speak for you...and reason for you. They will tell you what you mean, and strike out at you with accusations should you have the audacity to have a differing view. Perestroika wasn't all fuzzy warm dreams and mounds of candy. With the freedoms come those who strive to tear them away in the name of that same concept. Everyone has the God given inalienable right to be a stark raving idiot, I suppose.

Earlier this month, Politico highlighted a fine example of psychic intent determination in a rather underhanded way:

Clyburn: Zimbabwe crack "beyond the pale"

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) told me he thinks S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford's quip comparing President Obama's stimulus package to Zimbabwe's economic policies are "beyond the pale" — and suggested they might carry a racial subtext.

"For him to compare the president of this country to Mugabe. ... It's just beyond the pale," said Clyburn, who has sparred with Sanford over the Republican's refusal to accept all the state's stimulus funding.

What's so disingenuous, you ask. Well, in the byline the word "crack" implies a negative connotation about the delivery of the "offender." This is an attempt by the writer to shape opinion. The same applies in the use of the word "quip." The word "comments" would have sufficed in each case, and would not have tried to imply wrong doing or...cheeky intent. And, Sanford did NOT compare President Obama to Mugabe. He compared the stimulus plan to the Zimbabwe economy. Their inflation rate last July was at a rate of 231 Million percent. Clyburn moved the argument away from the topic intended, and purposefully massaged the words to reflect perceived racism, although I would guess he knew that there was none intended. I would guess, because I can't read Clyburn's mind, just as he can read Sanford's. Politico, however, has no excuse for throwing fuel on the false fire in an effort to show malice.

So, how do you counter this process? What can you do when the very concept has woven itself into a Supreme Court decision in such a way that intent no longer is valid? More importantly, how to you return to a time when offending was bad manners, but not a civil taboo? What has to occur such that the freedom to express one's self isn't snuffed out by a "community's" carte blanche power to assign meaning, create meaning, and diseminate meaning for personal gain, ideological gain, and agenda enhancement?

Personally, I think you bring a bigger hammer.

If they accuse you falsely of racism, go on the offensive and explain that the very accusation indicates that the accuser is at the least, devisive and ignorant, and perhaps, a racist themself. Coordinate the effort such that the blogosphere is innundated with categorical regurgitation of the event(s). WHAT YOU DON'T DO...is apologize for no reason. You don't give the standard "I'm sorry if I offended anyone" speech that seems to be the standard procedure of our spinless soup du jour leaders these days. I would even suggest taking it a step further and challenging the legitimacy of any organization if they have such a prevocative and dishonest representative speaking on their behalf. Create an infighting in their house.

You can call this being an "OUTLAW" if you like. I prefer to consider it being honest with one's self, and holding tight to principles, values, and common sense.

Nice Pussy!!!!

From Patterico's Pontifications:

I think we’ve hit on some examples that will help us explore the issue of responsibility for the meaning of words, misinterpretation, and giving offense. Thanks to Craig R. Harmon and Jeff Goldstein in comments for the precursors to these examples.

1) A boy has a dog named Rover. At night, he typically calls the dog into the house from the field by either calling out: “Come here, boy!” or “Come here, Rover!” The dog responds to either; either is equally effective.

The boy learns at school that there is a racial history associated with the word “boy” such that black men are offended to be called “boy.” That night, he starts to call out: “Come here, boy!” when he sees Rover out in the field. But then, the boy sees a black man near Rover. The boy thinks to himself: if I yell out “Come here, boy!” that black man will be offended. But then the boy thinks: I don’t care. That’s his problem. And he yells, “Come here, boy!”

The dog and the black man come over. The black man is angry. The boy explains that he was just calling his dog. And the black man calms down and says he didn’t realize that; he hadn’t even seen the dog out there when he heard “Come here, boy!”

The post goes forward asking various questions as to malice and alternatives...blah...blah...blah...

I'll make it simple...

I refuse to live in a Benny Hill skit. If I want to call my dog "boy"...I'm going to do so without the least bit of consideration for others lurking about. If I want to compliment a woman holding a cat on her beautiful "pussy." By God, I'm going to do it. I DON'T CARE ABOUT ANOTHER'S PERCEPTION IF MY INTENT IS MY OWN, AND WITHIN THE BOUNDRIES OF MY OWN ETHICS.

This walking on egg shells nonsense is an avalanche of stupidity. Consider the fact that should a man with more melanin in his skin tone be in the area and hear me calling my dog "boy," and should he come whirling over to me demanding an apology...I would be sure to point out his preconceived devisive nature, and his premature response (perhaps causing him to cool the jets the next time he perceives something that does not exist). Let's call it a learning exercise for the overly sensitive and the perpetually victimized.

Here's the rub. I can call anyone anything I damn well please. The damage in such exercises that are "beyond the pale" is to my reputation. There is, obviously, an abstract line that dares crossing which is far from stationery. The problem is that such nuanced "perceived communities" continuously throw other lines out there that they can move at will. Life should not be a game of hopscotch conducted by the overly sensitive. It should not be an exploitation of sex, race, religion,...or any of the other 'taboo' topics that are used as passive agressive and perception based determinates.

I refuse to be niggardly in my comments, actions and deeds to avoid misinterpretation. Some smarter folks than I gave us this beautiful functional language, and I intend to use the bloody hell out of it. It's not my problem if they are falsely offended...it is theirs.


_____________________________


UPDATE: Hey look...an example (Jackie Mason accused of racism for calling President Obama "black.")

Not a big fan of this "OUTLAW" thing...or maybe I am?

It seems there is a movement of sorts shaping up on the “Conservative” side of the blogosphere under the title of “OUTLAW.” And, while I applaud the motivation, inspiration, and enthusiasm, I can’t say that I agree with the relevance.

As I understand the concept (as slow-witted as I am), this is an attempt (grassroots) to recapture the language. Specifically, “interpretive communities” shape comments (sometimes out of context) to form offense, bigotry, and victimization. Now, the original comments could be very far from the interpretation that these “communities” assign. However, they are given carte blanche to interpret these comments (language) any way they wish based on their very own appearance or beliefs etc. If they are the flavor of the week to the progressive liberals, they are given free reign...almost as much free reign as progressive liberals, and their media water carriers allow themselves.

The “OUTLAW” contingency seems to think that this practiced notion can be defeated. I differ in the fact that it cannot. Call me a pessimist if you like. I prefer the term ‘pragmatic.’

Harris v. Forklift Systems (1993). It was a rather run of the mill sexual harassment suit. Then, it went all the way up to the Supreme Court and became something disgusting. I’m not talking about the facts of the case. Rather, I am referring to the ruling, and the comments justifying the ruling by a Supreme Court Justice.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor went on to say that as long as the environment could “reasonably be perceived, and is perceived, as hostile or abusive there is no need for it also to be psychologically injurious.”

There you have it. The highest Court in the land ruled that sexual harassment is present when it is “reasonably perceived” by the victim. The very concept that is targeted by this group of “OUTLAWS” is the law. It is a law defined by the highest Court. It is not a trend, tendency or a strategy. It is L-A-W.

Intent, not perception, should be the litmus test. Sadly, it is not, and never will be again. Similarly, application should be equal regardless of the intender or the receptor. Sadly, it is not, and never will be again. And, to be honest, even “intent” as the basis is not acceptable in a society that used to value freedom of speech and the privilege to offend. My utopia encourages the practice of offending should the need arise. Apparently, a nuanced civilization requires catering to the “pansies” and those holding a delicate psyche. I’ve not yet mastered that…ability.

In my opinion, this is a war that cannot be won. It can be managed. It can be regulated to lesser effect and importance. But, that can only happen through general consensus, and through true innovation.

For example…stop using the word “minority.” Technically, there is no such thing. We are all different. Even identical twins have different interests, different likes and dislikes. They may look the same, but there are physical differences and singular mental acuities. In essence, we are all individuals. The amount of melanin content in one’s skin (when defined that way on a regular basis day in and day out) will prompt consideration as to why this should quantify and qualify special hiring practices.

Stop with the congenial good behavior towards the press. I am always amazed that political candidates make an effort to appear friendly and warm towards gotcha journalists firmly in the other camp. There is nothing wrong with attacking these journalists from the onset, and establishing the tone with vigor.

Stop with the:

“Well, it’s so nice to be here with you, Katie.”

Instead…how about?:

“Well, Katie, in the interest of full disclosure let’s clarify up front that you are, without question, firmly in the liberal camp before we start rolling on your…*ahem*…fair questions.”

What, exactly, is the point of trying to communicate with the American people, if you fail to get across your point? If you are worried about a “interpretive community” shaping the intended meaning of your words to reflect something other than your message, pull out the sledge hammer in a follow-up and make that even more undeniable.

Example:

Conservative: President Obama is an eloquent speaker.

Interpretive Response: This is a racist affront to black people. Eloquent is another way of saying that you were pre-conditioned to believe African Americans cannot be good speakers and reflect an educated façade.

Republican: (Note: this is where the spineless Republicans usually cave, and hand out the obligatory half-assed apology for offending anyone who may have been offended)

True Conservative: I’m sorry to hear that ________________ was offended by my compliment of President Obama’s fine speaking abilities. Ted Kennedy, on the other hand, puts me to sleep every time…erah…he…erah…speaks to the….erah…assembly. In my opinion ________ and anyone else who was offended by my compliment of this president…may wish to re-evaluate their own indiscretions, because they are obviously projecting a prejudice and bigotry when they try to read a meaning into my words that just isn’t there. The short version is you are wrong…dead wrong...and I tend to believe you know that, but took a shot at me because we are on different sides of the political aisle. I promote free speech. You are promoting victimization and doing so poorly.

_____________________

My point is that the “interpretive communities” are not only established in fact; they are established in law by a Supreme Court Justice nominated by Ronald Reagan. The only way to excel in the face of word twisting and smithing is to marginalize the community. The gloves need to come off. Traps need to be set with enough bait to snare the usual suspects while winding up the knock out punch to neuter the anticipated whining, complaining, and calls of resignation. If you set up enough targets, soon the public will catch on, and the usual suspects will reconsider the strategy.