Grey Matters header image
Photo taken from deck of Warren's home.

Did I Micro Aggress?

Yesterday, I was walking home from the clinic after having dropped off a “specimen” from my wife and I encountered three people coming the opposite direction on the narrow sidewalk. There were two Navajo young men (late teens – early 20s) followed by a younger girl. I stepped off the curb, giving them the sidewalk out of courtesy and we exchanged ‘Good morning” greetings as we passed. Ought to be routine, right?

No sooner had I stepped back onto the sidewalk than I wondered…, in this hypersensitive environment that is American society today, did I just insult them? Did I micro aggress through an act of courtesy? As when a non-black crosses the street to avoid a group of young black men coming his/her way, did I just signal to these people that I feared them and stepped off the sidewalk to avoid a confrontation?

I guess it all depends on them; if it offended them, then my courtesy was “racist” and if it didn’t offend them, then it wasn’t racist.

I really hate what political correctness and racial hypersensitivity is doing to this country.

On balance, I have to figure they did not take it the wrong way as I was just getting ready to “Good morning” them when one of them beat me to it. Following my returned greeting, the other young man did the same, so we actually exchanged “Good morning” twice. I’m taking that courtesy on their part as a good sign.

Unless, of course, they said “Good morning” only to assure me that they meant no harm after I  stepped off the sidewalk, clearly out of fear. In which case, I may have in fact offended them and the greetings were strictly to assuage my perceived racially-motivated fear.

That a simple act of courtesy could be taken as offensive  - and the fact that I have to worry whether an exchange of pleasantries may have been due to a micro-aggression on my part, is a measure of how dysfunctional we are becoming as a society.

Next time, I’ll just cross the street and avoid them.

Build The Wall – Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Since 1964, we’ve been treating immigration as a welfare benefit to be bestowed on foreigners. Before that, immigration served America. One had to have an employable skill that America needed to get in (or a sponsor to support you). That’s what made the USA the most powerful economic and military power on Earth. We took in the best and brightest from everywhere and made them Americans.

In 1964, thanks to “liberals” like Ted Kennedy, “family reunification” became the primary goal of American immigration policy. So if you came from a village in Backwardsistan and had nothing to offer America, you could still get in as long as your second cousin, the doctor working in the USA, was already here. Whole villages where everyone is a cousin or in-law to everyone else then followed. None of them needed any useful skill or sponsor.

As a nation, we have a right to choose our immigrants. Even in the early days when immigrants came in through Ellis Island, we screened people for disease and such. When people sneak in, we have no way of knowing what they may bring.

Yes, we’re a nation of immigrants, but that does not mean we should accept just any old immigrant. If they have nothing to offer, turn them away. Our immigration policy should benefit America. Nothing shameful in that; it’s just common sense. All of America’s policies should work primarily to benefit America and Americans. There’s no reason immigration should be any different. But for too long, immigration policy has expressly not been for the benefit of America but for foreigners living here.

Leftists have been throwing around the figure of 11,000,000 illegals for two decades, as if that number were not increasing every year with new sneak-ins.

Sneak-ins are just part of the problem. There are more visa overstayers than sneak-ins. Probably 30,000,000. They came here legally on student, worker, or tourist visas and just never left. Current immigration policy makes no effort to track them or make sure they leave when their visas expire. Lots more on this where I talk about Ann Coulter’s book “¡Adios, America!”. 

Immigration is badly broken overall and a wall or barrier with Mexico is just one part of a comprehensive overhaul of immigration policy that is needed.

Naysayers continue to say that Trump is against immigration Nonsense. He married an immigrant. He’s against illegal immigration. And that’s a big difference.

The left and news media (lots of overlap there) prefer to confuse the matter by calling illegals “Undocumented immigrants.” See my blog entry for my take on that.  Undocumented Illegal Immigrant Alien Foreigners  (Spoiler: Lots of the illegals are in fact “documented.”)

Then there are anchor babies and the Fourteenth Amendment. Many people argue that anyone simply born on American soil is automatically a U.S. citizen. I don’t know if it has ever been tested in court but the amendment states that: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” and seem to ignore the significance of the words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Words have meanings. One might think that everyone within our borders is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. But, clearly, those writing the Fourteenth Amendment had something else in mind. We know that ambassadors and those with diplomatic immunity are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. What other classes of persons do not meet the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” criteria to receive the citizenship conferred by the Fourteenth Amendment?

So far, we’ve identified certain foreigners that do not. I think that it’s a no-brainer that Americans are subject to U.S jurisdiction. Who’s left? Other foreigners. Which of them are and which are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.? I would argue that persons here in violation of U.S. law are in fact subject to the jurisdiction of their contries of origin.

It is a matter that, to my knowledge, has not been settled in court.

The great vast majority of contries do not confer birthright citizenship. They don’t because it’s bad policy. We shouldn’t either and I believe the Fourteenth Amendment is being misused to confer citizenship erroneously to children born to non-American parents. Maybe an executive order can fix that. That would lead to a court challenge and maybe the matter could be settled.

But back to the Mexican border wall. Yes, it will be expensive, but less expensive than the current costs of supporting all those illegals. Yes, people will try to tunnel under and climb over whatever barrier we erect. Technology can be used to detect such incursions. We already have permanent dirigibles aloft scanning for people approaching the border at some points. This can be expanded. Use drones. When people are seen sneaking in, drop fluorescent dye on them from afar. Make them easy for ICE to identify.

Should we build a more effective wall? Certainly. Our current barriers are not very effective. It’s just an engineering problem. If we can land robots on Mars, we can certainly build a more effective wall with Mexico.

“Comprehensive immigration reform” has for too long meant amnesty, a road to citizenship and so forth, while never delivering on the promised benefits. Twice before, Congress has passed laws authorizing a wall, in return for amnesty and such. The amnesty materialized, but the wall never did.

I think Trump is aware and intends to fix the problem of visa over-stayers. That is, true “comprehensive immigration reform.”

There are a lot of problems with our current immigration policy and building a wall is just a part of it. But it needs to be done.

How The Left Is Advancing White Supremacy

This is a very good read.


The crux of it is here:

“One can teach against white supremacy by encouraging students to treat everyone as equal, or at least as individuals not defined in important ways by their race. Privilege theory does not allow for this approach. It demands that differences be front and center and that we always consider a person’s race in considering him. This focus on “valuing differences” over “the colorblind model” unlocked the door to the white supremacist revival that today’s anti-white rhetoric has kicked open.”

Despite being a much reviled “white male,” I’ve long held the view that race and skin color are the most superficial of traits; they do not make us who we are. With enough inter-racial breeding, I have opined, we’ll all be a beautiful tan color one day and then maybe we can get along, at least on racial lines. **

Race is nothing. Culture is everything. Yet, “progressives” continue to emphasize race above all else and insist on tribalizing us all. My concerns about immigration policy have nothing to do with the race of the immigrants and everything to do with the culture they bring to America. I believe that the American Dream is being destroyed. For me, it’s not a “white thing,” it’s an American thing. I really don’t want the USA to degenerate into just another socialist banana republic.

More and more, however, it seems that respecting the Constitution and Rule of Law is a “white thing.” There is a huge double standard with whites being held to higher standards than non-whites.

Like many whites, I feel no white guilt and did not benefit from white privilege. As a kid, I lived in a Chicago basement apartment that flooded when it rained too hard. I couldn’t afford college and joined the navy where I both served my country and learned valuable skills that then served me well during my civillian working career. I saved as much as I could and have a decent nest egg in retirement. My whiteness did not earn my navy promotions, my test scores did.

I did not benefit from my whiteness; if anything, it held me back as I worked for nearly three decades at a faciility where “native Americans” got preferential treatment in hiring and promotion (part of that double standard).

Now I’m being told that by virtue of having been born white, I’m guilty and privileged. I am, entirely by accident of birth, a white male and that makes me responsible for all the bad in the world. Further, I’m told that my kind must be eliminated to make things right. Well, that’s a good way to get me on the defensive.

Quoting the article:
“Young white men, reacting to social and educational constructs that paint them as the embodiment of historical evil, are fertile ground for white supremacists. They are very aware of the dichotomy between non-white culture, which must be valued at all times (even in the midst of terror attacks), and white culture, which must be criticized and devalued. They don’t like it.”

And thus it is that the “progressive” left is responsible for fueling the White Supremacist movement. Indeed, when the race war starts (and we are getting closer every day), where can I, as a white male turn? It will not matter to people of color that I bear them no ill will. I will not be able to remain neutral. I will be seen as enemy to persons of color. My “side” has been chosen for me by fate, by accident of birth, by the most superficial of traits. When the shooting starts, am I supposed to hope my side loses?

As the article noted: “From 2014 to 2015, the number of active Klu [sic] Klux Klan chapters in the United States grew from 72 to 190…” This increase is doubtless from more and more white males taking a defensive posture in the face of continuing attacks.

The left’s obsession with race and “racial equality” will be America’s undoing.

You want to solve America’s race problem? Here’s how.

First, stop lying to blacks and other people of color. For generations, the left has told them, “You are victims. The system is against you. You cannot get a fair deal. The cops are out to get you. You cannot make it on your own. You need our (Democrats’) help. ” And so on. Blacks have been told this for so long that they believe this instead of believing in themselves. Blacks, like everyone else, can make it, can do well. They just have to work for it. (Note: Read up on anti-Chinese laws. Compare and contrast how Chinese Americans are doing compared to black Americans. It is instructive.)

End Affirmative Action and all racial preference programs. Everywhere. They have not worked. All of my adult life has been lived in an Affirmative Action society and it has not helped. In fact, it creates more victims (not to mention resentment) than persons it helps. If you truly want an end to racial enmity, stop promoting policies that create it.

Start treating everyone as individuals, not as representatives of their specific races. Stop making white people responsible for things that occurred long before they were born or in which they had no part.

Most of what passes for “the legacy of slavery” is in fact the legacy of misbegotten social programs. It seems that the more we, as a society, try to *do something* to fix race relations, the worse they become. Maybe we should try color-blindness in governance.

The alternative is increased tribalism and hostility.

I found the linked article while investigating the “White Genocide” theory in response to that Drexel Professor that tweeted “All I want for Christmas is White Genocide.” <>

Trump’s “Sexual Assault”

Sometimes I despair that so many people jump on this or that bandwagon without giving the slightest thought to an issue. The recently revealed recording of Trump talking about his sexual adventures is one such. I’ve actually thought about it. Here are my thoughts.

As soon as I heard the Trump recording, I thought, “Typical locker room talk. He’s just bragging as so many guys do.”

No one among us has not heard such talk before (unless your mommy gave you a note that got you out of gym class for four years of high school). I’d wager there’s not a locker room in America and much of the rest of the world where talk like that doesn’t go on – much of it false braggadocio. Dudes will ever and always try to impress other dudes with their manliness and prowess with the ladies.

It works the other way too. Possibly not as many women brag as do men but there’s plenty of “dirty” talk to go around. When I was stationed in NY, I met a girl and her three friends and she and I ended up dating, but I also spent a lot of time with her and her three besties. It was not at all uncommon for them to talk about some guy’s crotch bulge of how nice his ass looked. Or what they’d like to do to him. It isn’t only men who undress others with their eyes.

Humans are sexual creatures. We all want it, some of us all the time.

Donald bragged that he could grab a woman’s lady parts or plant a kiss and she would let him because he’s a star. Star power works like that on many women. Athletic prowess does as well. Henry Kissinger once said that power is a great aphrodisiac. We know from any number of examples that money is too.

Many Hollywood stars are stars at least as much for their looks as for their acting, and any number of people, men and women alike, would jump in the sack with their favorite star without hesitation. How and why people are attracted to each other is complex. Why anyone would “let” someone touch “private parts” is complex too. But power is indeed an aphrodisiac and may well play a part in permitting sexual advances.

Is it really assault if the women “let” him? Is it assault if a guy touches his date’s breast when they’re parked at Lovers Overlook?

If she rebuffs his advances and he persists, that’s probably assault. But just grabbing private parts, and she permits it (whether star power, money or just damned good looks), that doesn’t strike me as assault.

In the old days, a guy would try to get to “second base” or “third base” and if the woman objected, he would strike out. It wasn’t assault, it was just testing boundaries.

Of course, in these “progressive” times, when a politically correct guy needs to ask permission before each advance he makes, just an adoring look may be “assault” in some circles. Do we need to get lawyers involved to draw up a Third Date Agreement On Physical Intimacy?

Now, the question arises as to whether or not Trump actually did what he was bragging about eleven years ago. Donald said that it was “just words” and that he didn’t actually do what he was bragging about. In the absence of actual evidence, I’m going to assume, as should you, that he was just making it up. Lots of men exaggerate their sexual prowess.

And, of course, if he really did what he bragged about, and they let him, rather than rebuff his advances, then it was not assault at all. It was consensual.

As for all those who have taken Trump’s bragging as actual fact and labeled it as “sexual assault,” they need to get a grip. I’m betting that a large percentage of these same folks have done the very same thing and made similar bragging claims. They are hypocrites. Many of those politicians distancing themselves from Trump over this issue are doing so more out of concern over political perceptions than any real disgust over Trump’s remarks. They are politically calculating hypocrites.

None of which is to say that sexual assault is a trivial matter. Actual sexual assault. The kind committed by William Jefferson “Slick Willie” Clinton and aggravated by his spouse who assaulted his victims verbally every time there was a “bimbo eruption” – Hillary’s term for when another Bill Clinton victim came forward.

Now, you may not agree with my conclusions but at least I’ve taken the time to think about it.

The Regressives

Once upon a time, before the United States was formed, governments owned their citizens. Citizens existed to serve their governments. It didn’t matter whether your government was a pharaoh, tribal chieftain or a great conquerer. The people at the top, your government, owned you.

Peoples conquered and enslaved by the great Roman Empire could either serve Rome and surrender the fruit of their labor or risk death. Peasants were little more than chattel owned by the Nobleman upon whose land they lived. The King’s word was law. All subjects were duty-bound to do his bidding.

Government ordered and the people obeyed. And thus it was throughout history, until citizens of a country that had fought to rid themselves of a king’s rule created a new government for the purpose of serving them, instead of the other way around. The rules for running this new government were set forth in a Constitution. The laws would come not from a potentate, but from a legislature consisting of House of Representatives speaking as the voice of the people and a Senate representing the States. It was a government once described as being “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

And this government worked exceedingly well. The country grew to be the most wealthy and powerful country on Earth. A hundred years ago, with just 6% of the world’s population, this country produced half of all manufactured goods on the planet.

But always, as throughout history, there are people who want to rule. Bound by the chains of the Constitution, they set out to bend the rules as much as possible and change them when they could. The judicial branch of the government formed by the Constitution decided that it would be the arbiter of what the rules limiting it actually mean. Not surprisingly, using increasingly broad interpretations of the limited powers delegated to it, the government finds very little that the Constitution prevents it from doing to the point where today that government can safely ignore the limited powers it was granted and do pretty much anything it likes.

As a consequence, government of this once rich and powerful country now intrudes into every facet of citizens’ lives. The country’s citizens now find themselves working for the government, not the other way around. Like serfs of old, government has first claim on the fruit of their labors. We are left whatever government decides to let us keep.

The president of this country, who is required by the Constitution to “faithfully execute” the laws, now routinely ignores the laws themselves and issues directives to do as he orders, as though his word is law. He ignores his oath of office and the Constitution with impunity.

No longer are the people safe from warrantless searches and entitled to privacy. Government spies on us and collects data about our private lives with impunity. Permits are required as a prerequisite to exercise constitutionally protected rights. Government now has the ability to take over essential utilities like water and power as well as telephone and Internet communications. Government now dictates whom you may employ, how much you must pay them.

The laws are so voluminous that the country’s prisons have more inmates than any other nation in the world and fully half of the inmates never harmed anyone. They broke rules limiting their liberty.

Not coincidentally, the country is no longer rich and powerful. Is is heavily indebted with no hope of paying that debt.

The people behind this vast expansion of government call themselves “progressive.” implying that this extension of government into every aspect of our daily lives is somehow “progress.” But it isn’t. We are not progressing, we are regressing back to a time when citizens existed to serve the ruling class.

We have regressed to the point where government’s needs are superior to citizens’ needs in the government’s courts. We have regressed to the point that perpetuating government’s bureaucracies is more important than protecting what few rights citizens may still exercise.

They may call themselves “progressives” but they are in reality regressives, taking us back to a time when people existed to serve their governments.

It is interesting to note that “progressivism” is not new. At the end of the 19th century, progressives had so sullied the “progressive” brand with their failed policies that they abandoned “progressive” in favor of “liberal” and liberal they remained until liberalism too became tarnished by failed policies. It was time to once again dust off “progressivism” and inflict it on a populace that had forgotten how badly it failed previously.

Each time you hear someone extolling their “progressive” values, understand what they are really doing — taking us further back to a time when government reigned supreme and we were not free. It is not something about which to brag. It is not about progress; it is about ideas that have been tried and failed horribly. And it is certainly not about freedom. Their “progress” takes us only to an ever more authoritarian state.

The people propounding the progressive credo are not progressives, they are regressives.