(please forgive our continued reposting and tweaking of this blog-entry. It seems to not be holding its margins, and also to be dropping words and phrases between sign-offs. Probably just (Sir Edmund) Hillary wiggling her nose in this general direction.)
As the Ghosts of Texas's past accompany us during this time for remembering the foundation of our Republic, there are other furtive shadows, images, and remembrances that flash before us as we slog through the mud of an uncommonly cold, wet, and miserable March and April, 1836.
We think now of images of what is referred to now simply as "Selma". We are told that we must all think the same about "Selma" and that one side was right and the other wrong....that there were only two sides. Soon, the times will allow only such an interpretation, but such a viewpoint will not be accurate, only convenient.
The term "civil rights" lamentably has come to mean something that is vaguely to be identified with a Negro movement, or some combination of racial and ethnic groups' movements, perhaps even including the certain behaviourally self-identifying groups such as the Society of Left-handed Glider-pilots and Gravel-grinders. In fact, civil rights are simply and correctly defined as rights that are derived in this republican democracy as deigned by Providence as something endowed to and for all free men.
At each juncture, when people have tried to further and more specifically assign "civil rights" as particular properties and prerogatives of specific racial, ethnic, social, or other cohorts of the population at large, general application of true, common law, Constitutionally recognised (and, once again, Providentially endowed) civil rights have been eroded.
The "civil rights movement" as it began to accelerate in the mid-1960s pushed for all kinds of "rights", including the right to forced acceptance and association. There was also a successful movement to outlaw emotional stupidity, stupidity, and obnoxiousness. So long as members of some offended group's could convince a small number of intellectual and judicial elites it would be possible to convict a fellow citizen of having committed a "hate crime". People would no longer be allowed to hate barbed-wire fence repairmen.....if such an action would please the underwater cupcake bakers. Later, when the underwater cupcake bakers declared that they would make no cupcakes for wedding receptions of the plumbers and pipefitters, judges trundle to the bench to close down the cupcake bakers and their bakeries for being meanies.
When the cupcake bakers said that they would make cupcakes for birthdays and other accomplishments of, by, and for the plumbers and pipefitters but not for wedding receptions, the judges further hardened their hearts and threatened to throw the cupcake bakers into prison. Their businesses were ordered to be shuttered, and rallies were arranged to heap scorn upon and throw tomatoes at their storefronts.
So much for the sign that says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". Unless, of course, if the cupcake makers come to the plumbers and pipefitters and say, "We need to install both a water and sewer, as well as a natural gas feed to our bakery".
The rule of the Nouveau Secular Humanist Civil Rights now says that the plumbers and pipefitters can certainly refuse to attend the wishes of the cupcake bakers. After all, who says that the cupcake bakers have any civil rights? Huh? Huh? Civil rights are only specifically for people who have been historically underserved and discriminated against. And the secular humanists will determine who those people are.
It will always be assumed that the guilty will be the traditionalists. The traditionalists are those who actually do the charitable works without announcement or seeking credit. They are the ones who actually pay the taxes, those who attempt and almost always succeed in complying with social, cultural, and legal obligations.
So...as we stumble towards organic law, measuring the reasonable desired outcome based on a standard of the moment, we, oddly, do not become more progressive, but edge steadily back into the jungle where monsters, created by the progressives, kill thousands of their own, without a second thought. But they demand the right to burn down whole cities on the premise that one of their monsters was somehow injured or killed by a non-monster, acting rationally and legally
One can consider that if a certain self-identifying group, say of 30,000,000 people has members who kill 4,000 of one another, then any insurance analyst knows there is a problem within that group. More than one per thousand dead per year would close down every carnival ride in the nation were it to be a general community situation. The problem is, the figure is more like 9,000 per year. That is something like 30 per day. Every day.
|Cecil B. DeMille|
Could he make a film about
how, in last 30 years, black
people have killed more
Americans than the Japanese
and the Germans killed in
World War II (and 80% of
those killed were black)?