Ever call someone an 'Oreo" or "House Negro?" Congratulations on being a Racist.

I can't believe this needs saying, but based on my recent twitter experience, I guess so. Let me begin by stating that I believe that any person should be able to have any view that they desire, regardless of how intelligent the idea is, with the caveat that any actions based on those views must not infringe on the rights of anyone around you. How progressive of me? Thank you very much.

That being said, there seem to be a number of people (small in count, but large in volume) who don't seem to understand or appreciate the value of free speech, especially that of black conservatives. I am speaking of course, of the classical racist liberal. No, not all liberals are racist. But a surprising number of racists are liberals.

Take for example this, ah, "gentleman" I found on Twitter today. In response to one black conservative describing his opportunity to spread conservatism, twitter user "GRYKING" had the most clever of responses:

this house negro right here @kennethharbin
— GRYKING(@GRYKING) April 26, 2013

*Screeeeeeeeech* Wait, what? A conservative man expresses his excitement at an opportunity to spread the conservative message, and is therefore a "house negro" simply because he's black? Anyone else offended?

In case anyone in the world doesn't instantly get the answer, I'll type it out here. YES. This is offensive. This is the attempted 'slut shaming' (if you will) of the conservative black movement. It is the idea that, if you are of a particular skin color, you MUST conform to a set of ideological principles, or you are a "house negro" aka an "oreo." Or as twitterer GRYKING elaborated,

i don't really care @kruddler . but @kennethharbin is a sellout
— GRYKING(@GRYKING) April 26, 2013

The funny thing about racism is that it's based off of the belief that all members of a particular race share some common attribute (superiority, inferiority, etc). Pre-1960's, it was the belief that all African-Americans were inferior or sub-human. Today, the same ideology which put forth the Jim Crow Laws discriminating against all black Americans has a new decree that it's been enforcing: all black Americans are liberal. And if they're not, they're "sellouts," or "house negros." Or as GRYKING so aptly put it about any person of color who disagrees with his beliefs,

this oreo chick isn't really bright
— GRYKING(@GRYKING) April 26, 2013

massa please love me, i hate obama @kennethharbin
— GRYKING(@GRYKING) April 26, 2013

silly tokens @kruddler @kennethharbin
— GRYKING(@GRYKING) April 26, 2013

Weird, right? Disagree with a white man, insult them. Disagree with a black man, and all of a sudden it's all about his race. Hey, how about judging everybody according to their words and actions, and we all leave race out of it? Oh wait, I forgot, that's difficult for a racist to do.

Like I said: each person is free to their own beliefs. But if your beliefs include racism, especially when you come from a party that claims to represent that race, I'm gonna call you out on it. And then laugh about it. Silly racists, actual dialogue is for....  well, I won't make a judgement on that. But the evidence so far indicates that it's not for you.

You MAY be a Capitalist if.....

This post isn't really inspired by anything so much as it was a thought burning through my mind. Having had friends who were/are socialist, I've had the opportunity to talk about  and explore the differences between capitalism and socialism extensively, ranging from historical background to philosophical roots, and even up to the impact of human psychology on our ability to be governed.

In that time, I've come to a simple conclusion: barring the very, very occasional exception...


Every person is a capitalist. Even the ones who don't think so. Of course, you may disagree with me, and that is fine. But in the interest of elucidating upon some of the differences between socialism and capitalism, I put together a simple test - a litmus test, if you will - to see if you are among that very small number of people who actually are socialist by nature, or if you're really just a part of the evil corporate capitalist conglomerate obsessed with nothing but profit and greed until money us part, Amen. I present you with the following list:



You Might Be a Capitalist If:


1) You have something of value, but don't necessarily want to keep it any more. So you put it on ebay/craigslist/amazon. For example, maybe you want to get rid of your spare xbox. Is it a crime if you give it to your friend in exchange for fifty bucks or a pair of nice headphones? Whoops, CAPITALISM! Almost got ya. According to socialism, not only would you be unable to sell a spare xbox, you wouldn't be able to own one in the first place because under socialism all property is owned by the whole of society, and your usage of it is determined by common need. Speaking of which, if this was a socialist society, you wouldn't even necessarily have access to an xbox in the first place, because society might determine xboxes unnecessary and destroy them all. And you thought having to wait until after dinner to have your dessert was bad. :(

2) A friend sees something cool that you own, and comments on it. "Dude, that's a really sweet ride you got there!" Instead of offering to give them that something, you excitedly tell them where/how you got it and offer to hook them up with a sweet deal. For example, when a friend saw a particularly nice pair of headphones I owned: "You like these headphones? Yeah dude, I got them off amazon for like fifty bucks, you should totally get a pair before the price changes."  In fact, if there is any single item that you own that you would prefer not to give up because it's yours, then you are in some shape or form a capitalist. Evil? I think not! Keep reading. Spoiler: at the end I tell you why capitalism is actually a pretty rockin' idea.

3) You invite a friend over for dinner. You don't try to charge them for the meal, because you're friends, and you aren't a douche-bag. Surprise! Capitalists aren't jerks. In fact, most of us are quite human, and chances are you could be one too. Just because a capitalist understands the inherent value of property (whoops, spoilers!) doesn't mean that they aren't generous in their personal lives. That being said, no. You cannot have my car. I need it to drive to work each morning. Is it getting a bit clearer? I hope so....

4) Someone breaks into your house and steals something while you're away. You find out, feel violated, and want your stuff back. Wait, did I say your stuff? No, SOCIETY'S STUFF THAT YOU ARE MERELY BORROWING FOR A SHORT TIME BEFORE RETURNING IT TO THE REST OF SOCIETY WHERE IT BELONGS. At least, that's what it'd be if you were a socialist. What, still want your diamond earrings back? *sigh* Fiiiiiineeeeee.....

5) You have a baby. It learns the term "mine," and does not for many months/years learn the meaning of the word "share." Even after it does, it has a keen dislike for the word - unless of course by "share" you mean "give baby more stuff." That kind of sharing is GREAT. Truly, the idea of property rights is one bred into the very nature of humanity. One of the first things a child learns is the value of ownership, and personal boundaries - and the two are extraordinarily linked. Don't believe me? Try setting up a ten foot-square boundary of personal space in a public space and see how far you get in keeping people out of it. The benefits of home ownership is not to be overstated.



In the end capitalism really boils down to two simple principles: respect for property, and respect for interpersonal contracts. If you make a contract with someone, you keep it. This is also known as natural law (and current judicial law). Nothing to do with corporations, or bureaucracies, or government intervention. Stealing from or cheating another person is antithetical to capitalism. This is why crony capitalism isn't really capitalism at all. A capitalist isn't by definition greedy, or obsessed with physical gain, or swimming in a pile of money. They could be, but they also could be poor, generous, and concerned more with the immaterial aspects of life than anything they could put in their wallet. Capitalism says nothing about the qualities of people, merely that they protect their own property, respect the property of others, and abide by their word. Do you do that? Then by golly, you're a capitalist, and that can hardly be called a bad thing.

"Aiming at the NRA"

A few days ago, a gentleman wrote in to the Altoona Mirror concerning the NRA and gun ownership. Normally, I don't really care, but this letter in particular I found myself compelled to respond to. Here is his letter to the editor:

I want to congratulate the National Rifle Association and all its proud members for their success in the war on regulation of guns and bullets in America.

We have gone past the point of no return in access to guns.

The saturation of guns is beyond moderation and almost anyone can get enough guns and bullets to kill people, kill lots of people at once or only kill one at a time.

Again, congratulations to the NRA and its members. You should be proud of what you have done.

Do not let even one of the almost 30,000 bullet deaths annually in America diminish your pride. You deserve it.

Ralph Galbraith

And of course, I had to respond to this. Here is the reply I sent in to the Altoona Mirror:

I wanted to thank Ralph for his astute praise of the NRA at their incessant gun-mongering. His excellent locution is to be praised. After all, the NRA was there from the beginning, even with the founding fathers back in the day, making sure that the citizens had more guns than even the army at the time!

Similarly, his wit is entirely appropriate in proving the evils of a nation with guns, as compared to nations with a complete gun ban, like the UK. It's a great example: England has a violent crime rate that is... higher, in fact, than the US.

Or maybe it should be pointed out that Chicago, the city with the highest gun control in the US, has more than double the murder rate of the entire country. Clearly the NRA is at fault here. But perhaps we should examine something other than facts, just to be certain. 

We can even examine human psychology, just for fun.

The fact is that criminals will always exist; they don't care about laws, and will use every opportunity to not only circumvent the laws, but to use those very laws against others. And, being afraid of death, we now understand why nearly every mass shooting in the past fifty years has happened at a gun show with all those gun nuts instead of in a peaceful, gun-free zone. 

Ten points for spotting the sarcasm.

Possibly you may notice my vitriol. Normally I'm a very nice guy, and like the vast majority of gun owners (unlike most criminals, who happen to be gun *stealers* - oops, another law they like to break), I like to live peaceably. I'm not even a member of the NRA. I take issue with such poor argumentation. But I do take exception to such unqualified and malicious slander. 

The truth is we will never fully eliminate crime; human nature dictates that some people will choose to destroy others at any opportunity. It's an unhappy reality, and it's something that we are forced to confront the ugliness of on a daily basis. While we cannot legislate crime out of existence, what we can do is write such laws that fully enable the law-abiding citizens in this country to fully defend themselves while doing everything possible to limit criminal activity. Secret: trashing the NRA will do neither.

So let's stop pretending that any form of "assault weapons" ban will do anything to help the law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against those who would do them harm. Let's find something constructive that will actually help. Here's an idea: let's take off the targets that we paint any time "no guns allowed" is posted somewhere. After all, nothing says "perfect location for mass murder" like a sign declaring that no one can stop you - and that's what criminals read when they see that sign.

Thank you, Ralph, for your brilliant insight. Maybe next time we can ban knives, like the EU is considering doing. Heck, let's just keep banning weapons; we'll even ban rocks! Eventually it'll work! Sincerely, the "point of no return" occurred sometime around 1776.

This level of idiocy is one of the few things that is so instantly angering to me. Sure, be against gun ownership, it's your right! But mass blaming a good section of Americans for something that they did not do with high malice and contempt? Unacceptable.

Man, I really need to post on something positive here. Maybe soon.