RSS

Tag Archives: discrimination

In defense of Aggies . . .

Let’s hear it for the Aggies!

Let’s hear it for those stalwarts that are presently in attendance at Texas A&M University, for those that have been graduated by that school and for those that were prematurely tossed out for various but completely understandable reasons—faults such as a predilection for unnatural communion with small animals, for example, or for failure to attend at least seven percent of required classes over a period of six years, failure to achieve a solid D average over the same period, and failure to qualify for an undergraduate bachelor degree in fewer than eight years.

I have a certain amount of sympathy for the Aggies. I don’t believe they deserve the fusillade of stones and arrows that rain down on them from all points of the globe and from persons in all walks of life—well, perhaps some deserve such treatment, maybe—okay, perhaps most deserve such treatment, but certainly not all—there must be at least a few good apples in the Aggie barrel.

Aggies are the abject targets of social discrimination. Apparently they don’t teach sociology at Texas A & M, because any group that wishes to protect itself from discrimination has only to declare itself as a minority and document the discrimination—properly documented, the Aggies would be a shoo-in for designation as a minority and thereby entitled to all the privileges and benefits thereof.

Their request for minority status and freedom from discrimination should include the jillions of jokes—love that alliteration—that target the Aggies, jokes that in large measure have been converted from jokes aimed at other so-called minorities. The Aggies need only to believe that they are the victims of discrimination, declare themselves a minority, express that belief and then document the discrimination.

How easy is that!

And on the same subject and using that same sociological definition of what constitutes a minority and discrimination, I suggest that white folks—I favor that term over hill billies, whities, white trash, honkies, gringos, rednecks and trailer trash—identify themselves as a sociological minority and claim discrimination. It really doesn’t matter whether they are or are not the victims of discrimination, nor does it matter that they constitute a majority of the US population. Discrimination does not depend on population—read on.

The 2009 population figures show a total US population of 307 million, and whites alone constitute 65% of that total even after excluding the 30 million White Hispanics and Latino Americans in the population. Whites only are obviously not a minority in numbers, but the sociological definition requires only that a group believes itself to be discriminated against, expresses that belief, and documents the discrimination and that definition is satisfied—it does not depend on the number of people in the minority group.

Come on, all you Aggies! Get your stuff together and force us to pick on some other group—unwed fathers, for example, or maybe cross-dressing homeless Lower Slobovian refugees. The current hordes of wannabes clamoring for attention as potential candidates for the presidency of the United States of America under the GOP banner would be an ideal target to replace the proud present and past people—there’s that alliteration again—-with ties to Texas’ Agricultural and Mechanical University, the state’s first public institution of higher education, established by the Texas state legislature ‘way back in April of 1871.

What follows next is a joke that includes some suggestions for replacements that qualify as targets for jokes in order to reduce the pressure on Aggies. For example, you might ask someone, Didja hear about the two community organizers that, blah, blah, blah?

Now for the joke:

Have you heard the one about the two (at this point insert political independents, republicans, democrats, communists, activists, community organizers, socialists, old maids or other persons) discussing the weather?

First person: It’s going to rain.

Second person: How do you know?

First person: My instincts.

Second person: My end stinks too, but it doesn’t predict the weather, rain or otherwise.

Click here for the original posting, dated 26 Feb 2011, that featured the instinct joke. In that one I used two little morons for the joke. There is some highly cogent political posturing included in that posting, so I’ll apologize in advance for that.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On the question of gay marriage rights . . .

Let’s see if I correctly understand the problem:

Same-sex male couples and same-sex women couples want—no, they demand—the legal right to marry so they will have the same rights enjoyed by opposite-sex couples who are married, and opposite-sex couples do not want them to have those rights. Many are willing to allow them civil unions (which confer the same privileges), but few are willing to allow them rights conferred by legal marriage—that is, marriage between a man and a woman. And there are many unmarried non-gay (straight) persons who, although they may support civil unions, are opposed to rights being gained through legal marriages.

That’s a truncated analysis of one of the most divisive situations in our country, but really, isn’t that all there is to it?

Millions of opposite-sex couples live together (cohabit) without benefit of clergy—they choose to do so, and they have the legal right to do so. They also, if they choose, have the legal right to marry in every state, and their marriage is recognized in every state. Millions of same-sex couples also cohabit without benefit of clergy, some willingly but many, perhaps most, do so because they have no other choice. Simply stated the problem is that, in all states, opposite-sex couples who cohabit can marry if they choose. Same-sex couples who cohabit do not, in most states, have the same choice.

This I say to those who oppose legal marriages for same-sex couples:

Why not give them the right to marry? Let them have it. Make it legal throughout the nation. Make it legal in every state, in every county and city to include couples (of any sex or lack thereof) living in apartments and tenement housing (high rise or other wise), condos and communes, hotels and homeless shelters, in flophouses and under bridges, and in every house on every block in every subdivision, from Jim Walter homes to million-dollar mansions—give them the same rights which opposite-sex couples enjoy and have always enjoyed.

The most prevalent argument against same-sex marriages appears to be anticipation that such unions will promote homosexuality. I say, “Stuff and nonsense!” Just as mothers and fathers endeavor to raise their children according to each child’s demonstrated ability and proclivity (or at least this should be the guide for raising them), so will two-mother families and two-father families raise theirs (or at least this should be their guide for raising them). Much of my childhood (what there was of it) was spent exclusively in the company of women, one mother and three sisters. There was no father figure or older brother present, just one mother and three sisters. I managed to survive in that element, and more mothers and/or sisters would not have made any substantial difference.

Would anyone like to take a guess at my sexual preferences? Here’s a hint: For more than 56 years I’ve been married to a beautiful woman who has, however reluctantly, borne us three beautiful daughters, and I’m willing to submit to DNA testing on all three. I know—that doesn’t rule out homosexuality, but it is a good start in another direction.

So here it is—this is my proposal for future marriage ceremonies which are conducted to legally unite couples in a legally-sanctioned marriage, whether the couples are same-sex or opposite-sex:

I propose that, in every marriage ceremony, the customary question of “Do you take this . . .?” be modified as described below. This modification must be mandatory both for same-sex and opposite-sex marriage ceremonies—there must not be the slightest hint of discrimination in the ceremony. Require each party to respond to the modified question with a one-word answer (yes or no). Answers such as maybe, I guess so, I reckon, why not, whatever, etc., will not be accepted. If either party (or both parties) responds in the negative, regardless in the manner the negative is voiced, the ceremony must be terminated.

This is the modified ceremony:

Do you, John/Joan, take Tommy/Tammy, to be your lawful wedded husband/wife with the full realization and understanding that after you are married, should either of you or both of you decide to dissolve the marriage through divorce, you will each be subjected to all the provisions, frustrations, condemnations and woes which are inevitable in the divorce process. As a married couple you will inevitably be involved in financial, psychological and sometimes physical dogfights, and a lot of verbal and possibly physical abuse may occur—and also some bad things could happen—I mean, like, you know, some really bad things could happen!

Should either of you decide to dissolve this union and the other agrees to its dissolution, you will have to agree on the division of property, including land, buildings, automobiles, homes and home furnishings. You will have to agree on child custody and visitation rights for any minor child acquired while married, whether acquired through adoption or through childbirth. Property brought to the marriage by either of you, tangible or intangible, may be retained by the spouse who brought the property to the marriage. This provision will also apply to any minor child or minor children brought to the marriage by either spouse (unless adopted after the marriage).

You will have to decide who gets the children, the dog, the goldfish and the bird—in one way or another you both will get the bird. The divorce settlement will be final—it will be permanent—it cannot be changed unless you both agree to the change and that, statistically speaking, ain’t gonna happen.

Do you at this time acknowledge and proclaim full understanding of these provisions?

Please answer truthfully either yes, or no, with the knowledge that a truthful answer is required. An untruthful answer (to be determined by a polygraph test conducted under oath) will cause this ceremony to be declared invalid and it will be terminated. Appropriate monetary penalties will be applied and the ceremony will be rescheduled for a later date (if desired by both parties). Any subsequent marriage ceremony requested by either of you, with the same person or with a different person, will be conducted in the same manner.

In order to verify the truthfulness of their answers, the couple should be comfortably seated and connected to a polygraph machine, and the truthfulness test will be administered by a qualified operator. Their answers should be given under oath, with an appropriate monetary penalty applied in case lies are detected. This will, of course, add additional costs to the wedding, but should prove a boon to retired federal, state and local polygraph experts (the monetary penalty should be sufficient to cover the expert’s expenses plus adequate additional remuneration).

If both the bride and groom, or the bride and bride, or the groom and groom answer truthfully in the affirmative, let the marriage proceed to a successful union, with all the rights appurtenant thereto granted. If the answer is negative, put the ceremony on hold, to be resumed when each participant can, following diligent study of all applicable materials, truthfully affirm full understanding and acceptance of the ramifications involved in a marriage and the possibility—nay, in these times the probability—nay, the statistical actuality—of its subsequent dissolution.

And that’s it. That’s where I stand on the subject of gay marriage, and when the measure arrives in the state legislature in Austin, I will cast my kingly vote for it, and I will urge my subjects to do the same (my vote won’t count, of course, because my wife’s vote will effectively cancel mine).

In the interest of full disclosure I must reveal, for the edification of all my subjects and for viewers from other kingdoms, that my wife and I together constitute an opposite-sex couple and we have never been divorced—not even once. We took our marriage vows on December 13, 1952. On December 12, 2008 we completed our 56th continuous year of marriage. We are now underway to our 57th year, and we look forward to many more.

Also in the interests of full disclosure I must admit that, had we been administered the proposed question under oath, we would have answered with a resounding “Yes!” Our answers would have been judged truthful although neither of us had the slightest knowledge of the ramifications involved in divorce. Simply stated, we would have rejected the possibility that we would ever dissolve the marriage—on that day, in that age and in our thoughts, we would have believed that divorce could never be an option.

 
4 Comments

Posted by on May 7, 2009 in Humor

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,