Inside A Dangerous Mind

But Why Does It Have To Be “Black” Though?

Let’s say for example that you are the boss at a job that has 2 departments: The Widget Department and The Wocket Department. One day you decide to bring a chocolate cake to work to eat in your office, which everyone at work can see. The Widget Department has 10 employees, but only 5 of them like chocolate cake. The Wocket Department has 100 employees, but only 20 of them like chocolate cake. Together, 25 people are going to want a piece of your cake, but if you absolutely have to share the cake you’d like to do it with as few people as possible. Which people are you going to try the hardest to hide the cake from: the 5 chocolate cake lovers in The Widget Department, or the 20 chocolate cake fans in The Wocket Department?

Presuming each of the 25 hungry people would get an equal sized slice of the cake, most people would try to keep the cake away from The Wocket Department. Of the 25 people who want your cake, 20 of them work in that area. If you can protect it from them, you’ve eliminated well over half of the audience clamoring for your sweets!

For some reason, Rick Santorum & Newt Gingrich have made comments this week that look as though they’d rather protect the cake from the smaller department with the smaller number of cake lovers. First, Rick Santorum stated, “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.” Then Gingrich, not to be out done in efforts to alienate potential black voters said he would “go to the NAACP convention and tell the African-American community why they should demand paychecks instead of food stamps.”

These comments, in themselves, were immediately struck me as strange, but instead of reaching immediately into the deck and playing the “race card” I decided to do some research. Based on the 2000 US Census, 211,460,626 US citizens were white (75.1%), and 34,658,190 were black (12.3%). The US Department of Health and Human Services reports that for the same year, 31% of all white households were welfare recipients, versus 39% of all black households. Based on this information, in 2000 there were 65,552,794 white welfare recipients versus 13,516,694 black welfare recipients. The number of white welfare recipients in 2000 was almost twice as many as black.

I believe Santorum and Gingrich are motivated to reform welfare and reduce the number of recipients to save the country money, but I’m confused in regards to their focus on getting black people, in particular, off of welfare. There’s no doubt that we need jobs in this country. We absolutely should be TEACHING people how to fish instead of GIVING them fish, both black and white, and all other races. But why single out blacks on welfare exclusively? Yes, there was and likely still is a larger percentage of the black population on welfare than the white population, but in regards to the population of welfare recipients, whites outnumber blacks nearly 2-to-1. If the motivation is to effect savings, why not target the segment of the population that is the highest within the welfare receiving demographic itself? Yes, 50% of the employees in The Widget Department want your cake, but they only represent 20% of the total number of people rubbing their forks & knives together and licking their lips in anticipation of your cake!

I like to believe that I look for the best in people, and I’d hate to jump to the conclusion of calling Mr. Gingrich & Mr. Santorum racist, but their focus on getting black people specifically off welfare puzzles me. By no means am I advocating for black, or any other race to stay on welfare or abuse the system in any way, but if we assume the best and say their welfare reform focus is based on fiscal prudence and not racism, it makes more sense to focus on the part of the whole that accounts for most of the cost. Unless the statistics have changed in the last 10 years, there are more white welfare recipients than black. Plain and simple, at least I think so. One thing I know for sure, all this talk of chocolate cake has made me hungry.

UPDATE: It seems as though Newt Gingrich’s statement was in response to being asked about being invited to the NCAAP conference and what he would say to those in attendance. Unlike Santorum, his comment regarding black people was in direct response to being asked about what he would say presuming he was speaking in front of a black audience. I still disagree with and question both Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum’s comments, however in the effort to be fair we must view these statements in context. 

Resources:

http://www.thegrio.com/politics/newt-gingrich-i-will-tell-black-people-to-demand-work-instead-of-welfare.php

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/01/05/santorum_black_remark_condemned_questioned.html

https://resources.oncourse.iu.edu/access/content/group/SP10-BL-POLS-Y490-26253/schram-contextualizing%20welfare%20policy.pdf

http://www.infoplease.com/us/statistics/us-population-by-race.html 

Give Life

It’s a conversation I’ve had with several people and at times with myself. Anytime the issue of the death penalty comes up I ask myself, “If, God forbid, someone should take the life of one of my loved ones, would I want the death penalty for their killer”?

Understanding that you can never know truly how you will react to such a catastrophic event until you are face to face with it, it’s hard to say what exactly you’d do or how you’d feel. It takes a strong willed and extremely grounded individual to remain level headed when faced with the stress & trauma of such an event. I’d suppose most of us would likely find ourselves reacting instead of responding. We’d likely snap to emotional outbursts instead of well thought out & carefully constructed actions that the comfort of distance from the event may afford us. To say we know exactly what you would do would be tantamount to lying to ourselves.

However, being blessed to never have faced this horrific reality, my perspective is one that comes without any emotional attachment. I can only speak to what I hope to feel should I be faced with this bitter pill. With that said, I cannot cheer, find joy, or take any pleasure in the death of another human being. It doesn’t matter if it’s Osama bin Laden, the admitted mastermind behind the deaths of over 3,000 people, or if it’s Troy Davis, a man convicted on questionable evidence who professed his innocence to the bitter end. When any man meets their end by the hands of another man, it’s not right. It’s not fair, it’s not equal, and it’s not just.

What is accomplished by taking someone’s life? It doesn’t bring back loved ones who have been lost. It doesn’t leave room for error. Statistics show that it doesn’t deter crime. There’s a host of things that it doesn’t do. What DOES it do?

To the street thug that kills a rival, does it end a dispute? No, the deceased’s loved ones will only seek death in return to “pay back” for their loss. The cycle begets more violence and death and it has no end. As for the judicial system that sponsors state sanctioned murder via the death penalty, are they superior to the street thug because they execute “humanely”? Does the satisfaction that the victim’s family feels from watching a convicted killer die negate the hurt and loss that the convict’s family feels?

The only thing that is accomplished by taking someone’s life is the creation of a permanent emotional a scar on those who loved and cared for the deceased. Be they the epitome of evil or the embodiment of righteousness, someone loved them. Someone cared for them. Their death leaves a mark on someone in this world that can never be erased. It cannot be reversed. There’s no coming back from death, and to be the one responsible for that scar is a blame I cannot bear nor would I wish for anyone else to.

There is not one good reason any of us should take the life of a fellow human being. It’s wrong. Regardless who does it, and regardless of their reasons. Life is precious and fleeting. Although we have the ability to create life, (which is another area we should concern ourselves with being more responsible) we are not in position to decide when someone else’s life should end.

Call it a “bleeding heart liberal” point of view, but I cannot justify approving the death of another human life, even if that human is responsible for the death of another. I just can’t do it. Natural death is a difficult enough event to come to grasps with, without adding the additional gravity of actively bringing death about. I wish death upon no one. Not even my so-called enemies.

I hope that one day we’ll realize that death is not the answer to our disagreements, nor is it a fitting punishment for crimes committed. Our desire for justice, both street and government endorsed, often disintegrates into vengeance, which does not belong to us. Death is a decision beyond the scope of our human responsibility and should be left in the hands of the One who comforts all pain and gives all things. 

In Due Time

Struggling’s just a part of my day
Many obstacles have been placed in my way
I know the only reason that I make it through
Is because I never stop believing in You
Some people wonder why we’re here in the first place
And can’t believe ‘cause they ain’t ever seen Your face
But even when you pray the next day you gotta try
Can’t wait for nobody to come down out the sky
You’ve got to realize that the world’s a test
You can only do your best & let him do the rest
You’ve got your life & got your health
So quit procrastinating and push it yourself 
You’ve got to realize that the world’s a test
You can only do your best & let him do the rest
You’ve got your life & got your health
So quit procrastinating…