Day 499 Saturday June 2, 2018 1,078 Days to Go (or not!)
Feckless is one of those SAT type words that I have heard and didn’t really know it’s meaning.
So I did this really weird thing. I looked it up!
Here ya go:
lacking initiative or strength of character; irresponsible.
“a feckless mama’s boy”
synonyms:
useless, worthless, incompetent, inept, good-for-nothing, ne’er-do-well; lazy, idle, slothful, indolent, irresponsible, shiftless; informalno-good, no-account
“the feckless bum hasn’t gotten off our sofa for ten days”
So, is Ivanka feckless?
Well, we know the other word that Samantha Bee used, and she is that, at least physically. We can debate the pejorative meaning, I guess. You know, like the way Ted Nugent has used it repeatedly when describing Hillary Clinton. Oh yes, the outrage from the right then! The reprimands. The distancing. What? It didn’t happen? Say it ain’t true! What, it was more nod-nod wink-wink? Like the time the insurance adjuster from Texas told me don’t “re-nig” on electing Obama to a second term? And then was ready to explain it to me in case I didn’t understand – that kind of reaction to Nugent by the erstwhile Trump supporters? Yeah. I’d say that was the case. The old nod-nod wink-wink. Now that one of their own has been called out they are outraged?
Wait. Maybe they didn’t get it. Should I explain? Should I ask if Samantha Bee should have gone more Ted Nugent in her description? You know, called her a whore? Or something more pejorative?
Feckless is a big word, would “useless” have been better?
Ivanka Trump is part of the administration. She has influence over her dad. One of the few people who does. Trump has instituted a policy of ripping children out of the arms of parents. They might be crossing the border legally or illegally. They might be seeking asylum – legally. His policy sees no difference. Yet, here is pretty little Ivanka putting a picture of her head to head with a little baby? How callous can you be? I mean if that ain’t Marie Antoinette “Let them eat cake” moment, I don’t know what is. At least Ms. Antoinette never said what is ascribed to her. (I assume the baby was Ivanka’s and not a Paul Ryan dirty dishes type stage prop. Someone check that out.)
This brings me to the nature of prejudice, and what is discrimination. Prejudice is what you think; discrimination is what you do. It’s okay to do both. Yes, you read that right. It’s okay to do both. It’s just what you apply it to that can be the problem. You can have “discriminating taste.” Maybe, you like a certain kind of food or drink better than another, or a particular brand. That can be described as having discriminating taste. The term discriminating taste can be applied to entertainment. Typically, the more high brow, the more it is thought to be discriminating. Or, perhaps a better way to say it is the more the term is used in describing what a person is doing when it is high brow stuff.
Prejudice is a dislike for something, someone, or some collective group. Legally, it’s okay to be prejudiced against anything or anyone or any group because you do not go to jail for what you think. You do get in trouble for putting certain prejudices into action. That is called discrimination.
We went to the new Contemporary Art Museum at Richmond’s VCU campus. They had a display of Klan robes and Klan paraphernalia. The Klan robes were multi-colored reproductions of such robes; the cases of artifacts were the real deal. There were books, pamphlets, ID cards, song sheets, rally posters, photographs and other items: either promoting the Klan and its rules, or trying to make the case that the negro was inferior. It’s disturbing stuff, but it wasn’t that long ago.
Fred Trump, Donald’s father, was arrested at a Klan parade in New York City. The law striking down discrimination against people of color happened in my lifetime. I contend that the current aim of the Trump administration and the far-right is to overturn that ruling, and there is plenty of evidence to support that conjecture. Not the least of which is many of the nominees being put up for Federal judgeships will not answer the question was that decision properly decided.
Prejudice and discrimination go hand in hand and there are interesting exceptions and changes of heart in regards to this. There are only two proven tested verified ways to reduce prejudice and hence a person’s willingness to discriminate based on prejudice. Maybe only one.
If you put people together who are prejudiced toward each other in an equal status setting, like a job situation. Their level of prejudice will go down. It may only be against that person however. Why is that? Well, the nature of prejudice is such that there can be antipathy toward a whole group (e.g. “I hate XYZ people.”) but an exception can be made for someone of that group that they know (e.g. “But Joe’s okay. He’s not like the rest of them.’) This can be caused by their actually knowing the person, and or by a person seemingly to share the same values. (Hence the comment on Joe in the aforementioned example: “He’s not like the rest of them.”)
There is also an interesting dynamic of cultural or nationalistic prejudice (and hatred or love) for a particular group, be they a race, nation, or group. A good example of nationalistic change of heart is in regards to U.S. citizens toward the Japanese. Before WWII the Japanese were thought of as they were portrayed in Madame Butterfly: clean, exotic, graceful. During World War II they were portrayed as the Yellow Peril: filthy, sub-human, little people. After WWII they once again became the clean, hardworking Japanese.
In a similar way scientists have gone through a variety of characterizations. Either they are Doctor Frankenstein out to create a monster or they are the tireless drones in clean white lab coats trying to save the world. Big scientific impacts greatly change the perception by the general populace. None was bigger that the detonation of the atomic bomb. Overnight scientists went from good hard working folks for the benefit of mankind to the evil Dr. Frankenstein out to destroy the world.
Another characteristic of prejudice is the use of selective example and ignoring those that don’t fit your belief system. We’ve seen that at work recently. The black man who saved so many during The Waffle House shooting, haven’t heard any praise for him from the right, Trump, or Ivanka.
Well, there you have it. Trump is accused of rape on multiple occasions. Ivanka is useless, worthless, incompetent, and inept. I mean, what has she done since being in the administration? Oh that’s right, got a deal with the Chinese for her brands to be marketed.
That brings me to Scott Pruitt, the EPA administrator who is working tirelessly on behalf of the oil and gas industry and his Oklahoma pals trying to tear down as many regulations as possible to allow the rape of our natural resources. The latest is that he gave folks pens. Okay, big deal you say? The pens cost $1560.00. That’s a lot of pen! Oh, correction: it was 12 pens for a total of $1560.00 or only $130.00 each. I, as a taxpayer, feel much better.
Pruitt, like Trump, has no regard for the people he is supposed to be serving. That is the American people, all the people. He does have regard for the cabal of oil and gas buds, and for his pack of cronies from Oklahoma.
Then there is – also in the nature of prejudice and discrimination – the pointing of fingers in a “well they do it too!” method of trying to justify their actions. Typically, as has been pointed out in the S. Bee vs R. Barr case one was right on the money correct and the other was a racist unjustified comment, now being peddled as a “bad joke.” And they, here’s the part that always cracks me up, the “poor me” defense. Poor Scott Pruitt he just ordered the pens and other knick knacks from two of Washington’s premier jewelers. “What’s a fella to do? Go to Office Max to get a pen?” Poor Scott, Poor Roseanne, dirty filthy Samantha Bee, good pure Ivanka, Go Eagles!
1,078 Days to Go
PS The multi-colored Klan
Leave a Reply