Privilege

There might be such a thing as unearned white privilege ... but life contains many other privileges that are far more subtle and insidious ... and don’t relate to the color of one’s skin. How about celebrities? Once, in coach on an airplane I found myself sitting next to Dick Clark. The flight attendant quickly upgraded him gratis to first class. Is this not a “privilege” of being a celebrity? Every day one sees people famous only because they are famous spouting off in the most inane ways just to keep their names in the news. (Kathy Griffen and Rob Reiner come to mind.)

There are other ways of attracting privilege ... what I call Poobah privileges ... such as low-number or special license plates ... or using limousines to arrive at an event ... or wearing designer dresses or British-tailored suits ... or wearing expensive jewlery or Rolex watches. These are all ways to establish oneself as deserving of better treatment by one’s lesser ... in other words “privilege.”

In the old Soviet Union one would see military men with so many medals on their chests you wondered how they stood straight ... thus deserving privilege. What about the ever-growing number of TV award shows? Is this not a way of celebrities buffing their stars even brighter ... in order to get reservations and turn heads at the best restaurants?

The English are addicted to privilege differentiators ... Earl of this or Duke of that ... see: Edwardian Promenade. Royalty also bestows status and privilege on a few with knighthoods ... Sir Richard Branson for heavens sake! Is this not melanin-independent privilege?

Congressional privileges ... executive privileges ... faculty privileges ... doctor privileges ... looter privileges ... the list goes on and on. People like to see themselves as rising above their peers while at the same time professing “inclusion.”

Such bullshit!

Headlines

These headlines are real ... they have all been discovered on Internet news sites. 

Guess which ones came from Politico?

Former Bush AG: Trump right, there was surveillance ...

Rob Reiner: Trump is 'mentally unstable'

Liberals to Senate Democrats: Step up the Gorsuch fight

Comey turns on Trump

[NYT's] Kristol urges IRS agents to leak Trump's tax returns

Chicago goes 6 days without homicide for first time since 2012 ...

NYC Mayor DeBlasio hiding 500,000 illegals, vows to resist immigration laws

NYC dumps Kellogg's cereals because of health concerns

White House wants it both ways on revised travel ban

Norway: Immigration Minister slammed for wearing crucifix in 'vile attack'

Canadian border patrol struggling with wave fleeing USA

FL judge orders Trump immigration order unconstitutional

Even More Headlines

Rob Reiner calls 'a lot' of Trump supporters racists

Caitlyn Jenner to pose naked on SPORTS ILLUSTRATED cover

First Muslim mayor of Londonstan

Cramer: Elon Musk [CEO of Tesla] getting away with financial murder

Man seeks restraining order against God

Tow truck driver refuses Sanders supporter ... 'Call the government'

UAE plans to construct mountain to control weather

Indonesian villagers mistake sex toy for angel

Man puts python in pants at pet store

300 hours of training required to shampoo hair in Tennessee

Girl without hands wins national handwriting contest

Less than 1% of immigrants who overstay visas deported

Layoffs at Berkeley after minimum wage hike -- then protests

Follow the Money

The other day Rob Reiner (remember “Meathead” in that old TV series, All in the Family) said that same-sex marriage was a “civil right” and that such decisions “should not be left to the will of the people.”  What?  First of all, same-sex marriage (or its equivalent) might be the proper thing to do, but it clearly is not a “civil right.”  This effectively is a semantic contortion to entice those younger voters, who can’t think their way out of a paper bag, into supporting this proposition.  Saying that suppressing gay marriage is the equivalent of Jim Crow laws makes no sense whatsoever.  To be brutally honest, the legalizing of gay marriage is primarily an economic issue.  Here is a listing of the considerable benefits that accrue to “married” couples… please click on: Nolo Listing to see a fairly complete list.  Looking through these 32 benefits, I count 21 being financial and 11 being what I call social benefits.  These benefits have been gifted to “married” heterosexual couples by our society in return for the implicit promise to procreate and to "civilize" their issue ... an expensive proposition both financially and emotionally.  This social contract is not as frequently entered into by same-sex partners.

We should not kid ourselves into believing that same-sex marriage is an issue of social justice.  The social benefits that are most often noted by proponents of same-sex marriage are hospital visitation rights and making burial arrangements.  These can be granted in a trice.  However the financial benefits are far-reaching and disproportionate … often running into the tens of thousands of dollars per year.  Same-sex married partners could benefit from the same favorable inheritance laws and government benefits (joint federal tax return filings, claiming a spousal exemption from estate taxes or collecting Social Security survivor’s benefits, etc.) as heterosexual partners.  So, while the Obama administration is, with one hand, attempting to raise more revenue by closing tax loopholes … it is, with the other hand, opening up the generous federal coffers to millions of potential Democrat voters.

So, the Supreme Court has (because of its charter) not much delved into the economic implications of same-sex marriage.  But, lurking behind the ersatz curtain of “social justice” is this elephant in the room ... the far more important economic issues.  And, weighing their decisions in these matters, the nine black robes should eschew Meathead's advice and instead listen to the counsel that was proffered by Deep Throat during the Watergate investigation and “follow the money.”  Maybe the proper solution would be to eliminate the financial benefits from heterosexual marriage?  Now, wouldn't that be the Solomonic solution?

Afterward:  For another slant on this issue see: The Diplomad Blog 

After Afterward: Actually the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) case in the Supreme Court does have, as its base, an economic issue ... a $363,000 estate tax on Edie Windsor which she would not have to pay if the government recognized her Canadian marriage to Thea Spyer ... see the details: HERE  (A real heart-string strummer.)