Cultural Appropriation

Whites sporting dreadlocks is "cultural appropriation." Sexy burka Halloween costumes is "cultural appropriation" ... see: RT! Story. White rapping such as with Eminem is "cultural appropriation." Is wearing moccasins "cultural appropriation?" Is adopting the annoying speech patterns of valley girls "cultural appropriations?" Such silliness! Is one sector of society not allowed to imitate any aspect of another sector without opprobrium?

It would seem to this observer that such imitation is flattery and should not be condemned. When such "cultural borrowing" occurs, it suggests that the borrowing sector somehow admires the passive lenders. Why the lending sector would deny the borrowers such liberties seems selfish and almost paranoid. That famous ditty from My Fair Lady, "Why Can't a Woman be More Like a Man?", suggests that men actually want their idiosyncrasies copied by the distaff side. (And it looks like we may be finally getting our wish.)

We have recently seen that this cultural pilfering has even gone so far as 100% WASPs claiming to be blacks ... and males claiming to be females ... often just for a day or two. (I have no problem with transgenderism as long as one's plumbing is changed.)

So, you grudging lenders of culture ... please relax and consider yourselves flattered by the borrowers. At some point, these borrowers might want to return the things appropriated ... all ragtag and rusty. Then you can get upset.

Thurston Howell III

David Brooks of the New York Times lifted his hind leg on Mitt Romney this morning calling him Thurston Howell Romney for his comments in Boca Raton, Florida this past May (see: Brooks Opinion Piece). Then and there Romney rightly pointed out that 47% of Americans pay no income taxes and therefore are likely automatic voters for that man who promises to keep writing their government checks. To set the op-ed stage Brooks said, "Even after adjusting for inflation, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown by more than 700 percent over the last 50 years." And yet he implied that Mitt Romney is a 1% elitist with no sympathy for our downtrodden. Somehow, I just can't square this circle (particularly after the testaments to Romney's charitable heart that were shown at the recent Republican convention.) We are a country with starving children and "food deserts," yet we also suffer from out of control obesity. I can't circle this square either ...

Yes, there a great many middle-class WASPs (like me) who receive government transfers. But I still will vote for Romney if he will reduce this fire-hose largess across the board. It's called shared sacrifice. Perhaps he should have said it that way? If we don't do this, we clearly can't survive as a nation.

Maybe David Brooks can find an equally dismissive pejorative for that 1%-er (with the great crease in his trousers) curently living in the White House?