Sunday, June 07, 2009

Don't run for governor of NY if you're white

So says a blowhard New York Democrat, more or less.
Rep. Charles Rangel Friday warned of "racial polarization" if Attorney General Andrew Cuomo challenges Gov. Paterson in a primary next year. Rangel, who is close to the poll-challenged Paterson, ripped Cuomo on New York 1 last night for flatly not ruling out a run for governor next year. ...

Should Cuomo run, Rangel said, it would create a divide that could be "devastating" to New York Democrats. "I think that there might be an inclination for racial polarization in a primary in the state of New York," Rangel said. "Since we have most African-Americans registered as Democrats, and since you would be making an appeal for Democrats, it would be devastating in my opinion."
What can Cuomo be thinking? Doesn't he understand the rules of the modern multi-cultural state? We have made so much progress in race relations that you are expected to vote only for someone of your own melanin tone or ethnicity. And once an office is captured by a member of a tribe, the only challenge can come from a member of the same tribe. Or, to stretch a point, from a member of a different tribe, but never a white person.

Balkanization, thou hast triumphed.


Why do news sources even bother with the traditional party affiliations -- you know, "Flim Plunder (R-Ohio)" sort of thing? They're all Republicrats, or anti-Republic rats, anyway. Unless a district in Vermont has sent its traditional gift wrapped Socialist or Green to the House.

We can pay homage to reality in this year of our Lord Obama and start labeling politicians with the only ID that matters, their genetic or ancestral quotient. Since that will not be, in all cases, evident from a politician's appearance or name, to avoid embarrassing mistakes they could all be tagged on the ear like cattle.


Under the new and more honest nomenclature, news stories about election campaigns would refer to Flim Plunder (White-Ohio) being challenged by John Henry (Black-Ohio). Voters would need to read no further to know where their loyalties would lie.

Of course some politicans are of mixed race or background, so a more precise system would involve a percentage breakdown. Common abbreviations might include, besides the obvious, A for Asian, I for Italian, P for Portuguese, IR for Irish, PAC for Pacific islander, etc. Thus we would have Lucinda Lucerna (75 H, 15 W, 10 A-California), Marcello Marchese (80 IW, 20 H-Rhode Island), Howard Glimmer (50 J, 50 IRW-Massachusetts).


This would also make it far easier for busy presidents, cabinet officials, and election committees to assign weights to various contenders along affirmative action principles. Think of the electioneering possibilities. Obama addressing La Raza's political action committee banquet: "I will raise the vote-count weighting to 1.5 for every H!" Addressing the Jewish Action League: "I will make sure that people of the Jewish faith are overweighted -- excuse me? No, no, ma'am, not overweight, overweighted in the vote count -- at 1.25!" To the CAIR Central Committee: "No longer will our imperialistic country arrogantly assign one vote to one Muslim. I say, to bring peace to the Mideast, an M weighting of 2.0!"

But, hang about, we're forgetting several critical variables. Gender! Sexual orientation! We mustn't fail to plot those on the grid.


"Thank you, thank you for your applause. I'm Flim Plunder, and I want to be your next Senator. My ID -- it says so, right here dangling from my ear -- is M 100 (sorry about that), W 65 (dreadful sorry), but now get this: H 20, yes, twenty! And another 5: Are you ready for this? J! And two more fives: IR, yes, IR! And last and certainly not least ... 5 M! Where are you going to find a combination like that?

"And if all that doesn't distinguish me enough, check out this -- G 50! G, I'm telling you! Fifty percent gay! And, of course, that means I'm 50 percent certified, ready-to-rock heterosexual. Now, it's true my opponent has a strong B component, but when you think of my H and my J
and my IR and my M, plus my G, you'll see I'm the most qualified by a mile!"



Ilíon said...

Won't this be discriminatory against the math (or, at least, fractionally) challenged?

Rick Darby said...

You're at least 1/2 right.

Ilíon said...

See! There you go, again!