Crazy Buttwhistle in Vanity Fair:
I Have a Time Machine
Ok, Rachel doesn’t have a time machine, but she might as well,as long as she is changing history (her own, of course; I think human history will go on unfettered by her monumental announcement, which brings me to my next argument about Rachel’s good work before and as president of the NAACP).
As the president of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP, She breathed new life into her chapter, a branch of the organization that was small in both attendance and impact in Spokane. She helped many people by better organizing the group and getting an actual office downtown in Spokane. She also held rallies,peaceful protests,and fundraisers for the group.
I don’t want to take away from any good she’s done, but I do want to point out the fallacy of believing that her good justifies her deception. Wouldn’t it be ironically sweet if now that Rachel is gone, the NAACP’s membership actually went up?
Honestly, after reading and watching about Eric Garner, Sandra Bland, and Antonio Martin. I think I might join the NAACP.
I would hope that my readers have seen the movie Minority Report directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Tom Cruise. It is a great sci-fi adventure that asked an interesting philosophical question: can ends justify means?
In Minority Report, Tom Cruise’s character works as a homicide detective in quite a unique program . He is stationed at a lab in Washington DC called Pre-Crime.
I don’t want to get too bogged down with the plot, so here are the bare bones of the story: in this future, scientists have discovered 3 meta-human beings with the capability to see murders happening before they actually occur in real life.
These three ‘Precogs,’ as they are known (short for Pre-Cognition), reside in a pool of a special liquid that amplifies their abilities. Because a murder can happen at any time, the Precogs have to be awake and aware all the time.
There are two boy Precogs and one girl Precog, and naturally, the girl is the strongest of the three. The whole program wouldn’t function without her. She is the keystone to Precrime, as it were. Oddly, the three Precogs are all orphans with no known family to claim them (this comes into play later).
When we first encounter Tom Cruise’s character, the Precrime program has only been active locally in the DC area for about 10 years. There hasn’t been a murder in the DC area for ten years, either. Because of it’s seemingly 100% success rate (notice I inserted ‘seemingly’), the program is under consideration by he US government to go national.
We (the audience) find out through Tom’s detective work that the Precog girl’s mother was a drug addict who gave her daughter up for adoption because she couldn’t take care of her. The drug use by her mom could have had a direct link to her doughter’s precog abilities.
To make a long story slightly less long, the Precog girl’s mother cleans up her life and comes looking for her daughter. The founder of the Precrime program (not Tom Cruise or anything, some old guy) understands that his Precrime empire would not function without girl Precog, so he murders the mother and fools the already-active Precog System.
The murder of the Precog girl’s mother by the founder of Precrime is one of the first murders to be recorded in the Precrime system. However, in the story, no one was ever arrested, thus showing that even though a perfect system was in place, it was brought about by human error (the killing of Precog girl’s mother by the old man running Precrime), so there can be no perfect justice system as long as humans are involved,which will always be the case.
There can never be a perfect justice system if it cannot account for (and thus remove) the factor of human error.
Thus did the ends justify the means? Would you, Mr or Ms Reader, would you yourself allow a 100% correct Precrime program to exist, and only you have the knowledge that it was made possible by a murder? Or would you be an absolutist and shut down the program, citing that no murder, under any circumstances, is justifiable? Good questions…
Anyway, to tie this in to Rachel’s twisted tale: she did good work, yes, but it was made possible by a deception, and thus rendered invalid, in my opinion.
On a side note, Rachel’s replacement president was her vice-president, Naima Quarles-Burnley. I was feeling bad for this woman. She had to take the reins of a community organization that had just been through the most bizzare, singular event to happen in, well, perhaps ever. She was not prepared for this sudden change in her life (nor would anyone).
However, I read her brief biography in a news article announcing her ascension to the presidency, and upon reading it, I realized that if anyone can lead the Spokane NAACP, Naima can. Before Rachel was outed, Ms Quarles-Burnley had gotten her masters in Theology from Lancaster Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania.
Long before that, she practiced law for seven years and had gone on multiple missionary trips the world over. She and her reverrened husband have been active in her church and community for years. She is the proud mother of a son who has Down Syndrome. And this was all before the Rachel story broke. You know who I want to write a book? Naima Quarles-Burnley. It would be a better read than Rachel’s Ramblings. I’m still going to read Rachel’s biography many-a-time, though, but that’s just because I am obsessed.
The next two quotes by Rachel Dolezal are the crux of my argument, and I believe I can sway you, my audience, to agree with me. I will use the evidence presented and the order of the events (namely that Rachel decided to ‘reveal’ this ‘new information’ only after her story broke, and is reinventing her past to justify her current predicament) and some rational conclusions that most, if not all thinking people can infer from the facts.
It only requires a little knowledge of the possible implications of Rachel’s statements. To discover the erroneous implications made by Ms Dolezal, we simply have to play a funny game called “Let’s Assume what Rachel says is true.” We only need to spend a few brief minutes in her world where rose-colored glasses are the minimum requirement for seeing things her way. On with the quotes:
— Quote #1: Rachel Dolezal in Vanity Fair
It’s not something that I can put on and take off anymore. Like I said, I’ve had my years of confusion and wondering who I really (was) and why and how do I live my life and make sense of it all, but I’m not confused about that any longer. I think the world might be — but I’m not.
— Quote #2: Rachel Dolezal in Vanity Fair
“I would like to write a book just so that I can send [it to] everybody there as opposed to having to continue explaining,” she says. “After that comes out, then I’ll feel a little bit more free to reveal my life in the racial social-justice movement. I’m looking for the quickest way back to that, but I don’t feel like I am probably going to be able to re-enter that work with the type of leadership required to make change if I don’t have something like a published explanation.”
Quote #1: Rachel implies first of all that she is no longer in control of choosing to be black or white, a subtle and inaccurate statement meant to address her recusers that cited her white privilege as her ability to stop being black if she wanted. Rachel is in it for the long-haul.
It’s like Rachel is saying “It’s ok, my bruthas and sistahs, I promise I will never, never be white again. Ever. You can take that to the bank.”
I think she is missing the point. Her personal will does not change the nature of her biology. She is White. What’s that old Bible adage about the leopard changing its spots?
Secondly, and here is where our game of “Realizing the Implications of Rachel’s Statements if they Were True.” - soon to be a family home game by Jackson Brothers. Like Parker Brothers, but black…get it? Oh man, I’m stretching for it now.
Onto the Jeopardy round:
Me: “Yes, Alex, I’ll take misunderstood youth for $300.”
Alex: “The answer is: a journal.”
Me: “What didn’t Rachel Dolezal keep as a record of her youth of isolation and confusion.”
Rachel Dolezal claims to have studied this ‘innate blackness’ for years. As someone who’s story might one day be important, didn’t conflicted young Rachel keep a journal to pour out her feelings of isolation, misunderstanding, and such? It’s not like Rachel could post podcasts on her phone. As someone who needs to establish her state of mind, an authentic journal would do wonders to establish what Rachel went through that created her current self.
One of these three things could be true:
(1) There is no original journal, but Rachel fabricates one and tries to pass it off. It’s called her book deal, but I wouldn’t hold my breath, Rachel, I read in a crisis management column about you that Publishers are interested only in publishing books that contain the truth with corroboration. Again, Rachel, don’t hold your breath.
Don’t get me wrong, there will be many books written about you, well, maybe not so much “books,” ahm, we’ll go with book. Yeah. Book. With the way your popularity has waned as of late, Rachel, it looks like it’s 14:59 on your fame time clock. Time to go Black to the Future.
Maybe there won’t be a book about you. Not a book, but maybe more like an asterisk in the back section of Bill Cosby’s book that has a foreward written by Cecil the Lion. Yeah, something like that.
(2) There is a journal but the evidence in there directly contradicts what Rachel is saying right now, so it’s either destroyed or really well-hidden.
(3) There is no journal because Rachel didn’t write one and she’s not going to fake it. Oh well…I really wanted to read a journal, or something. Oh well…
On to Double Jeopardy:
Alex: “You get to pick first in this round.”
Me: “Ahhh, let’s go with Rachel Dolezal book deals for $2,000, Alex.”
Alex: “Rightey-o, for $2,000; here is the answer: This is why Rachel Dolezal would need a book deal to get her side of the story out there.”
Me: (buzzing in) “Because she’s poor.”
Alex: “No. Do either of the other two have an answer?”
Me: (I’m all three jeopardy contestants in this story) “What is…because she’s poor?”
Alex: “Right. You, go ahead and select…”
If Rachel Dolezal were truly concerned about others knowing the truth of her story, she would publish it for free online. It’s that simple. I challenge her to do that. I would read it.
She is and has been lying and is now trying to make ends meet. She needs to get paid. No dinero, no book. Again, don’t hold your breath, Rachel, don’t hold your breath.