Shummer beaten Bloody with DEI Stick

Shummer beaten Bloody with DEI Stick examines the hypocrisy of Democrats insisting on everybody going DEI while they themselves demand results from Shummer. Why don´t Democrats give Shummer a pass even though he doesn’t produce the results that they want? Maybe because he is a white, old man.That stings! Democrats grab anything to stay in power.

What does DEI Mean, Stand for?

DEI means Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Typically, this is seen in the United States as a movement to fairly treating people who are underrepresented or subject to discrimination based on identity or disability.

• See a biblical tract on the subject: bs33 Equity and Responsibility

So lets examine these three concepts individually.

Diversity

So the movement wants diversity. When you make a milkshake, do you want rocks in it so it is diverse? How about drain cleaner? Diversity in most things is very limited, and that is how people want it. This is a confusion of reality. Do teenager girls in sporting events ever want boys playing in an opposing team against them? In life and especially in the teenage year, boys are heavier, have more and stronger muscles, and have longer stamina than girls. Why would any athlete want that kind of competition? Diversity is not a solve-all solution.

The United States Constitution gives equal rights to every citizen. But this does not mean that they are all equal. The Constitution makes some classes of unequal citizens, for example, until very recently, women were not allowed into active combat situations. Their current “inclusion” makes a diverse setting of soldiers on the battlefield a clear diversity result. Is that good? Why all the emphasis on people with physical disabilities getting special attention? If a DEI is consistent, the disabled should be made to be equal, and a person in a wheel chair should have to walk up the stairs however he can. Some people are different from others in the capacities and abilities of life, and the law should respect these differences. Forcing people who are incapable into situations where there differences work against them is no good thing.

For the women in the military, there is this diversity element that has entered into the military. Our women soldiers are pitted against foreign soldiers which are stronger than they are, and which have a typical male longer stamina that a woman. Why is that fair? Why is that desirable? From a nation standpoint, we do not want weak men fighting our battles. That is the entire purpose of military training, so that those soldiers are the strongest that they can be, and the chances of victory and surviving conflict on an individual are the greatest. Those weak men are released from the military if they cannot keep up with the demands of the job. So a female in that situation (making diversity) is just not anything good for the nation nor their soldiers.

The women themselves are placed in dangerous, life-threatening situations in war, so why is that diversity good for them? It is not. Just consider a woman soldier that is captured. All captured soldiers are squeezed to get information out of them. In some cases, it is not information that the enemy wants, but suffering. Hamas tortured their prisoners just for the joy that they got out of that. I am sure any Israel women soldiers were mistreated by Hamas. Why is that a good thing? The abuse of the enemy of a male soldier and a female soldier is very different.

As for their male companion soldiers, why is that diversity good? First of all, a group of soldiers is not fighting individually, but jointly, as a group. When one soldier is weak, wounded or incapable of “keeping up” with the pace of war, either that soldier drops back and out of the battle diminishing the total fighting force of the group, or they keep up without the stamina the rest have to have, and when running to a battle, the weaker soldier arrives without the full ability of the rest to fight. He is a drag on the unit, and he therefore causes danger to the unit, to their mission, and can adversely affect the battle’s outcome. That is why men who don’t pass the training are expelled out of the military. No basis, they just cannot meet the demands of being a soldier.

Under diversity, we ignore the weaknesses and failings of individuals in order to keep the group diverse. This undercuts the function and prospects of success of the group’s mission. Why is that diversity good again?

So diversity is in some contexts just bad. Just because there is diversity, it is not necessarily good. If you get a group of bankers into a room to negotiate a high stakes project, diversity would mean you also include some thieves. Why is that good? Even bad bankers, incapable bankers, or bankers than have very limited or no resources is just not what people look for. They look at the mission and purpose of the group, and the members allowed in are individuals that best contribute to that purpose and mission. All others remain outside of the group. That diversity ruins the purpose of the group. Diversity has to be tempered with individuals that add merit and value to the matter, the group, the project, the mission, and just because somebody is a woman, a black, a Hispanic, oriental, or of a particular political viewpoint, that cannot be seen as good. It is only good if separate and apart from their particular characteristics, they bring value to the purpose. That is the basis of merit, not diversity.

Equality

The second key concept in DEI is equality. What is equality? Equality means that everything is totally equal between two people. But is that a possibility? For example, can men have babies? No they cannot despise the foolishness of our present day. You cannot change a woman’s DNA to have an X and Y chromosome, nor can a man have two X chromosomes. The way that God has made each individual genetically will not change because of desire.

Each person can improve themselves, but not essentially change materially what they are. Only morally is it possible to change yourself drastically, and that is a work of God with the individual submitting and obeying God. So equality has some distinct elements in it.

But equality of opportunity is very different than equality of outcome. What DEI wants is two unequal people getting the same benefits even though one does not have merit, the abilities, does not have to supply equal energy and skill on their part, but they want equal pay and benefits. Equal administrative privileges. Why is that even something somebody thinks can happen?

A janitor in a hospital will never get the same pay and benefits as a chief surgeon of a medical team. Why should he get the same benefits? The entire concept of work is disrupted and turned on its head if this kind of DEI is allowed. If the two salaries and benefits of the two were the same, why should the surgeon strive to be a surgeon if being an unskilled janitor would give him the same salary and benefits?

On the one hand, the janitor would enjoy the increase in salary, but he would still do the same work. His children would see this, and he could then put them through medical school, but they would answer, why? I can be a janitor like you and live like a king. For both the surgeon and the janitor, this would not be fair.

For the patients, would that be fair? Imagine if the janitor makes $60k per year, and there are 50 janitors in the hospital, and the surgeon makes 1 million a year, and what the patients have to pay for services would go up astronomically. A visit to such a hospital would cost half a million dollars for any simple thing. That is fair to them?

Let the government subsidize it then is the solution many are offering. But if the government raised taxes to 80% for all people, why is that fair to the majority of citizens? Everybody pays dearly for those on the bottom of the employment pyramid, and those on the bottom don’t have to strive and fight to get ahead. Why is this fair? It is not.

But let’s take if further. Let the janitor into the operating room just take over the operation. Would you want to be operated on by somebody who has no training, no expertise, no advanced talents? So people would just stop using that hospital altogether, and the hospital would close. Sick people just die because all hospitals do the same. Where is there fairness for anybody in all of this? There isn’t. It is foolishness. Chuck Shummer is experiencing this today. The Democrat Party is telling him, if you don’t produce what we put you there to do, we will penalize you with throwing you out.

Inclusion

Inclusion is accessibility. There is accessibility now, but this is a special kind of change to make “people without abilities or value in the field” to get into or access certain institutions and professions. So a sloppy person who cannot achieve in school is given access to a medical degree just because they are black, or a foreigner, or a woman. That is inclusion. The concept of democracy enters here. People want participation and to have a say in the determining factors of group. They want to be included.

But life is not a democracy. Some people have talent, and those people are usually included. Others have capital, and they are included. When you look at the people that compose a group, usually each participant (person included) BRINGS SOMETHING TO THE GROUP. What is that “thing”? Something of value that helps promote the mission of the group. When a participant causes problems, especially is incapable of “keeping up” with other members of the group that are contributing, then that person hurts the mission of the group. It makes no matter if they are given access to the group and its decisions or not, they do not promote the purpose of the group and hurt the group, and in turn hurt themselves. A group can only give benefits to non-value bringing participants for a short time, and then the resources run out. The entire group fails at some point.

Chuck Shummer is the Head of the DEI Democrat Party

DEI is based on equal rewards but unequal effort, preparation, and skill. Chuck Shummer acted in shutting down the government using this idea.

“We deserve our will, our gain of what we want without any merit except just because we want it.” He shut down government on that basis. He wanted 1 trillion from treasury for their pet projects. He got nothing.

But really, there are consequences for DEI. The Democrat party wants him out now, if not willingly then by force. They are blooding him up, because he did not produce the desired results that his position and purpose demand for leadership. How sweet! The party of DEI falls back into demanding merit over DEI! This is ironic. The very new mantra of the Democratic Party over the last 20 years is the cause of the Democrats turning on their leader, because he did not produce. He insisted that Trump and MAGA give him what he wants, and they want a lot, just because. But in the old ways of Congress, that was possible. In the days of Trumps Derangement Syndrome, nobody can give anything however insignificant to Donald Trump. Turn around is fair play.

So Trump is playing by their own rules under Obama and Biden. They don’t like it. And everything crashes down on Chuck Shummer. Why? Because the Republicans will not concede anything to Shummer. Losing seems to be very uncomfortable and distasteful for the Democrats these days.

But on that basis of they are the promoters of DEI, the extreme liberals should now go after Newsome and Bass for their failures. Unmerited benefits and prestige never works even among the people promoting it. In fact, this is the same reason the Democrats turned against Joe Biden. It wasn’t because he was old, but because he couldn’t win on the economy and others issues of the day. Donald Trump took on the trade imbalance with China this time around. Was there no trade imbalance with China under Biden? Yes there was. Why didn’t Biden take on China? What did he do? He got a 1.5 billion dollar loan from China through his son. That is selling your soul to the devil, not taking on the threat.

This is the difference between the individual men, Donald Trump and Joe Biden. But nobody seems to see what Trump accomplishes, because of blind, unreasonable hate of Donald Trump. This poisons all decisions and actions for those so absorbed by hate.

When it comes down to dealing with the reality of life, to what is really important, everybody wants servants that produce good and desired results. Nobody gets a free pass because they are a woman, black, of some ethnic or sexual orientation, etc. The only metric people can really live with is if the desired results are produced. That fact has been the position of Republicans all along, and Democrats have been living in fairy land of pink ponies and unicorns. But their present actions against Shummer reveals that they cannot live with their own DEI foolishness.

I hope Chuck Shummer reflects on how his own party is now crying for his blood. In is really a thought provoking moment.

More articles on the Democrat Party

[listcat name=democrat-party]