Marriage-equality proponents have finally had their day in front of the Supreme Court of the United States; we await a decision.
Before their decision, though, let's take a moment to examine why this is even an issue in the first place. It is a perhaps unfortunate situation that the word "marriage" is used for two entirely unrelated issues in the United States (and elsewhere): we use "marriage" for the religious commitment ceremony and also for the secular legal contract. Those arguing in favor of marriage equality are not attempting to somehow force the church to condone gay marriage; the church can believe whatever it wants, and given that the separation of the affairs of the church and the state is one of the principles this country was founded on, the opinion of the church should have no bearing here anyway. Rather, proponents of equality want simply for the government to be forced to treat heterosexual and homosexual unions equally, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
That this is an issue at all is only because the government decided to get into the marriage business in the first place. By law, married couples enjoy all sorts of rights and benefits, such as tax benefits (the ability to file jointly, for example), medical benefits (a legal spouse is generally granted the power to make decisions given the incapacitation of the spouse), spouses not being compelled to testify against each other in court, and more. By refusing to view gay marriages as equal, all of these rights are denied to gay couples who wish to be married. Whether we turn to the 14th Amendment or simply to our own moral compass, this just isn't right.
There are two possible solutions: either affirm the right of gays to marry and have this marriage recognized in every state, with all of the benefits that entails, or completely eliminate the role of government in all marriage, returning the idea of marriage to a simple religious commitment. If we do not wish to be hypocrites in claiming America as one of the most free and equal places on the planet, these are the only options. Given these options, it is desirable to many, and frankly much easier, to take the first route.
Arguments that we should not be "redefining" marriage to "accommodate" the homosexual "lifestyle" fall flat. The church does not own the word marriage; allowing gays equality under federal law is not a redefinition of anything. Rather, for the first time in human history, science understands that homosexuality is not a choice, and more and more people are accepting this. I'd argue that all it takes is to ponder a simple question: whether you're straight or gay, is your attraction to a beautiful person automatic, or do you have to make a conscious decision every time you see one? If you answer the former, congratulations; you now understand why homosexuality is not a choice. It is, therefore, illogical to make any distinction in law between straight and gay relationships or marriages.
Religious people don't have to like it, but we do not govern this country based on religion. The equality movement takes exactly zero rights away from the religious; marriage equality does not affect a person's free practice of their religion, it does not harm the "institution of marriage", and it most certainly does not "destroy the fabric of morality of this country". It would be like a vegetarian claiming that other people eating meat in the same cafeteria as them somehow affects their ability to practice their choice of type of food to consume; the only difference is that one could make a logical argument that the smell of a delicious hamburger is tempting to a vegetarian, while marriage equality could not possibly tempt someone who isn't gay.
If you believe in the ideals on which the United States were founded, you must be for marriage equality. Love is love, and there is no rational reason to draw a distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals on this issue.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Monday, September 1, 2014
Caution: World Imploding
Sometimes the correct answer is that there is no correct answer.
Republicans and even some Democrats are ratcheting up their criticisms of Obama's foreign policy. Of course, each side has political reason to do so: the Republicans obviously look better by making Obama look worse, and Democrats are nervous that Obama's low approval ratings will drag them down in midterm elections. With control of the Senate in the balance, both sides are going to try whatever it takes to come out on top.
But if we look a little deeper, we see... nothing. That is, for all the criticisms, I've yet to hear a legitimate solution to any of the world's problems. They want Obama to be more forceful in Syria, in Iraq, and in Ukraine/Russia. Have we learned nothing from moving too quickly to the drumbeats of war? I'm not a fortune teller, and I can't say for sure that the Middle East would be any different or better today had the US not invaded Iraq. It certainly seems to me, though, that it would be far less of a mess. We went in, toppled Hussein, hung around for a while providing "security and training", and then left... and we left a country with no way to combat the threat of terror groups such as ISIS. Is it really such a surprise what's happening over there today?
What I'd really love to hear is not what we should be doing in Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine, but rather what these politicians think the results of such action would be. They want us to begin airstrikes in Syria and to arm the "more moderate rebels". No one, of course, is willing to say publicly that conducting airstrikes in Syria against ISIS is equivalent to supporting the regime of Bashar al-Assad. No one is willing to say publicly that it's effectively impossible to identify moderate groups in Syria, and even if we could, it would be entirely impossible to ensure that our weapons don't end up in the hands of ISIS or Assad. We need only look to Iraq to see how easily our weapons can end up in the hands of ISIS. I'd be all for a solution, if only one person would propose an answer that seems feasible. Going in with guns blazing and American flags flying hasn't yet worked in the Middle East, and I don't see why it should be any different this time around.
As for Ukraine, again, what are we to do? I suppose helping to arm the Ukrainians makes more sense than does trying to do the same in Syria. At the same time, I don't know if any amount of weapons we give to Ukraine would be enough to overcome the power of the Russian army; I believe that if we wanted to turn the Russians back with force, it would require direct American military intervention. That may be in Ukraine's best interest, but is it in America's? At the beginning of the Obama presidency in 2009, he and Hillary Clinton spoke of a "Russian reset", trying to begin our relations with Russia anew. Was that such a crazy idea? In hindsight it's very easy to say "obviously it didn't work, therefore it was a bad idea." But what else could we have said? A new administration has two basic options for dealing with a contentious nation: either try to work with them or declare them an enemy. As far as I'm concerned, attempting diplomatic solutions to issues, attempting to work with Russia as a partner is preferable to declaring them an enemy and starting Cold War II with the beginning of the Obama administration. So we tried to work with Russia, and recently we've seen Russia has no interest in being an ally; their actions in Ukraine prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. So I'd say the "reset" is less of a mistake and more of optimism that didn't turn out so well. In any case, the reset is in the past. We tried working with the Russians and it didn't work. So while it makes sense from a narrow point of view to support Ukraine against Russia, is that a situation we really want to step into? Anything the United States does, from arming the Ukrainians, to providing air support, to direct military involvement, will be clearly seen as an act of aggression of the US against Russia. Given Russia's actions, I believe our intervention would be wholly justified; the issue, however, is how Russia would perceive such actions. Vladimir Putin and the Russian people have a completely different view of their involvement in Ukraine, and I believe would likely take great offense at America "interfering" in their affairs. Any action the US takes would, in my opinion, sever the few remaining threads connecting the US to Russia, and officially begin Cold War II... and we could only hope Cold War II doesn't become Nuclear Apocalypse I.
We need to be fully prepared to deal with the consequences of our actions around the world, and this is something I think is lost on the politicians calling for immediate action. They accuse Obama of being too cautious, which in some cases is a legitimate criticism; my opinion is that Obama's caution has so far prevented a catastrophe on a scale most politicians can't fathom. Obama's policy of "don't do stupid stuff" has become a punching bag for many, but I believe those four words have stopped us from making a few grave mistakes. While it seems the time is coming for America to take some sort of action, I believe a policy of caution, patience, planning, and depth of strategy are vital to achieving our goals without causing even greater chaos in the world.
Let us learn from the lesson of the 2003 American invasion of Iraq that caution is required. Patience is needed. Just because America has the military power to go anywhere and crush any threat doesn't mean that that's always the best solution. Hopefully our politicians can realize this before we repeat the mistakes we've made so many times before.
Republicans and even some Democrats are ratcheting up their criticisms of Obama's foreign policy. Of course, each side has political reason to do so: the Republicans obviously look better by making Obama look worse, and Democrats are nervous that Obama's low approval ratings will drag them down in midterm elections. With control of the Senate in the balance, both sides are going to try whatever it takes to come out on top.
But if we look a little deeper, we see... nothing. That is, for all the criticisms, I've yet to hear a legitimate solution to any of the world's problems. They want Obama to be more forceful in Syria, in Iraq, and in Ukraine/Russia. Have we learned nothing from moving too quickly to the drumbeats of war? I'm not a fortune teller, and I can't say for sure that the Middle East would be any different or better today had the US not invaded Iraq. It certainly seems to me, though, that it would be far less of a mess. We went in, toppled Hussein, hung around for a while providing "security and training", and then left... and we left a country with no way to combat the threat of terror groups such as ISIS. Is it really such a surprise what's happening over there today?
What I'd really love to hear is not what we should be doing in Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine, but rather what these politicians think the results of such action would be. They want us to begin airstrikes in Syria and to arm the "more moderate rebels". No one, of course, is willing to say publicly that conducting airstrikes in Syria against ISIS is equivalent to supporting the regime of Bashar al-Assad. No one is willing to say publicly that it's effectively impossible to identify moderate groups in Syria, and even if we could, it would be entirely impossible to ensure that our weapons don't end up in the hands of ISIS or Assad. We need only look to Iraq to see how easily our weapons can end up in the hands of ISIS. I'd be all for a solution, if only one person would propose an answer that seems feasible. Going in with guns blazing and American flags flying hasn't yet worked in the Middle East, and I don't see why it should be any different this time around.
As for Ukraine, again, what are we to do? I suppose helping to arm the Ukrainians makes more sense than does trying to do the same in Syria. At the same time, I don't know if any amount of weapons we give to Ukraine would be enough to overcome the power of the Russian army; I believe that if we wanted to turn the Russians back with force, it would require direct American military intervention. That may be in Ukraine's best interest, but is it in America's? At the beginning of the Obama presidency in 2009, he and Hillary Clinton spoke of a "Russian reset", trying to begin our relations with Russia anew. Was that such a crazy idea? In hindsight it's very easy to say "obviously it didn't work, therefore it was a bad idea." But what else could we have said? A new administration has two basic options for dealing with a contentious nation: either try to work with them or declare them an enemy. As far as I'm concerned, attempting diplomatic solutions to issues, attempting to work with Russia as a partner is preferable to declaring them an enemy and starting Cold War II with the beginning of the Obama administration. So we tried to work with Russia, and recently we've seen Russia has no interest in being an ally; their actions in Ukraine prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. So I'd say the "reset" is less of a mistake and more of optimism that didn't turn out so well. In any case, the reset is in the past. We tried working with the Russians and it didn't work. So while it makes sense from a narrow point of view to support Ukraine against Russia, is that a situation we really want to step into? Anything the United States does, from arming the Ukrainians, to providing air support, to direct military involvement, will be clearly seen as an act of aggression of the US against Russia. Given Russia's actions, I believe our intervention would be wholly justified; the issue, however, is how Russia would perceive such actions. Vladimir Putin and the Russian people have a completely different view of their involvement in Ukraine, and I believe would likely take great offense at America "interfering" in their affairs. Any action the US takes would, in my opinion, sever the few remaining threads connecting the US to Russia, and officially begin Cold War II... and we could only hope Cold War II doesn't become Nuclear Apocalypse I.
We need to be fully prepared to deal with the consequences of our actions around the world, and this is something I think is lost on the politicians calling for immediate action. They accuse Obama of being too cautious, which in some cases is a legitimate criticism; my opinion is that Obama's caution has so far prevented a catastrophe on a scale most politicians can't fathom. Obama's policy of "don't do stupid stuff" has become a punching bag for many, but I believe those four words have stopped us from making a few grave mistakes. While it seems the time is coming for America to take some sort of action, I believe a policy of caution, patience, planning, and depth of strategy are vital to achieving our goals without causing even greater chaos in the world.
Let us learn from the lesson of the 2003 American invasion of Iraq that caution is required. Patience is needed. Just because America has the military power to go anywhere and crush any threat doesn't mean that that's always the best solution. Hopefully our politicians can realize this before we repeat the mistakes we've made so many times before.
Sunday, June 8, 2014
A Low Point For Bowe
There have been some low political moments recently in America, such as the Benghazi witch-hunt, the ongoing Obamacare war... but I think this may be the lowest I've ever seen.
As a result, or perhaps symptom, of the toxic atmosphere caused by the deal to free Bowe Bergdahl from Afghanistan, the Bergdahl family has been on the receiving end of death threats recently. Isn't it ironic that these people who sent these death threats, people who no would doubt self-identify on the high end of the "love America, hate the terrorists" scale, are themselves employing terroristic acts against the Bergdahl family?
These are also likely to be people who hold America's justice system and due process of law in the highest regard. Yet they've already convicted Bowe Bergdahl without even letting Bowe get well enough to tell his side of the story; the right to confront one's accuser is central to our justice system, but these people are ready to say Bowe's guilty (and threaten his family's lives!!) before even hearing him speak. So hypocritical.
If it turns out Bowe has committed some sort of crime, he should be punished. But if not? Who are we to assassinate his character at this point? I've seen people defend the rights of those Obama strikes with drones, saying we're "killing them without the due process of American law"... but somehow Bowe Bergdahl, a soldier and American, doesn't have that same right? It just doesn't make sense to me.
I've seen people say this will encourage terrorists to kidnap more people for ransom; however, isn't this already standard operating procedure for terrorists? They've always kidnapped Americans given the opportunity; this is (unfortunately) nothing new that will be caused by the Bergdahl deal.
It's been said that Bergdahl willingly provided information to the Taliban on how to more effectively attack Americans, and that the Taliban's attacks became more precise shortly following this. I don't claim to know exactly what happened, but do the people who argue this not realize that the Taliban would have gotten this information from Bergdahl whether he wanted to give it up or not? He was a prisoner of war; the Taliban would have gotten their information out of him one way or another. It being willing on Bowe's part is merely one plausible explanation, and doesn't really seem any more plausible than anything else at this this point.
I've seen people of the opinion that this deal is a slap in the face to the families of soldiers who died searching for Bergdahl after he disappeared. This is an absurd notion in at least two ways: First, the sad deaths of these soldiers happened long before any deal to free Bergdahl was even considered (and maybe it's just me, but isn't it possible that the fact that our men died trying to find him gave the option of negotiation a bit more merit compared to rescue?), and one can't possibly be linked to the other. Second, I would imagine that the soldiers that gave their lives trying to save Bergdahl would be happy to see their mission finally completed, regardless of what they think of Bowe personally. I honestly can't come up with a good rationalization for why finally securing Bowe's release should be in any way insulting to those who died; in fact, I'd say that leaving Bowe in Afghanistan forever would have been the real insult. It would have sent the message "Yeah, you died trying to save him, but he's actually not that important."
Finally, it's been argued that the five released men will return to the fight and attempt to kill Americans again. This unfortunately cannot be guaranteed against, but, I ask, forgetting the Bergdahl situation, what IS the ultimate plan for these people at Gitmo? Indefinite detention with no trial, again ignoring the due process of our justice system that is held so dear? Better would be an actual trial and conviction, but there seems to be no hurry for that (why would there be when we can just hold prisoners forever though). We parole murderers from regular American prisons every single day, and we KNOW there is a massive danger that they will reoffend. Yet we act like it's nothing; "well they did their time". But the men we released to Qatar likely won't have much chance to hurt many Americans, since we are supposed to be leaving Afghanistan soon; yes, the random murderer or rapist we parole from prison here has a higher chance of succeeding in hurting Americans than these 5 Taliban do, in my opinion. Again... hypocrisy.
I guess I just don't get the speed and contradictions of the judgment against Bergdahl... okay that's not totally true; I definitely understand that some of it is political, as far as anything involving Obama becomes immediately politicized. But that certainly cannot be the extent of it, because I've seen plenty of "average" people around the internet claiming that Bowe should have been left in Afghanistan, should be executed, or any other number of extreme punishments. Is it just that Obama made this deal? Is Bowe Bergdahl collateral damage of the partisan hatred toward Obama? Or is there a deeper reason that people are outraged?
Finally, it's been argued that the five released men will return to the fight and attempt to kill Americans again. This unfortunately cannot be guaranteed against, but, I ask, forgetting the Bergdahl situation, what IS the ultimate plan for these people at Gitmo? Indefinite detention with no trial, again ignoring the due process of our justice system that is held so dear? Better would be an actual trial and conviction, but there seems to be no hurry for that (why would there be when we can just hold prisoners forever though). We parole murderers from regular American prisons every single day, and we KNOW there is a massive danger that they will reoffend. Yet we act like it's nothing; "well they did their time". But the men we released to Qatar likely won't have much chance to hurt many Americans, since we are supposed to be leaving Afghanistan soon; yes, the random murderer or rapist we parole from prison here has a higher chance of succeeding in hurting Americans than these 5 Taliban do, in my opinion. Again... hypocrisy.
I guess I just don't get the speed and contradictions of the judgment against Bergdahl... okay that's not totally true; I definitely understand that some of it is political, as far as anything involving Obama becomes immediately politicized. But that certainly cannot be the extent of it, because I've seen plenty of "average" people around the internet claiming that Bowe should have been left in Afghanistan, should be executed, or any other number of extreme punishments. Is it just that Obama made this deal? Is Bowe Bergdahl collateral damage of the partisan hatred toward Obama? Or is there a deeper reason that people are outraged?
Monday, July 15, 2013
Not Guilty
It seems that those two little words are only the beginning of the conversation.
It's a conversation our country needs to have. There are a lot of people saying that the jury has spoken and we should move on; however, I seem to recall many of these same people just being unable to get over the Casey Anthony verdict for a long time. Whether you agree or disagree with either verdict, there does seem to be a bit of hypocrisy here.
Why do we want to move on from this case so fact, but still dwell on Casey Anthony? I think that's a question people need to ask themselves. Some people seem to be obsessing over how the media, or the prosecution, or whatever didn't portray Martin "as the thug he was".
My question is, why does it matter? Youth of many races make many bad decisions involving crime, drugs, and fighting. But they don't get the death penalty for that.
Without getting into the verdict, what do we know 100% for sure about that night? That George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. I think that's pretty much all we know for sure.
I ask you this: if you had a troubled teen who got killed (rightly or wrongly), would you feel better about it because he had problems? Would you say "well my kid smoked pot, so I'm okay with it"? Would you say "well he got in a lot of fights, so I expected him to get shot eventually"?
Again, I repeat that this particular post neither supports nor disagrees with the verdict. I'm just trying to understand why people are so obsessed with trying to say that "he's a thug so it's okay". I've heard bad things about both Zimmerman's and Martin's pasts on the same news networks, so I don't know that they've made some sort of attempt to show bias. However, I think it's a general thing to be respectful to the dead where possible. I'm sure if Martin killed Zimmerman that night, the media would dig less into his past than Martin's.
As much as some people wish to deny it, race is still very much a big deal in our country. Not everything is about race, but so much about this case certainly is. We as a country need to figure out how we can do better. This is one of many senseless killings in this country, and we need to look for ways to do stop them. It took a long series of events to lead up to the confrontation that ended with Trayvon Martin's life being taken; was every step in that process necessary? Maybe this is the question we should be considering most of all.
It's a conversation our country needs to have. There are a lot of people saying that the jury has spoken and we should move on; however, I seem to recall many of these same people just being unable to get over the Casey Anthony verdict for a long time. Whether you agree or disagree with either verdict, there does seem to be a bit of hypocrisy here.
Why do we want to move on from this case so fact, but still dwell on Casey Anthony? I think that's a question people need to ask themselves. Some people seem to be obsessing over how the media, or the prosecution, or whatever didn't portray Martin "as the thug he was".
My question is, why does it matter? Youth of many races make many bad decisions involving crime, drugs, and fighting. But they don't get the death penalty for that.
Without getting into the verdict, what do we know 100% for sure about that night? That George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. I think that's pretty much all we know for sure.
I ask you this: if you had a troubled teen who got killed (rightly or wrongly), would you feel better about it because he had problems? Would you say "well my kid smoked pot, so I'm okay with it"? Would you say "well he got in a lot of fights, so I expected him to get shot eventually"?
Again, I repeat that this particular post neither supports nor disagrees with the verdict. I'm just trying to understand why people are so obsessed with trying to say that "he's a thug so it's okay". I've heard bad things about both Zimmerman's and Martin's pasts on the same news networks, so I don't know that they've made some sort of attempt to show bias. However, I think it's a general thing to be respectful to the dead where possible. I'm sure if Martin killed Zimmerman that night, the media would dig less into his past than Martin's.
As much as some people wish to deny it, race is still very much a big deal in our country. Not everything is about race, but so much about this case certainly is. We as a country need to figure out how we can do better. This is one of many senseless killings in this country, and we need to look for ways to do stop them. It took a long series of events to lead up to the confrontation that ended with Trayvon Martin's life being taken; was every step in that process necessary? Maybe this is the question we should be considering most of all.
Saturday, July 6, 2013
Obviousness is in the Eye of the Beholder
"It's obvious Zimmerman acted in self-defense."
"It's obvious Zimmerman hunted down and murdered Trayvon Martin."
There are many people who believe that each of the above statements is true (not both at the same time, of course).
I've been following the trial relatively closely, and one thing seems obvious to me: nothing is obvious here.
There were a very small number of eye-witnesses to the event. Even then, they were a good distance away, it was dark, and none can say for sure who was screaming for help.
The girl that was on the phone with Trayvon in the minutes leading up to the incident told the court what happened, but she may or may not be telling the truth, given that she has an obvious prior relationship with the deceased.
Did Zimmerman follow Martin after being told not to? Did Martin double-back and attack Zimmerman? There isn't clear evidence either way. It seems that people's bias has really got them to see things that aren't there, to make the unclear obvious.
In a normal trial, this would be good for the defense. It is generally the job of the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. But Zimmerman is going with a self-defense claim. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. This means some of the burden of proof swings to their side. They must put forth convincing evidence to show that Zimmerman did not begin the confrontation that ended Trayvon Martin's life. And I'm just not sure that evidence is there. I don't think there's a witness (other than Zimmerman himself, who wouldn't be 100% reliable for obvious reasons) that can definitively say that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman while Zimmerman was walking away from Trayvon.
So what happened? Only one living person knows, and he may or may not tell us, depending on whether or not in incriminates him.
What else isn't obvious? What the jury will do. As murky as this case is, and as many variables as there are, the jury doesn't have an easy task ahead of them. I don't think they'll come back with a murder conviction. What I think will happen, and personally agree with, would be a manslaughter conviction. I don't know everything that happened that tragic night, but I think I can say that Zimmerman's actions led to the death of Martin.
Then again, as is the theme of this case, I'm not 100% sure of this. Anything from murder to acquittal is possible, and no one will know what will happen until it happens, regardless of what "experts" or random watches seem to "know".
"It's obvious Zimmerman hunted down and murdered Trayvon Martin."
There are many people who believe that each of the above statements is true (not both at the same time, of course).
I've been following the trial relatively closely, and one thing seems obvious to me: nothing is obvious here.
There were a very small number of eye-witnesses to the event. Even then, they were a good distance away, it was dark, and none can say for sure who was screaming for help.
The girl that was on the phone with Trayvon in the minutes leading up to the incident told the court what happened, but she may or may not be telling the truth, given that she has an obvious prior relationship with the deceased.
Did Zimmerman follow Martin after being told not to? Did Martin double-back and attack Zimmerman? There isn't clear evidence either way. It seems that people's bias has really got them to see things that aren't there, to make the unclear obvious.
In a normal trial, this would be good for the defense. It is generally the job of the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. But Zimmerman is going with a self-defense claim. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. This means some of the burden of proof swings to their side. They must put forth convincing evidence to show that Zimmerman did not begin the confrontation that ended Trayvon Martin's life. And I'm just not sure that evidence is there. I don't think there's a witness (other than Zimmerman himself, who wouldn't be 100% reliable for obvious reasons) that can definitively say that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman while Zimmerman was walking away from Trayvon.
So what happened? Only one living person knows, and he may or may not tell us, depending on whether or not in incriminates him.
What else isn't obvious? What the jury will do. As murky as this case is, and as many variables as there are, the jury doesn't have an easy task ahead of them. I don't think they'll come back with a murder conviction. What I think will happen, and personally agree with, would be a manslaughter conviction. I don't know everything that happened that tragic night, but I think I can say that Zimmerman's actions led to the death of Martin.
Then again, as is the theme of this case, I'm not 100% sure of this. Anything from murder to acquittal is possible, and no one will know what will happen until it happens, regardless of what "experts" or random watches seem to "know".
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Between a Rock and a Racist Place
With the George Zimmerman murder trial kicking into high gear, discussion of racism and racist elements in American culture is at a high level.
Now, there are racist people, and there are people who aren't racist. Of course. This goes for people from all walks of life; liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans. You'll find racists and non-racists in each group.
The problem I have is as follows: certain racist people think that they can be as racist as they want, and when they get called out for being racist, they come back acting the victim, claiming their accuser is "playing the race card". This reminds me very much of bullies in high school. They will bully you relentlessly, and the moment you try to talk or fight back, they run to the teacher and say "topspin1617 is being a bully to me!"
I've been spending some time reading through comments and analysis of testimony from the Zimmerman case, and it greatly saddens me. There are clearly people who are extremely racist who have taken a great interest in seeing Zimmerman acquitted. To be clear, I'm not talking about every Zimmerman supporter; I realize that there are many people who think Zimmerman is just not guilty based on the evidence, regardless of the fact that Trayvon Martin was black. That's perfectly fine; I may not share the opinion that Zimmerman is innocent, but I respect the fact that others may have a different viewpoint from my own.
Read the comment section on any article about the case on, for example, Yahoo! (yes, yes, I know I call Yahoo! out a lot) and you'll see what I'm talking about. Here's a link to one such article, this one specifically about the testimony from Rachel Jeantel. Browse through the comments and you'll find no shortage of people calling her "ghetto" among other insults, not that whether or not she is "ghetto" has any relevance to the trial. This is bad enough, but what annoys me even more are the comments made against people who call out these racist remarks. Apparently, it's okay to make racist remarks, but calling out a person who makes such a remark is unacceptable. It means you're being racist against whites. It means you want Zimmerman convicted simply because Martin was black.
This is the mentality that is driving a wedge right down the center of American culture. To many of us, it is not okay to be racist. To many others, however, it is not okay to call out someone else for overtly being racist. This is a divide that seems to have no easy solution, as the two positions are in such combative opposition to each other that even bringing the topic up lights the proverbial powder keg.
It saddens me that this is what America is today. I look at the Zimmerman trial and see a man on trial for gunning down an unarmed teenager walking to his father's house from the store. I won't pretend to know exactly what happened that tragic night, but in my opinion the evidence supports that Zimmerman was guilty of provoking the confrontation that led to the end of Martin's life, making him guilty of at least manslaughter. This does not make me racist against whites (even though Zimmerman isn't even really white), nor does it make me biased in favor of blacks. You may disagree with me on the evidence of the case, and think that Trayvon was the one that started the fight; again, this does not make you racist. This trial is extremely racially charged, but people need to realize that it is possible to have an opinion on the case without being racially biased one way or the other. Once people realize this, I think it may finally be possible to have a civil conversation about the trial, and maybe other matters facing our country as well.
Now, there are racist people, and there are people who aren't racist. Of course. This goes for people from all walks of life; liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans. You'll find racists and non-racists in each group.
The problem I have is as follows: certain racist people think that they can be as racist as they want, and when they get called out for being racist, they come back acting the victim, claiming their accuser is "playing the race card". This reminds me very much of bullies in high school. They will bully you relentlessly, and the moment you try to talk or fight back, they run to the teacher and say "topspin1617 is being a bully to me!"
I've been spending some time reading through comments and analysis of testimony from the Zimmerman case, and it greatly saddens me. There are clearly people who are extremely racist who have taken a great interest in seeing Zimmerman acquitted. To be clear, I'm not talking about every Zimmerman supporter; I realize that there are many people who think Zimmerman is just not guilty based on the evidence, regardless of the fact that Trayvon Martin was black. That's perfectly fine; I may not share the opinion that Zimmerman is innocent, but I respect the fact that others may have a different viewpoint from my own.
Read the comment section on any article about the case on, for example, Yahoo! (yes, yes, I know I call Yahoo! out a lot) and you'll see what I'm talking about. Here's a link to one such article, this one specifically about the testimony from Rachel Jeantel. Browse through the comments and you'll find no shortage of people calling her "ghetto" among other insults, not that whether or not she is "ghetto" has any relevance to the trial. This is bad enough, but what annoys me even more are the comments made against people who call out these racist remarks. Apparently, it's okay to make racist remarks, but calling out a person who makes such a remark is unacceptable. It means you're being racist against whites. It means you want Zimmerman convicted simply because Martin was black.
This is the mentality that is driving a wedge right down the center of American culture. To many of us, it is not okay to be racist. To many others, however, it is not okay to call out someone else for overtly being racist. This is a divide that seems to have no easy solution, as the two positions are in such combative opposition to each other that even bringing the topic up lights the proverbial powder keg.
It saddens me that this is what America is today. I look at the Zimmerman trial and see a man on trial for gunning down an unarmed teenager walking to his father's house from the store. I won't pretend to know exactly what happened that tragic night, but in my opinion the evidence supports that Zimmerman was guilty of provoking the confrontation that led to the end of Martin's life, making him guilty of at least manslaughter. This does not make me racist against whites (even though Zimmerman isn't even really white), nor does it make me biased in favor of blacks. You may disagree with me on the evidence of the case, and think that Trayvon was the one that started the fight; again, this does not make you racist. This trial is extremely racially charged, but people need to realize that it is possible to have an opinion on the case without being racially biased one way or the other. Once people realize this, I think it may finally be possible to have a civil conversation about the trial, and maybe other matters facing our country as well.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Super Smash Bros: The Waiting Game
So, I'm a big gamer.
I'll play a little bit of everything, but Nintendo is by far my favorite video game company. It seems that being a Nintendo fan has some sort of stigma attached to it in the video game community; I don't think I'll ever fully understand that. For me, Nintendo has, by far, the most iconic characters and series in all of gaming: Mario, The Legend of Zelda, Pokemon, Donkey Kong, Kirby, Star Fox, Fire Emblem, Metroid, and more.
Sure, Nintendo doesn't own every iconic series ever made; there's Metal Gear, Call of Duty, Halo, and many more series that Nintendo does not own, and some of which have never even appeared on a Nintendo console. In my opinion, however, it is the unique and colorful characters that make Nintendo what it is. Sure, Nintendo is constantly trying new things, like introducing the thumb-controlled analog stick on the Nintendo 64, the motion controls of the Wii, and more recently the Wii U GamePad tablet controller. These innovations are always interesting, sometimes brilliant, and sometimes annoying. But it is the games themselves, the legendary series, that set Nintendo apart from its competitors.
This is the reason the Super Smash Bros. series is so insanely popular. What's better than a bunch of games featuring some of the best characters in gaming? Why, throwing all of those characters into one game, of course! Nowhere else can you find out if Mario can beat Link while dodging lightning jolts from Pikachu and lasers shot by Fox McCloud. The games are just fun, pure and simple.
Recently, Nintendo has announced the fourth iteration in the Super Smash Bros. series to be released on Wii U and the Nintendo 3DS in 2014. Obviously, speculation about features of the upcoming game is running rampant across internet, from the character roster to stages to music to the physics engine. Everyone has their own opinion on which characters they want in the game, and which characters they think are likely. Everyone including me.
Nintendo made a huge splash at E3 by announcing 9 returning characters (who were hardly a surprise) and three characters new to the series: Villager (from Animal Crossing), Wii Fit Trainer (it doesn't need to be said which game she's from), and Mega Man. All three of these characters were shocking in their own way. An Animal Crossing stage already appeared in Brawl without going along with a playable character, so many thought this meant Animal Crossing would never have a playable character. The developer of the series, Masahiro Sakurai, also once stated that Animal Crossing was a very peaceful game and its characters weren't suited to fighting. The inclusion of Wii Fit Trainer was absolutely insane (yet somehow perfect); it's fitting that her initials are an anagram of WTF. Finally, Mega Man, as with any third-party character, could hardly be expected. Brawl broke precedent by including two third-party characters (Sonic and Snake), but the standard for any non-Nintendo character getting into the series is still incredibly high. This is, after all, a Nintendo fighter. It must be said, however, that Mega Man's history with Nintendo makes him more deserving of a spot in the Smash Bros. series than any other third-party character (Sonic and Snake included).
Anyway, out of excitement waiting for the game (and some boredom on my part), I decided to make my own roster prediction. My roster contains 45 characters (not counting transformations); since Brawl had 35 (by the same standard), I think this is a reasonable number. Every character on my roster is either returning from a previous installment in the series, is already a confirmed newcomer, or else has (in my opinion) a very real shot of being playable in the upcoming game. My roster was made with part prediction, part logic, and, yes, part personal desire. Without further adieu, here it is:
(Note: The Z.S. Samus near the bottom left is supposed to represent Wii Fit Trainer; the program I used didn't have an icon for her and I was too lazy to make one.)
The red borders are supposed to represent that a character is unlockable rather than being a starting character, though that's not really the point.
I've cut 3 characters from Brawl: Toon Link, Ike, and Lucario. Toon Link, while fun, is hardly necessary, and was the easiest character to cut to make room for another (I mean come on... he's still Link). Lucario was replaced with Mewtwo, even though Lucario is actually my favorite character in Brawl. I felt that Mewtwo, together with some mechanic of transforming into Awakened Mewtwo, could satisfy those who were upset that he was cut from Melee and represent the newest generation of Pokemon at the same time. Finally, Ike was cut to make room for Chrom. Chrom is the main character of the newest (and very popular) entry in the Fire Emblem series. However, that is not to say that Chrom should be an Ike clone; in fact, I envision Shulk and his Monado taking over most of Ike's A-button moveset, while having new specials (admittedly, none of Ike's B-moves, other than maybe side-B, were very impressive anyway).
Other than the roster itself, my main desire is for Ganondorf to receive an entirely new moveset. Ganondorf has been a ripoff of Captain Falcon for way too long, and a character of his stature deserves better (not to mention that nothing in his current moveset represents anything he does in the entire Zelda series). I don't actually want him to use his sword; even though he uses it in some of his more recent appearances, I think Smash has enough sword users, and that Ganondorf is capable of a lot without a sword. He has projectiles, shockwave slams, and the ability to produce phantoms (Ocarina of Time) and ride a horse (Twilight Princess; hey, if Wario can pull a motorcycle out of nowhere, why not a horse? Though the ability to attack the horse like Wario's motorcycle may not be a good thing...). Ganondorf is the only character who I can't stand to be a semi-clone; Falco, Wolf, Luigi, etc. are understandable, though more separation wouldn't be a bad thing. Ganondorf, however, is intolerable.
What do you think of the roster? Like it? Hate it? Uncontrollably angry that I removed a few characters? Let me know in the comments!
I'll play a little bit of everything, but Nintendo is by far my favorite video game company. It seems that being a Nintendo fan has some sort of stigma attached to it in the video game community; I don't think I'll ever fully understand that. For me, Nintendo has, by far, the most iconic characters and series in all of gaming: Mario, The Legend of Zelda, Pokemon, Donkey Kong, Kirby, Star Fox, Fire Emblem, Metroid, and more.
Sure, Nintendo doesn't own every iconic series ever made; there's Metal Gear, Call of Duty, Halo, and many more series that Nintendo does not own, and some of which have never even appeared on a Nintendo console. In my opinion, however, it is the unique and colorful characters that make Nintendo what it is. Sure, Nintendo is constantly trying new things, like introducing the thumb-controlled analog stick on the Nintendo 64, the motion controls of the Wii, and more recently the Wii U GamePad tablet controller. These innovations are always interesting, sometimes brilliant, and sometimes annoying. But it is the games themselves, the legendary series, that set Nintendo apart from its competitors.
This is the reason the Super Smash Bros. series is so insanely popular. What's better than a bunch of games featuring some of the best characters in gaming? Why, throwing all of those characters into one game, of course! Nowhere else can you find out if Mario can beat Link while dodging lightning jolts from Pikachu and lasers shot by Fox McCloud. The games are just fun, pure and simple.
Recently, Nintendo has announced the fourth iteration in the Super Smash Bros. series to be released on Wii U and the Nintendo 3DS in 2014. Obviously, speculation about features of the upcoming game is running rampant across internet, from the character roster to stages to music to the physics engine. Everyone has their own opinion on which characters they want in the game, and which characters they think are likely. Everyone including me.
Nintendo made a huge splash at E3 by announcing 9 returning characters (who were hardly a surprise) and three characters new to the series: Villager (from Animal Crossing), Wii Fit Trainer (it doesn't need to be said which game she's from), and Mega Man. All three of these characters were shocking in their own way. An Animal Crossing stage already appeared in Brawl without going along with a playable character, so many thought this meant Animal Crossing would never have a playable character. The developer of the series, Masahiro Sakurai, also once stated that Animal Crossing was a very peaceful game and its characters weren't suited to fighting. The inclusion of Wii Fit Trainer was absolutely insane (yet somehow perfect); it's fitting that her initials are an anagram of WTF. Finally, Mega Man, as with any third-party character, could hardly be expected. Brawl broke precedent by including two third-party characters (Sonic and Snake), but the standard for any non-Nintendo character getting into the series is still incredibly high. This is, after all, a Nintendo fighter. It must be said, however, that Mega Man's history with Nintendo makes him more deserving of a spot in the Smash Bros. series than any other third-party character (Sonic and Snake included).
Anyway, out of excitement waiting for the game (and some boredom on my part), I decided to make my own roster prediction. My roster contains 45 characters (not counting transformations); since Brawl had 35 (by the same standard), I think this is a reasonable number. Every character on my roster is either returning from a previous installment in the series, is already a confirmed newcomer, or else has (in my opinion) a very real shot of being playable in the upcoming game. My roster was made with part prediction, part logic, and, yes, part personal desire. Without further adieu, here it is:
(Note: The Z.S. Samus near the bottom left is supposed to represent Wii Fit Trainer; the program I used didn't have an icon for her and I was too lazy to make one.)
The red borders are supposed to represent that a character is unlockable rather than being a starting character, though that's not really the point.
I've cut 3 characters from Brawl: Toon Link, Ike, and Lucario. Toon Link, while fun, is hardly necessary, and was the easiest character to cut to make room for another (I mean come on... he's still Link). Lucario was replaced with Mewtwo, even though Lucario is actually my favorite character in Brawl. I felt that Mewtwo, together with some mechanic of transforming into Awakened Mewtwo, could satisfy those who were upset that he was cut from Melee and represent the newest generation of Pokemon at the same time. Finally, Ike was cut to make room for Chrom. Chrom is the main character of the newest (and very popular) entry in the Fire Emblem series. However, that is not to say that Chrom should be an Ike clone; in fact, I envision Shulk and his Monado taking over most of Ike's A-button moveset, while having new specials (admittedly, none of Ike's B-moves, other than maybe side-B, were very impressive anyway).
Other than the roster itself, my main desire is for Ganondorf to receive an entirely new moveset. Ganondorf has been a ripoff of Captain Falcon for way too long, and a character of his stature deserves better (not to mention that nothing in his current moveset represents anything he does in the entire Zelda series). I don't actually want him to use his sword; even though he uses it in some of his more recent appearances, I think Smash has enough sword users, and that Ganondorf is capable of a lot without a sword. He has projectiles, shockwave slams, and the ability to produce phantoms (Ocarina of Time) and ride a horse (Twilight Princess; hey, if Wario can pull a motorcycle out of nowhere, why not a horse? Though the ability to attack the horse like Wario's motorcycle may not be a good thing...). Ganondorf is the only character who I can't stand to be a semi-clone; Falco, Wolf, Luigi, etc. are understandable, though more separation wouldn't be a bad thing. Ganondorf, however, is intolerable.
What do you think of the roster? Like it? Hate it? Uncontrollably angry that I removed a few characters? Let me know in the comments!
Thursday, June 13, 2013
The Red Line
Ever since this war in Syria has escalated, the right has been ridiculing President Obama for sitting back and doing nothing. They have called him weak for allowing Assad to slaughter his own people without stepping in and doing something. They said, how could the greatest nation in the world stand idly by and allow this atrocity to continue?
Obama said that the use of chemical weapons was a red line. It may have taken a while (maybe they wanted to confirm without a shadow of a doubt that it actually happened after the whole Iraq WMD debacle, maybe there were second thoughts, I don't know), but it seems that Obama is now prepared to offer some sort of support to the rebels. And what is the response to this decision?
"Biggest F'ing mistake by the Admin so far. I don't want American blood, sweat, or tears, spent on anything to do with either side in this civil war. Let the EU handle it if they must, but keep us the hell out of it."
"we need to take our own country back.
this is NOT what the American people want."
"Do they remotely care about the American people want?!! We need to stay out of this! This is a sectarian, civil war. There are atrocities on both sides. Neither side is our friend. If the Syrian people want this war to end, they simply have to stop shooting at each other. This isn't our concern!"
"The US decides to arm terrorists once again?"
"More of our boy's [sic] being sent to a place we don't belong to fight a fight that's not our own."
Obama said that the use of chemical weapons was a red line. It may have taken a while (maybe they wanted to confirm without a shadow of a doubt that it actually happened after the whole Iraq WMD debacle, maybe there were second thoughts, I don't know), but it seems that Obama is now prepared to offer some sort of support to the rebels. And what is the response to this decision?
"Biggest F'ing mistake by the Admin so far. I don't want American blood, sweat, or tears, spent on anything to do with either side in this civil war. Let the EU handle it if they must, but keep us the hell out of it."
"we need to take our own country back.
this is NOT what the American people want."
"Do they remotely care about the American people want?!! We need to stay out of this! This is a sectarian, civil war. There are atrocities on both sides. Neither side is our friend. If the Syrian people want this war to end, they simply have to stop shooting at each other. This isn't our concern!"
"The US decides to arm terrorists once again?"
"More of our boy's [sic] being sent to a place we don't belong to fight a fight that's not our own."
(Quotes taken from the comment section of this Yahoo! article.)
I'm pretty sure that these comments mostly come from the same side of the isle condemning Obama for ignoring Syria.
I understand that Obama has made mistakes, I am more than willing to admit that. No one is perfect. But how can someone possibly succeed when EVERY option is apparently wrong?
I'm pretty sure that these comments mostly come from the same side of the isle condemning Obama for ignoring Syria.
I understand that Obama has made mistakes, I am more than willing to admit that. No one is perfect. But how can someone possibly succeed when EVERY option is apparently wrong?
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
The Racial Wealth Gap Is Not A Democratic Conspiracy
This Yahoo! article about the racial wealth gap caught my attention today; well, the article and, as always on Yahoo!, the comments following it.
I'm trying to figure out why so many people take offense whenever an article like this is written.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see this article as "trying to incite race wars" or "making people hate whites". It is simply stating factual information and statistics, and explaining why those statistics are a problem.
It is an unfortunate fact that the wealth gap builds upon itself through generations. Is it possible to overcome poor roots to be successful? Of course it is. But if, on average, whites have more wealth than blacks and hispanics now, then, on average, that will continue to be true in future generations. It's simple math.
Of course there will be minorities that excel despite their background. There will be whites that struggle despite their background. There are always exceptions to the rule.
It seems that people really have a hard time understanding statistics. When someone mentions an "average", they are not saying that EVERY member of the group falls in line with that number. Averages are not conspiracies; just because someone doesn't want to hear the reality doesn't mean it isn't there. Yes, some people are content to use their background as an excuse to not work hard, not try hard. It happens, and it is not helpful to the debate. But the fact is that some people (from all races) just never get the opportunity to really succeed, and the poorer kids get fewer opportunities. This is the problem that keeps feeding itself; less money -> less opportunities -> less success -> less money.
So you see, it's just not as simple as "work hard and you can be successful as anyone". I believe that anyone has the ability to improve upon where they came from if they work hard; the thing is, sometimes the gap between starting points is so large that an improvement on an awful position is still far behind what anyone would consider truly successful.
All the people that are so quick to say things like "just save your money" or "well I know this one black guy who is rich, so this article is obviously liberal propaganda" should really step back, take a moment, and really think about this. Take off the political glasses; this isn't about Democrats and Republicans. Poverty affects everyone in the country; everyone is quick to complain about "paying taxes so the poor don't have to work", but for some reason, everyone wants to dismiss the issue as if the answer is as simple as a kid putting coins in a piggy bank. I'd like to think that, if it were really that simple, people wouldn't be poor; believe it or not, an overwhelming majority of poor people have enough dignity that they would prefer to earn their own living instead of having to rely on government support.
I'm trying to figure out why so many people take offense whenever an article like this is written.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see this article as "trying to incite race wars" or "making people hate whites". It is simply stating factual information and statistics, and explaining why those statistics are a problem.
It is an unfortunate fact that the wealth gap builds upon itself through generations. Is it possible to overcome poor roots to be successful? Of course it is. But if, on average, whites have more wealth than blacks and hispanics now, then, on average, that will continue to be true in future generations. It's simple math.
Of course there will be minorities that excel despite their background. There will be whites that struggle despite their background. There are always exceptions to the rule.
It seems that people really have a hard time understanding statistics. When someone mentions an "average", they are not saying that EVERY member of the group falls in line with that number. Averages are not conspiracies; just because someone doesn't want to hear the reality doesn't mean it isn't there. Yes, some people are content to use their background as an excuse to not work hard, not try hard. It happens, and it is not helpful to the debate. But the fact is that some people (from all races) just never get the opportunity to really succeed, and the poorer kids get fewer opportunities. This is the problem that keeps feeding itself; less money -> less opportunities -> less success -> less money.
So you see, it's just not as simple as "work hard and you can be successful as anyone". I believe that anyone has the ability to improve upon where they came from if they work hard; the thing is, sometimes the gap between starting points is so large that an improvement on an awful position is still far behind what anyone would consider truly successful.
All the people that are so quick to say things like "just save your money" or "well I know this one black guy who is rich, so this article is obviously liberal propaganda" should really step back, take a moment, and really think about this. Take off the political glasses; this isn't about Democrats and Republicans. Poverty affects everyone in the country; everyone is quick to complain about "paying taxes so the poor don't have to work", but for some reason, everyone wants to dismiss the issue as if the answer is as simple as a kid putting coins in a piggy bank. I'd like to think that, if it were really that simple, people wouldn't be poor; believe it or not, an overwhelming majority of poor people have enough dignity that they would prefer to earn their own living instead of having to rely on government support.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Taxes Are Not Evil
This is addressed to all those conservatives who seem to think taxes are evil.
I actually wonder if the people who complain about paying taxes have any clue what they're talking about. How else is the government supposed to function? Funding for roads, schools, farms, Congress, etc., has to come from somewhere.
I'm not saying that many tax dollars aren't misused. There are a LOT of places where tax dollars could be used more effectively, and we should be actively trying to make sure the dollars are used in the best way possible. But "I don't like the way that dollar was used, therefore I shouldn't pay taxes at all" is NOT a valid argument. No person is ever going to agree with everything the government does, it just isn't possible. Get over it.
I see a lot of people who get angry with the "poor people" who get upset about rich people and companies dodging taxes. I saw someone comment that we "shouldn't get mad because the rich know how to play the game". These same people ridicule the poor for getting away with not paying taxes. This doesn't make sense to me; if you applaud the rich for doing whatever they can to avoid taxes, shouldn't you also have to applaud the woman who has 9 kids just to collect the government benefits and avoid paying taxes? I don't personally agree with either situation; I'm just saying it seems a bit hypocritical to support one and not the other.
Rich people seem to have such a hatred of the social programs. Some people misuse them, and we should do all we can to identify these people; however, the majority of people are on these programs because it is legitimately needed. Do you really believe that everyone who is on government assistance is "living the good life" without having to work? Is this REALLY how you envision the life of someone who is on public assistance? If so, I encourage you to visit a family who needs this help. I encourage you to try to live on the amount of money these people have to live on. There are many HARD working people who need assistance because their full-time job doesn't give them enough money to live on.
Furthermore, many "patriots" love to complain about how countries like North Korea, Russia, Cuba, etc. let their people starve because of the way their government operates. The comments, though, would seem to prefer that we do the exact same thing with our people here in the USA. I, frankly, would not stand for it. I don't live on public assistance; at the same time, I'm a student who works very hard to get by. The fact that I am more likely to give a couple bucks to a person in need than someone who makes millions of dollars a year is very saddening to me.
I find it amusing that these are the people who claim to be bigger "patriots" than everyone else. These are the people who claim to love America the most, who say that America is the best country on the planet. These are the people who say that the liberals and the Democrats are trying to destroy America. Yet, they'll leave the country and denounce their citizenship in a snap if it means saving a few bucks? I guess what they really mean is that they love America, as long as they, and ONLY they, can benefit from it. Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable calling a country that lets its citizens and poor children starve to death the greatest country on the planet. And somehow, this is precisely what these people want. They just don't realize that if they let the poor and middle class all die off, their stream of income would stop. Whose hard work are you going to ride to the top if there isn't anyone left who needs to work for a living? Who's going to buy your products if the only people left already have everything? Who's going to be left on a "lower" level than you to give you that feeling of superiority that you so DESPERATELY need?
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Obama's Gun Proposals, and a Changing World
I've never really been a fan of the "bad guys don't follow laws, so we shouldn't make laws" point of view. The same logic could be applied to any criminal laws on the books, but of course people want to pretend that the logic magically stops where guns end. To that end, the President is unveiling some very common-sense proposals to attempt to prevent another tragedy.
The proposals seem to be focused on preventing mass shootings and violence in schools. We all agree that violence doesn't stop with these events, but does that mean we shouldn't do something about them if we can? I can't see a reason that each of these proposals doesn't make good, common sense? As the President himself said, no law will be able to prevent every shooting. But if a law has a chance to curb some of the violence without trampling people's rights, what's the problem with that?
Please, someone, explain to me how an assault weapons ban, or limiting the size of a clip to a reasonable size, is an "assault on freedom and the Second Amendment". The amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. You can sure as hell be well-armed without owning an assault weapon or a high-capacity clip. You'd have to be a moron to own 20 guns and say "gee, I'm not bearing arms". Reasonable restrictions do NOT violate the second amendment.
Furthermore, times have changed since the Constitution was drafted. Would the Second Amendment be worded in the open ended way it is if the types of powerful guns that exist today had existed then? Nobody knows, but I believe the Founding Fathers would be sick to their stomachs at the thought of military style weapons being used to mow down civilians, and especially children. The Constitution is a great document, but the Founding Fathers recognized the importance of growing as times changed; that's why they included the ability to draft new laws and amend the Constitution. Statements that applied centuries ago may not necessarily apply now. It amazes me that we have seemingly regressed in our thought to the point where we no longer understand the importance of adapting to the changing world; that we no longer understand what the Founding Fathers understood, all those years ago.
Finally, as kind of a side remark, why is it that the people so hellbent on protecting the Second Amendment seem to be so willing to trample on the First Amendment? Things like trying to deport Piers Morgan because you don't agree with what he used his First Amendment right to say flies directly in the face of the Constitution you claim to be defending.
Maybe all of these sentiments can easily be summed up in two words: grow up.
The proposals seem to be focused on preventing mass shootings and violence in schools. We all agree that violence doesn't stop with these events, but does that mean we shouldn't do something about them if we can? I can't see a reason that each of these proposals doesn't make good, common sense? As the President himself said, no law will be able to prevent every shooting. But if a law has a chance to curb some of the violence without trampling people's rights, what's the problem with that?
Please, someone, explain to me how an assault weapons ban, or limiting the size of a clip to a reasonable size, is an "assault on freedom and the Second Amendment". The amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. You can sure as hell be well-armed without owning an assault weapon or a high-capacity clip. You'd have to be a moron to own 20 guns and say "gee, I'm not bearing arms". Reasonable restrictions do NOT violate the second amendment.
Furthermore, times have changed since the Constitution was drafted. Would the Second Amendment be worded in the open ended way it is if the types of powerful guns that exist today had existed then? Nobody knows, but I believe the Founding Fathers would be sick to their stomachs at the thought of military style weapons being used to mow down civilians, and especially children. The Constitution is a great document, but the Founding Fathers recognized the importance of growing as times changed; that's why they included the ability to draft new laws and amend the Constitution. Statements that applied centuries ago may not necessarily apply now. It amazes me that we have seemingly regressed in our thought to the point where we no longer understand the importance of adapting to the changing world; that we no longer understand what the Founding Fathers understood, all those years ago.
Finally, as kind of a side remark, why is it that the people so hellbent on protecting the Second Amendment seem to be so willing to trample on the First Amendment? Things like trying to deport Piers Morgan because you don't agree with what he used his First Amendment right to say flies directly in the face of the Constitution you claim to be defending.
Maybe all of these sentiments can easily be summed up in two words: grow up.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Forward.
Election Day has come and gone. President Obama has been reelected.
In the end, the election wasn't even close in terms of the Electoral College tally. Voters in every swing state (except North Carolina, for those who consider that one) broke for the President. In an election that any GOP pundit told us was about jobs and the economy, America spoke: they decided that they just trusted President Obama more than they did Governor Romney.
It would be nice if we, as a country, could go forward from here. Obama will face no more presidential elections; there are no political points to be scored through obstructionism and attempting to make him look bad. The hope is that the two sides can come together and compromise, though it already seems that that may not be realistic.
For example, anyone may look up Donald Trump's Twitter rant (I refuse to link to such nonsense here) on election night. The same night, a Republican CNN contributor remarked that Obama should give in to 80% of the House's demands. Now, I don't think Obama should be handed the world on a silver platter, but considering that the American people did just reelect him, it seems to me that basically putting the Republicans in charge is not only unwarranted, but is ignorant of the will of the people.
Speaker Boehner of course still opposes raising taxes on those making over $250,000. Honestly, "raising taxes" doesn't seem to be the correct phrase; all indications are that the Bush tax cuts were to be temporary, considering that that's how they were written. President Bush cut taxes to an extremely low level, and when the expiration date of his legislation comes, suddenly "Democrats want to raise your taxes". Very clever indeed. The arguments for keeping the break for the wealthy are dwindling: they don't seem to need the tax cuts at this point (did they ever?), and the CBO released a report stating that a tax hike for the wealthy won't kill growth. At this point, the fight to keep the cuts for everyone seems to be more of an ideological struggle from the GOP than it is a practical point.
The fact that the GOP still refuses to come to the bargaining table over something which would seem to have minimal practical impact is disturbing. The hope was that the days of "we don't care if we don't have a valid reason, we're gonna oppose you just for the hell of it" were over with the election, but reality may be setting in. The GOP still seems unwilling to compromise, and it would be ignorant for the President to not fight for his positions, considering that he has the will of the majority of the American people behind him.
We may be in for a bumpy four years.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Superstorm Sandy
Wow.
Just..... wow.
The images coming in from the destruction caused by hurricane/superstorm/Frankenstorm/whatever Sandy are incredible. Streets of New York City underwater. Tunnels flooded. Fires destroying 80 homes in Queens. Oceanside houses wrecked.
Even as the storm passes, challenges remain. Close to 8,000,000 people without power. The mass transit system of NYC completely shut down. Water on the runways at Laguardia. Feet of snow falling in West Virginia.
My thoughts go out to those in the affected areas. It appears that the federal response has been swift, with the President declaring disaster areas, and receiving and communicating information all throughout the night. Even Governor Christie of New Jersey has praised the President's response to the disaster, which really says something. President Obama and Governor Romney have put aside the campaign for the moment to focus on the relief efforts (though, honestly, the cynic in me says that is at least partly because campaigning during these events would appear insensitive, thus losing votes). Even though it can't be a major concern at the moment, part of me does wonder what sort of an affect the storm will have a week from today, when people from all over the country will (at least try to) go to the polls. The NYSE was even brought down for two days because of this, something that hasn't happened due to weather since the 1800's. This is perhaps one of the most astounding symbols of how historic this hurricane truly has been.
For now, the focus will be surviving the storm and picking up the pieces. It remains to be seen exactly how much work that will require, and what the financial cost of this tragedy will be. It's nice to see that the country seems to be pulling together in support of the affected region, but at the same time it saddens me that it takes a historic storm of epic proportions for this to happen.
Just..... wow.
The images coming in from the destruction caused by hurricane/superstorm/Frankenstorm/whatever Sandy are incredible. Streets of New York City underwater. Tunnels flooded. Fires destroying 80 homes in Queens. Oceanside houses wrecked.
Even as the storm passes, challenges remain. Close to 8,000,000 people without power. The mass transit system of NYC completely shut down. Water on the runways at Laguardia. Feet of snow falling in West Virginia.
My thoughts go out to those in the affected areas. It appears that the federal response has been swift, with the President declaring disaster areas, and receiving and communicating information all throughout the night. Even Governor Christie of New Jersey has praised the President's response to the disaster, which really says something. President Obama and Governor Romney have put aside the campaign for the moment to focus on the relief efforts (though, honestly, the cynic in me says that is at least partly because campaigning during these events would appear insensitive, thus losing votes). Even though it can't be a major concern at the moment, part of me does wonder what sort of an affect the storm will have a week from today, when people from all over the country will (at least try to) go to the polls. The NYSE was even brought down for two days because of this, something that hasn't happened due to weather since the 1800's. This is perhaps one of the most astounding symbols of how historic this hurricane truly has been.
For now, the focus will be surviving the storm and picking up the pieces. It remains to be seen exactly how much work that will require, and what the financial cost of this tragedy will be. It's nice to see that the country seems to be pulling together in support of the affected region, but at the same time it saddens me that it takes a historic storm of epic proportions for this to happen.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
RIP George McGovern
George McGovern has died at the age of 90.
Regardless of his political positions, every person who considers themselves a patriot should respect McGovern for having the courage to stand up for his convictions. His vocal protest of the Vietnam War gave a voice to so many of the voiceless soldiers who were used as pawns by their own government without having a say in the matter. Standing up and speaking your mind, even against the government he served, was a true embrace of the ideals embedded in the founding of our country.
It sickens me to see some of the comments that people have posted about McGovern. I shall not dignify them by quoting them here; instead, I link to a Yahoo article with a comment section so you can see for yourself the vile trash that comes from the fingertips of such radicals. This sort of behavior should not be tolerated; it should be vigorously pointed out that one cannot call themselves a patriot while simultaneously speaking such things about such a great American. A true patriot agrees to disagree with others while still respecting each others' rights to their own opinion. A true patriot follows in the footsteps of our heroes and works with those he does not agree with for the betterment of our nation. A true patriot does not think of other Americans as the enemy because they do not agree with his opinion. This is the sort of thought that the founding of America was expressly supposed to stamp out, that those who created this great nation sought to escape from. Anyone espousing such views is the true traitor to the American way.
Let us on this day celebrate the life of a true patriot and pay no mind to those who would show him hatred, for they are not true Americans anyway.
RIP George Stanley McGovern,
July 19, 1922 – October 21, 2012.
Regardless of his political positions, every person who considers themselves a patriot should respect McGovern for having the courage to stand up for his convictions. His vocal protest of the Vietnam War gave a voice to so many of the voiceless soldiers who were used as pawns by their own government without having a say in the matter. Standing up and speaking your mind, even against the government he served, was a true embrace of the ideals embedded in the founding of our country.
It sickens me to see some of the comments that people have posted about McGovern. I shall not dignify them by quoting them here; instead, I link to a Yahoo article with a comment section so you can see for yourself the vile trash that comes from the fingertips of such radicals. This sort of behavior should not be tolerated; it should be vigorously pointed out that one cannot call themselves a patriot while simultaneously speaking such things about such a great American. A true patriot agrees to disagree with others while still respecting each others' rights to their own opinion. A true patriot follows in the footsteps of our heroes and works with those he does not agree with for the betterment of our nation. A true patriot does not think of other Americans as the enemy because they do not agree with his opinion. This is the sort of thought that the founding of America was expressly supposed to stamp out, that those who created this great nation sought to escape from. Anyone espousing such views is the true traitor to the American way.
Let us on this day celebrate the life of a true patriot and pay no mind to those who would show him hatred, for they are not true Americans anyway.
RIP George Stanley McGovern,
July 19, 1922 – October 21, 2012.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
It Has To Stop
Ever since the release by an American citizen of an anti-Islam film, Muslims around the world have been rioting, targeting American interests in particular. Whether the protests are because of the video or the video is just a pretext for attacks is debatable.
However, it seems that American embassies are not the only things in the cross-hairs. Today in Bangladesh, Muslim protesters burned Buddhist temples and homes after complaining that a Buddhist man had insulted Islam.
This is beginning to get ridiculous. Well, it has always been ridiculous, and I just feel like something needs to be said. The interesting thing is that Islam itself seems to be the main religion most forgiving of blasphemy. According to Leviticus 24:16 of the Christian Bible,
However, it seems that American embassies are not the only things in the cross-hairs. Today in Bangladesh, Muslim protesters burned Buddhist temples and homes after complaining that a Buddhist man had insulted Islam.
This is beginning to get ridiculous. Well, it has always been ridiculous, and I just feel like something needs to be said. The interesting thing is that Islam itself seems to be the main religion most forgiving of blasphemy. According to Leviticus 24:16 of the Christian Bible,
"And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death."The Bible clearly sets a death penalty for blasphemy; furthermore, it is discussed in multiple places throughout the Bible as being unforgivable:
Mark 3:29 - But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven.
Luke 12:10 - And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.These are just two examples. Judaism has similar teachings; for example, the Leviticus passage is part of the Torah as well. What's more, Israel has current laws punishing blasphemy:
Insult to religion
170. If a person destroys, damages or desecrates a place of worship or any object which is held sacred by a group of persons, with the intention of reviling their religion, or in the knowledge that they are liable to deem that act an insult to their religion, then the one is liable to three years imprisonment.
Injury to religious sentiment
173. If a person does any of the following, then the one is liable to one year imprisonment:
(1) One publishes a publication that is liable to crudely offend the religious faith or sentiment of others;
(2) One voices in a public place and in the hearing of another person any word or sound that is liable to crudely offend the religious faith or sentiment of others.
Maybe not as extreme as those suggested by Leviticus, but it's definitely nontrivial.
So, you must be thinking: wow, if Christianity and Judaism do that, the Quran must take it to another level. In fact, on the subject of blasphemy, the Quran says...
...wait for it...
Nothing.
That's right, the Quran, the holy book of Islam, says nothing about blasphemy. Furthermore, the hadith, the teachings attributed to the prophet Muhammad, also say nothing on the topic. How can this be? It seems that Muslim jurists created the offense of and punishment for blasphemy, and added it to the Sharia law. Punishment for blasphemy has nothing to do with Islam, and everything to do with the extremists doing everything they can to control the masses. It's easier to control everyone when they are only allowed to think one way.
Unfortunately for many common citizens in the Middle East, this is the only way of life they know. The teaching of the religion is so closely tied into the Sharia construct that it's hard to tell the difference. The radicals in charge are in complete control of the masses; because the "sin" of blasphemy is so ingrained in the everyday Muslim, all the leaders have to do is point to a target to send the masses into a riotous frenzy. The people don't know any better; not only are they used to blasphemy being handled in such a way, but it must go through their mind that if they don't react violently to an offense, will they be seen as sympathetic to it and therefore a blasphemer themselves? And so they riot, and destroy, and kill. It's a vicious cycle that doesn't seem likely to stop anytime soon.
As much as we in America would like to, we can't blame Islam. We can't blame Muslims in general. In fact, the religion of Islam itself is the one thing that can correctly be said to not be a contributing factor to this mess at all. We need to fix the situation in the Middle East, but to do that, we must first understand the situation. We cannot paint all Muslims with a broad brush. The average Muslim is no different from you or I in principle. The line of thought that "all Muslims are terrorists" or "Islam is a hateful religion" only serves to add to the chaos in the world. I write this article so that we can better understand the situation, because without knowledge, we are no better than those we rail against.
So, you must be thinking: wow, if Christianity and Judaism do that, the Quran must take it to another level. In fact, on the subject of blasphemy, the Quran says...
...wait for it...
Nothing.
That's right, the Quran, the holy book of Islam, says nothing about blasphemy. Furthermore, the hadith, the teachings attributed to the prophet Muhammad, also say nothing on the topic. How can this be? It seems that Muslim jurists created the offense of and punishment for blasphemy, and added it to the Sharia law. Punishment for blasphemy has nothing to do with Islam, and everything to do with the extremists doing everything they can to control the masses. It's easier to control everyone when they are only allowed to think one way.
Unfortunately for many common citizens in the Middle East, this is the only way of life they know. The teaching of the religion is so closely tied into the Sharia construct that it's hard to tell the difference. The radicals in charge are in complete control of the masses; because the "sin" of blasphemy is so ingrained in the everyday Muslim, all the leaders have to do is point to a target to send the masses into a riotous frenzy. The people don't know any better; not only are they used to blasphemy being handled in such a way, but it must go through their mind that if they don't react violently to an offense, will they be seen as sympathetic to it and therefore a blasphemer themselves? And so they riot, and destroy, and kill. It's a vicious cycle that doesn't seem likely to stop anytime soon.
As much as we in America would like to, we can't blame Islam. We can't blame Muslims in general. In fact, the religion of Islam itself is the one thing that can correctly be said to not be a contributing factor to this mess at all. We need to fix the situation in the Middle East, but to do that, we must first understand the situation. We cannot paint all Muslims with a broad brush. The average Muslim is no different from you or I in principle. The line of thought that "all Muslims are terrorists" or "Islam is a hateful religion" only serves to add to the chaos in the world. I write this article so that we can better understand the situation, because without knowledge, we are no better than those we rail against.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
A Not-So-Civil View On Civil Rights
civil rights (n): Personal liberties that belong to an individual, owing to his or her status as a citizen or resident of a particular country or community.
With that out of the way, I'd like to direct you to Ann Coulter's comments on who deserves civil rights.
I'll give you a moment to recover from your shock.
.......
Ready? Okay.
While there are many good choices, I think this was my favorite quote:
I don't think it possible for anyone to defend Miss Coulter's remarks. Whether or not you are pro-choice, whether or not you agree with gay marriage, no matter your beliefs on immigration, you cannot possibly believe that personal liberties and freedoms should be bargaining chips to be used as payment to bury the past. Shame on Miss Coulter for her remarks, and I believe that she should apologize: not to women, or gays, or immigrants, but to all Americans who should be offended that a woman who claims to be an American can have this sort of view on civil rights.
With that out of the way, I'd like to direct you to Ann Coulter's comments on who deserves civil rights.
I'll give you a moment to recover from your shock.
.......
Ready? Okay.
While there are many good choices, I think this was my favorite quote:
"We don't owe the homeless. We don't owe feminists. We don't owe women who are desirous of having abortions or gays who want to get married to one another. That's what civil rights has become for much of the left."So it seems that, in Ann Coulter's mind, a certain class of people deserve equal rights only if they have been enslaved in the past. I could go on a diatribe explaining why this is categorically ridiculous, but I'm not sure Miss Coulter leaves anything to be said. The fact that she thinks rights are some sort of currency to be doled out based on the degree to which a class was repressed is nonsensical. Whether or not this is more crazy than the fact that she seems to believe that immigrants, women, and homosexuals have never been repressed is debatable. Miss Coulter's ignorance of who deserves rights is surpassed only by her blatant disregard for current and historical events.
I don't think it possible for anyone to defend Miss Coulter's remarks. Whether or not you are pro-choice, whether or not you agree with gay marriage, no matter your beliefs on immigration, you cannot possibly believe that personal liberties and freedoms should be bargaining chips to be used as payment to bury the past. Shame on Miss Coulter for her remarks, and I believe that she should apologize: not to women, or gays, or immigrants, but to all Americans who should be offended that a woman who claims to be an American can have this sort of view on civil rights.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Forgetting the 47%
We've all seen the video clip by now, with Mitt Romney discussing how he feels about voters who support President Obama:
Romney has since doubled down on his comments, while allowing that they "were not elegantly stated". I suppose that's smart; he'd have a hard time trying to explain that he didn't really mean what he said. After all, the comments were made during a private fundraiser that was not supposed to be filmed, which would seem to be a perfect setting to speak candidly about what he really believes.
Most people shouldn't be surprised that Romney feels this way. By now we are all well aware of his total and utter disconnect from the issues that trouble anyone not at the very top of the income spectrum. His "lower the rates and broaden the base" statement is about the only concrete piece of policy we've heard from him in the entire campaign. Apparently, the 47% of people who owe no income tax each year are all completely dependent on entitlements, and have no desire to move up the economic ladder.
After all, we all know that the 50% of recent college graduates that can't find a job are just sitting back and loving it. The elderly who receive no income could be in the factory working their butts off, but they just think they're too good for that type of work. And soldiers? They think that just because they're on the front lines of the War that Never Ends that they should be exempt from getting a real job and actually doing something for their country? Please.
Humorously, many of the 47% that Romney has such contempt for are probably supporters of his. Seniors have tended to back the GOP for some time now. The military will always have a strong connection to the party that can't cut a penny from defense spending (even though our military spending is more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined). Many southern states that back the Republicans based on religious and social considerations (the "Bible Belt") are among the poorest states in the nation.
The former governor's comments are ridiculous in every sense of the word. He has tried some damage control, but cannot stop himself from saying stupid things. As quoted in this article, Romney believes that his comments underscore his effort to "focus on the people in middle". How are you focusing on the middle of the country if you have thrown out nearly half of it? The hits just keep coming in an interview with Fox News:
"There are a number of retirees and members of the military and so forth who aren't paying taxes and that's how it should be.
"But I do believe we should have enough jobs and take-home pay such that people have the privilege of higher incomes that allow them to be paying taxes.
"I think people would like to be paying taxes. The good news is if you're doing well enough financially that you can pay a tax. And the problem right now is you see in this country so many people have fallen into poverty that they're not paying taxes they have to rely on government and the right course to help them is not just to have government handing out but instead government helping people to get back to good jobs."
It's funny how in one breath you can stand by your comments, and in your explanation, you completely change what the comments said in the first place. The quoted remarks are clearly in direct conflict with the position that the 47% of people who do not owe income taxes are dependent on government and do not want to take responsibility.
We all knew how Mitt Romney felt. Still, there's something sickening about hearing it come so bluntly out of his own mouth. It saddens me that a man such as this can be so close to becoming the President of the United States of America.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Obama Isn't Cooking The Books
So, I was just poking around the internet and started to get interested in saying something about this. During this election cycle, we hear an earful from the GOP about how the unemployment rate is "actually much higher than the 8.2% number that the government reports". In one of Mitt Romney's latest appearances, he said that "the true number... is probably 15 percent".
Now, we can argue until the end of time about what is the best way to compute this, and other, statistics. What I have an issue with is the seeming implication of many in the GOP, leading to belief by many Americans unable to think for themselves, that President Obama is somehow manipulating the unemployment numbers to appear more favorable for himself. The fact is that Obama is using the same numbers that have been calculated for decades, and the last major change of any kind that would affect the statistic came in 1994, when the questionnaire was last significantly changed.
There are multiple measures of unemployment, which FactCheck.org has conveniently explained in this article. President Obama is doing nothing wrong or different by reporting the U-3 number; it's the same number the last President Bush reported as well. And back then, I don't recall Republican congressmen saying that it was important to change the way unemployment is calculated, as has seemingly become so important to them in this election cycle.
Even so, it is noteworthy that while the GOP touts that states with Republican governors are doing better with unemployment, they use the U-3 number to do so, which is the same number they criticize the President for reporting.
So much hypocrisy... though I'd be lying if I said I were surprised at this point.
Now, we can argue until the end of time about what is the best way to compute this, and other, statistics. What I have an issue with is the seeming implication of many in the GOP, leading to belief by many Americans unable to think for themselves, that President Obama is somehow manipulating the unemployment numbers to appear more favorable for himself. The fact is that Obama is using the same numbers that have been calculated for decades, and the last major change of any kind that would affect the statistic came in 1994, when the questionnaire was last significantly changed.
There are multiple measures of unemployment, which FactCheck.org has conveniently explained in this article. President Obama is doing nothing wrong or different by reporting the U-3 number; it's the same number the last President Bush reported as well. And back then, I don't recall Republican congressmen saying that it was important to change the way unemployment is calculated, as has seemingly become so important to them in this election cycle.
Even so, it is noteworthy that while the GOP touts that states with Republican governors are doing better with unemployment, they use the U-3 number to do so, which is the same number they criticize the President for reporting.
So much hypocrisy... though I'd be lying if I said I were surprised at this point.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
GOP Fanatics Are Only Hurting Americans
By now, I'm sure the whole country is aware that the Supreme Court of the United States has (more or less) upheld the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. This isn't stopping Republicans from fighting it; if anything, they have only been invigorated in their efforts to kill the ACA.
Many GOP leaders have redoubled their efforts to deny health care to the masses. In this article, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell said that the decision "marks a fresh start on the road to repeal". Senator Rand Paul goes as far as to question the validity of SCOTUS's decision, saying "just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so". It's interesting that when the decision goes their way, the GOP seems to believe that the Supreme Court's word is absolutely unquestionable. Clearly their opinion has changed.
Even more harmful than rhetoric, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal refuses to implement Obamacare even after the ruling by the Supreme Court. The ACA does allow until 2014 for states to set up health care exchanges, even though people desperately in need of health care obviously would like their state to move more quickly than that. Instead of going forward with this, Governor Jindal has decided to put his efforts into making sure Mitt Romney is elected to repeal the law. Clearly, this is not helpful to the citizens of Louisiana. Jindal, along with many in the GOP, has decided to completely abandon any semblance of trying to make economic progress in this country in order to launch a full scale assault on Democrats in the fall. This not only affects those in need of health insurance, but the country as a whole that needs the full attention of all its leaders at this critical economic juncture.
Certainly, this will be the GOP's excuse for not getting anything done until the election. They are "putting their efforts into a full repeal" even though it is clear that that just isn't possible at this time. This means that they will accomplish absolutely nothing, and the GOP's base will absolutely eat it up. I suppose one could view this as a genius move by the Republicans, though the only reason it can work is because it is what their base wants. To get rid of Obama and his signature piece of legislation at any cost, even it it means completely paralyzing the country until at least November.
Many GOP leaders have redoubled their efforts to deny health care to the masses. In this article, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell said that the decision "marks a fresh start on the road to repeal". Senator Rand Paul goes as far as to question the validity of SCOTUS's decision, saying "just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so". It's interesting that when the decision goes their way, the GOP seems to believe that the Supreme Court's word is absolutely unquestionable. Clearly their opinion has changed.
Even more harmful than rhetoric, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal refuses to implement Obamacare even after the ruling by the Supreme Court. The ACA does allow until 2014 for states to set up health care exchanges, even though people desperately in need of health care obviously would like their state to move more quickly than that. Instead of going forward with this, Governor Jindal has decided to put his efforts into making sure Mitt Romney is elected to repeal the law. Clearly, this is not helpful to the citizens of Louisiana. Jindal, along with many in the GOP, has decided to completely abandon any semblance of trying to make economic progress in this country in order to launch a full scale assault on Democrats in the fall. This not only affects those in need of health insurance, but the country as a whole that needs the full attention of all its leaders at this critical economic juncture.
Certainly, this will be the GOP's excuse for not getting anything done until the election. They are "putting their efforts into a full repeal" even though it is clear that that just isn't possible at this time. This means that they will accomplish absolutely nothing, and the GOP's base will absolutely eat it up. I suppose one could view this as a genius move by the Republicans, though the only reason it can work is because it is what their base wants. To get rid of Obama and his signature piece of legislation at any cost, even it it means completely paralyzing the country until at least November.
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Generosity Is Now A Crime
Now, a majority of my posts here are political; it's hard not to have it that way, considering that so many politicians do and say so many ridiculous things.
However, it's refreshing to be reminded that people outside the world of politics can be just as stupid.
Apparently, a man in Ohio was issued a $344 littering ticket after accidentally dropping money on the ground out of his car window while trying to hand it to a panhandler.
I can picture the entire scene in my head: the man tries to hand the money over and misses. The dollar slowly floats the ground. The police office behind him has his hand hovering over the controls for his lights, and flips the switch as soon as the money hits the ground. I always find it annoying when an officer seems to set his focus on a person, looking for any reason to pull that one person over. While ignoring 10 other obvious, and more dangerous, crimes that are probably going on in the immediate vicinity at the same time. I can't think of any better way to describe what seems to have happened here.
Now, it should be said that it is actually illegal (at least in Cleveland, where this happened) to solicit money or to give it on the side of the road, as was done here. So, maybe this ticket wouldn't be so ridiculous, if that was what the ticket was actually for. Instead, in the officer's single minded pursuit of this man, he went with the first offense he could think of.
In the end, the ticket was dropped, as the city "decided the cash didn't qualify as trash". My only response is... really? I hardly think Cleveland has a big problem with people throwing large amounts of cash out of their car windows. No rational person would have called this littering.
Well done, police. Way to make people even less likely to be generous with those in need. In a society with an alarming amount of real crimes with real impacts on people's lives, it's good to see that cops have their priorities in order.
However, it's refreshing to be reminded that people outside the world of politics can be just as stupid.
Apparently, a man in Ohio was issued a $344 littering ticket after accidentally dropping money on the ground out of his car window while trying to hand it to a panhandler.
I can picture the entire scene in my head: the man tries to hand the money over and misses. The dollar slowly floats the ground. The police office behind him has his hand hovering over the controls for his lights, and flips the switch as soon as the money hits the ground. I always find it annoying when an officer seems to set his focus on a person, looking for any reason to pull that one person over. While ignoring 10 other obvious, and more dangerous, crimes that are probably going on in the immediate vicinity at the same time. I can't think of any better way to describe what seems to have happened here.
Now, it should be said that it is actually illegal (at least in Cleveland, where this happened) to solicit money or to give it on the side of the road, as was done here. So, maybe this ticket wouldn't be so ridiculous, if that was what the ticket was actually for. Instead, in the officer's single minded pursuit of this man, he went with the first offense he could think of.
In the end, the ticket was dropped, as the city "decided the cash didn't qualify as trash". My only response is... really? I hardly think Cleveland has a big problem with people throwing large amounts of cash out of their car windows. No rational person would have called this littering.
Well done, police. Way to make people even less likely to be generous with those in need. In a society with an alarming amount of real crimes with real impacts on people's lives, it's good to see that cops have their priorities in order.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)