The 2016 buzz has begun and already we are seeing polling numbers and commentary on a potential run at the presidency by Hillary Clinton on the Left and Jeb Bush or other prominent conservatives on the Right. The comments underneath all of the liberal articles are teeming with posts begging for a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren ticket. This troubles me as a liberal because, although I know liberals tend to vote with a conscience, that conscience is a double edged sword that will come back to bite us like it has in the past.
Let me explain.
First, I should frame my viewpoint in terms of the analogous conservative equivalent. Hey, liberals. What do we tell Republicans about voting in hard core representatives from their conservative base? Yeah. You know what we say. Don't act like you don't. We tell them that Tea Party candidates are dangerous and not in line with main stream America. We tell them that extremist ideas are not good.
Well, isn't that the same thing Bernie Sanders ends up being? He's an extreme Lefty. He's our Ted Cruz. What chance does Ted Cruz have in a general election? What good does a Ted Cruz do for our country? Conservatives suck on his teat like no other just as liberals love a good Bernie Sanders appearance on TV, but the broader picture can't survive a Ted Cruz, so by the same token, Bernie Sanders is better left to fight our battles in Congress, not in the White House.
But your liberal conscience wants to argue with me over that just like Tea Party nuts want to argue with me over wanting Rand Paul to rise up and run. End the Fed. All that jazz. The same conservative conscience that turns its nose up at us wants a Rand Paul candidacy just like we want a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren candidacy. That's why primaries are so messy. Every candidate has to play to the base in primaries and the broader picture in the general election. Jeb Bush knows this. Hillary knows this. Sanders doesn't care. Paul doesn't care. Cruz doesn't care. Warren might care. I'm not sure.
What I do know is this. Clamoring for a Warren or Sanders ticket is primary talk, not general election talk.
But your liberal conscience can't take a Hillary for President ticket, can it? That's the next part of our conscience that screws us over. You would sooner stay home and not vote than vote for Hillary Clinton. You would rather sound all smarty smart with George Carlin quotes than use History to make the case that not voting is a bad idea. Look at the 2014 mid-terms. Look where not voting got us. Turn out always favors Republicans and the liberal conscience prevents us from gaining any ground during those elections because we have principles or something that sounds warm and fuzzy like that.
And your liberal conscience also splits the vote like with Nader and Gore. What happened there? Thanks, liberal conscience.
Listen up. We need a moderate liberal voice in the White House and a liberal conscience in the House and Senate. Why? Legislation is written in Congress. The power of the pen rides on the back of Congressional legislation. If we send Bernie and Elizabeth to Congress, they'll push bills that Hillary will sign. If we push our conscience into the presidential election, we'll get a Republican who won't go along with anything Bernie or Elizabeth sign off on.
I've seen liberal media lately talk up this idea of riling up the liberal base by standing up for liberal ideas and whatnot. That's all fine and good, but if we don't get exactly what you want, does that mean the fire has to be doused with your apathy? When you back out, you give the Republicans Congress and the White House. I don't mind Hillary. She's not a Landrieu who won't represent a liberal like me in Louisiana. Hillary is going to follow our lead if we send her the message we want in Congress. She answers to us through bills we get our representatives to push. We have seen this with Obama, haven't we? If we want something, we have to fight for it, even if the president in office isn't our ideal liberal. If we send Obama a clean liberal bill without Republican obstructionism in the way, we'll get what we want.
If you'd rather Nader us again or put us through another shellacking, go ahead and convince yourself the liberal conscience is a hard line we must toe. You're no different than a Teabagger if you believe that. The pendulum cannot afford to swing back that far Left after the troubles Obama has faced. If we didn't have such strong conservative negative advertising against us like talk of tax hikes, scary fake Socialism claims, or threats of driving up the debt, I'd say go ahead and stick to your guns. That's not the way American voters work under normal circumstances because they're dumb. Don't stay home. Don't turn your nose up. Solidarity is our ticket. The rest can be adjusted via Congress.
Showing posts with label America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label America. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Monday, December 17, 2012
Thoughts on the "threat" of tyranny
In the gun control debate, opponents of gun control often justify ownership of assault weapons in the name of self preservation in the rare chance that the government becomes tyrannical and oppressive. They believe that in order to stand up in the face of tyranny, they must have firepower strong enough to fire back against the military forces that would impose tyrannical rule. However, that hypothetical scenario has some serious flaws, flaws where the reality of the military and our government are in direct conflict with the idea of liberal tyranny.
There are two key features of this scenario which simply do not add up, but seldom will you hear anyone discuss either one because the gun control debate never has a chance to evolve beyond simple sparring. The first is that I firmly believe an American conservative government is more likely to impose tyrannical rule by force than a liberal government. The second point to make is that, should the government use its arm of the military to impose its rule, one has to remember that those who belong to the US military are often conservative.
The first point is the more important one to understand. I concede that a liberal government is equally prone to tyranny by way of legislation as a conservative government might be. In that instance, I would urge you to proceed to the second point I've made. Still, in terms of what we are faced with right now, the Republican party has been hijacked by gun-toting religious fanatics. The militaristic nature of the Republican party alone validates my claim that they are more likely to impose tyrannical rule than Democratic leaders. The funding for the military is more likely to increase under a Republican administration. If anything, a liberal administration would weaken the US military force (if you listen to any conservative talk radio pundit). As a liberal, I should be more afraid of tyranny via Republican rule than Democratic rule. Religion is a powerful player in government all around the world. From Iran to Saudi Arabia, oppressive regimes rely upon religious doctrine to control the population within their boundaries. If a religious movement comes about, it will be of the conservative ilk, not liberal.
The second point, then, is to realize the members of our military are heavily invested in conservative politics. Go to any veteran or currently enlisted member of our military. Ask them if, when ordered to fire upon their fellow American citizens, would they follow those orders or resist?
Then, as a liberal, I have to ask whether I should be more worried about a conservative member of the military shooting me or if a conservative should be more worried about a conservative member of the military firing up on them. Given the rhetoric present in our current political environment, I strongly feel that the threatening language present on the Right would motivate a conservative marine to off me without a second thought, whereas a conservative marine would be sympathetic to a fellow conservative and refuse the order to shoot. Do you see now how a conservative administration is more likely to impose tyrannical physical force upon the populace?
Almost instantly, arguments related to that last question would soon devolve into tangents about how the government has used the military and the FBI to attack certain groups at home. One such example would be the Waco siege in Waco, Texas. What that argument fails to recognize is, the group in question was led by a crazy person. If you are identified as a threat to our security, yes, you very well could face a military force at your doorstep. If you think that the military is going to attack your Constitutional right to organize, then perhaps the organizing you are planning is a tad on the crazy side. You might just be a threat to our way of life at this very moment if your level of paranoia makes that much sense to you.
But if you follow the current conversation over secession, or worse yet, revolution, you will find that rednecks will put down their uniforms and loyalties to the President of the United States and cross the battle lines to fight on behalf of their brothers.
So what I'm saying is, even if tyrannical rule were to be imposed, the safeguard is built in by your own political brethren who serve in the military. You should be more worried that your own elected officials are plotting to impose rigid tyranny. If you want to continue arguing that the Obama administration is tyrannical in its proposed legislation, again, I will refer you to point #2. Your arsenal will be of little necessity since conservatives in the military aren't going to shoot fellow conservatives. You don't need an assault rifle to defend against a military force because you hold much of the military force already.
But paranoia like yours prevents us from having a serious discussion about gun control. We have to entertain arguments like what I just described just to nudge the door of conversation open. We have to entertain ludicrous hypotheticals to simply move on to propose limitations like background checks, mental health restrictions on firearms, and access to firearms that were designed for military use, not civilian protection or recreation. No serious debate can be had until you move beyond these two paranoid delusions I have just discussed above.
There are two key features of this scenario which simply do not add up, but seldom will you hear anyone discuss either one because the gun control debate never has a chance to evolve beyond simple sparring. The first is that I firmly believe an American conservative government is more likely to impose tyrannical rule by force than a liberal government. The second point to make is that, should the government use its arm of the military to impose its rule, one has to remember that those who belong to the US military are often conservative.
The first point is the more important one to understand. I concede that a liberal government is equally prone to tyranny by way of legislation as a conservative government might be. In that instance, I would urge you to proceed to the second point I've made. Still, in terms of what we are faced with right now, the Republican party has been hijacked by gun-toting religious fanatics. The militaristic nature of the Republican party alone validates my claim that they are more likely to impose tyrannical rule than Democratic leaders. The funding for the military is more likely to increase under a Republican administration. If anything, a liberal administration would weaken the US military force (if you listen to any conservative talk radio pundit). As a liberal, I should be more afraid of tyranny via Republican rule than Democratic rule. Religion is a powerful player in government all around the world. From Iran to Saudi Arabia, oppressive regimes rely upon religious doctrine to control the population within their boundaries. If a religious movement comes about, it will be of the conservative ilk, not liberal.
The second point, then, is to realize the members of our military are heavily invested in conservative politics. Go to any veteran or currently enlisted member of our military. Ask them if, when ordered to fire upon their fellow American citizens, would they follow those orders or resist?
Then, as a liberal, I have to ask whether I should be more worried about a conservative member of the military shooting me or if a conservative should be more worried about a conservative member of the military firing up on them. Given the rhetoric present in our current political environment, I strongly feel that the threatening language present on the Right would motivate a conservative marine to off me without a second thought, whereas a conservative marine would be sympathetic to a fellow conservative and refuse the order to shoot. Do you see now how a conservative administration is more likely to impose tyrannical physical force upon the populace?
Almost instantly, arguments related to that last question would soon devolve into tangents about how the government has used the military and the FBI to attack certain groups at home. One such example would be the Waco siege in Waco, Texas. What that argument fails to recognize is, the group in question was led by a crazy person. If you are identified as a threat to our security, yes, you very well could face a military force at your doorstep. If you think that the military is going to attack your Constitutional right to organize, then perhaps the organizing you are planning is a tad on the crazy side. You might just be a threat to our way of life at this very moment if your level of paranoia makes that much sense to you.
But if you follow the current conversation over secession, or worse yet, revolution, you will find that rednecks will put down their uniforms and loyalties to the President of the United States and cross the battle lines to fight on behalf of their brothers.
So what I'm saying is, even if tyrannical rule were to be imposed, the safeguard is built in by your own political brethren who serve in the military. You should be more worried that your own elected officials are plotting to impose rigid tyranny. If you want to continue arguing that the Obama administration is tyrannical in its proposed legislation, again, I will refer you to point #2. Your arsenal will be of little necessity since conservatives in the military aren't going to shoot fellow conservatives. You don't need an assault rifle to defend against a military force because you hold much of the military force already.
But paranoia like yours prevents us from having a serious discussion about gun control. We have to entertain arguments like what I just described just to nudge the door of conversation open. We have to entertain ludicrous hypotheticals to simply move on to propose limitations like background checks, mental health restrictions on firearms, and access to firearms that were designed for military use, not civilian protection or recreation. No serious debate can be had until you move beyond these two paranoid delusions I have just discussed above.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
An Unstable Conservative Mind
While I will preface this post with an understanding that mental illness and violent rhetoric exists on both sides of the aisle, there is an overwhelming trend among the conservative ilk that continually makes liberals like me fear for our safety.
Tonight, on my local Craigslist, someone posted the following rant displayed in the screen capture below.
I reported it to Craigslist via their more advanced help system because I knew merely flagging the post as prohibited did not address the issue. Myself, nor Craigslist, should ignore violence or threatening behavior.
That said, I have a strong suspicion Craigslist will do nothing about this, so I am posting a screen shot of the deplorable post here in hopes of shedding light on the violence brewing in America, namely the South. I strongly feel that this person is a threat to the safety of those around him/her and saying nothing, in my opinion, is as unacceptable as their post. I firmly believe this person either needs to be in jail or helped by our mental health system.
The Southern Poverty Law Center might be particularly interested in this, as might the FBI.
Link to the post: http://shreveport.craigslist.org/rnr/3346039249.html
I contacted this person via email in hopes of drawing out his identity and more of his insane ramblings. To my surprise, he replied. I have his email and his name, so I know exactly who he is.
Tonight, on my local Craigslist, someone posted the following rant displayed in the screen capture below.
I reported it to Craigslist via their more advanced help system because I knew merely flagging the post as prohibited did not address the issue. Myself, nor Craigslist, should ignore violence or threatening behavior.
That said, I have a strong suspicion Craigslist will do nothing about this, so I am posting a screen shot of the deplorable post here in hopes of shedding light on the violence brewing in America, namely the South. I strongly feel that this person is a threat to the safety of those around him/her and saying nothing, in my opinion, is as unacceptable as their post. I firmly believe this person either needs to be in jail or helped by our mental health system.
The Southern Poverty Law Center might be particularly interested in this, as might the FBI.
Link to the post: http://shreveport.craigslist.org/rnr/3346039249.html
I contacted this person via email in hopes of drawing out his identity and more of his insane ramblings. To my surprise, he replied. I have his email and his name, so I know exactly who he is.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Will Ron Paul Split The Vote?
In modern politics right now, the more liberal media outlets are focusing most, if not all of their attention on the Republican primaries. The respective pundits hit all the high points, the Newt vs Mitt phenomenon, the Mitt vs Mitt phenomenon, and even the icky colorful Santorum Surge. These same media outlets have also mentioned that Ron Paul has largely been left out of the mainstream discussion, in part because he is not seen as a viable candidate. Yes, folks, MSNBC does cover Ron Paul, despite what your conservative friends have said.
But the coverage for Ron Paul has dropped off over the past few weeks because the primary results, while initially very strong for Paul, dwindled in comparison to the changes in the numbers for other candidates. Still, you know Paul has a strong backing by his supporters. You'll know them as the internet forumites who end their rants with "Ron Paul 2012." Sometimes they include an exclamation point. Sometimes, not.
So the support is there, right? He has a following. His supporters do not constitute a small group of people. In fact, they are quite large and in addition to that, they are extremely vocal, especially on the internet. Even one of my friends on Facebook supports old man Paul and scoffed at the notion of my perception of him as a crackpot. Sadly, he and I are no longer friends, but I can guarantee you this. Come election time, my former friend will most certainly still support Ron Paul.
With the primaries in full swing, it seems Paul has garnered more than a few delegates. When it comes time to pick a Republican nominee, what will Paul do with his amassed delegates? Will he run as an Independent? Will he run at all? Again, Ron Paul has been lost in terms of being on the media's mind, whether on Fox News or elsewhere. The voice of the Republican establishment knows Paul is a threat to them...but very few are actually asking the more important question. Will Ron Paul's presence in the 2012 Presidential election affect the outcome? Will he be to the eventual nominee what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore? Will he split the vote?
As I've already discussed, Paul supporters have lots of energy. Sadly, though, there is another group of Ron Paul supporters who pose a threat, but not to the Republican nominee. No. They pose a threat to Barack Obama. They are the liberals who want pot legalized. A woman I dated in Arkansas was one of these confused liberals. If any liberal actually goes through Ron Paul's voting record, they'll come to realize he is not very liberal at all and he would do away with many of the things these pothead liberals support. The thing is, they are angry about marijuana and they are also angry about the wars we have been fighting. Anger apparently leads to confusion, but the anger is strong enough for these liberal voters to cast their vote for Ron Paul. It isn't even a protest vote, a vote of no confidence in Barack Obama. It is a self-legitimized vote of support rooted in only a few issues, disregarding the rest of what Ron Paul stands for. These voters will split the Democratic vote, but by how much? I'm not sure I have the answer to that, but they could be a threat as well.
I'm not sure the numbers are there on the Left to negate the Paul supporters on the Right, refuting the notion that Paul supporters are negligible in the grand scheme of things. They will most certainly have an impact on the 2012 election, but because they are largely libertarian conservatives, Paul will eat into the support for the Republican nominee more than Barack Obama. Perhaps a vote for Ron Paul ends up being a vote for Barack Obama. I don't see Ron Paul supporters as rank and file conservatives, people who will vote for anyone with an (R) next to their name, justified in the sentiment that any Republican is better than any damn Democrat.
But the coverage for Ron Paul has dropped off over the past few weeks because the primary results, while initially very strong for Paul, dwindled in comparison to the changes in the numbers for other candidates. Still, you know Paul has a strong backing by his supporters. You'll know them as the internet forumites who end their rants with "Ron Paul 2012." Sometimes they include an exclamation point. Sometimes, not.
So the support is there, right? He has a following. His supporters do not constitute a small group of people. In fact, they are quite large and in addition to that, they are extremely vocal, especially on the internet. Even one of my friends on Facebook supports old man Paul and scoffed at the notion of my perception of him as a crackpot. Sadly, he and I are no longer friends, but I can guarantee you this. Come election time, my former friend will most certainly still support Ron Paul.
With the primaries in full swing, it seems Paul has garnered more than a few delegates. When it comes time to pick a Republican nominee, what will Paul do with his amassed delegates? Will he run as an Independent? Will he run at all? Again, Ron Paul has been lost in terms of being on the media's mind, whether on Fox News or elsewhere. The voice of the Republican establishment knows Paul is a threat to them...but very few are actually asking the more important question. Will Ron Paul's presence in the 2012 Presidential election affect the outcome? Will he be to the eventual nominee what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore? Will he split the vote?
As I've already discussed, Paul supporters have lots of energy. Sadly, though, there is another group of Ron Paul supporters who pose a threat, but not to the Republican nominee. No. They pose a threat to Barack Obama. They are the liberals who want pot legalized. A woman I dated in Arkansas was one of these confused liberals. If any liberal actually goes through Ron Paul's voting record, they'll come to realize he is not very liberal at all and he would do away with many of the things these pothead liberals support. The thing is, they are angry about marijuana and they are also angry about the wars we have been fighting. Anger apparently leads to confusion, but the anger is strong enough for these liberal voters to cast their vote for Ron Paul. It isn't even a protest vote, a vote of no confidence in Barack Obama. It is a self-legitimized vote of support rooted in only a few issues, disregarding the rest of what Ron Paul stands for. These voters will split the Democratic vote, but by how much? I'm not sure I have the answer to that, but they could be a threat as well.
I'm not sure the numbers are there on the Left to negate the Paul supporters on the Right, refuting the notion that Paul supporters are negligible in the grand scheme of things. They will most certainly have an impact on the 2012 election, but because they are largely libertarian conservatives, Paul will eat into the support for the Republican nominee more than Barack Obama. Perhaps a vote for Ron Paul ends up being a vote for Barack Obama. I don't see Ron Paul supporters as rank and file conservatives, people who will vote for anyone with an (R) next to their name, justified in the sentiment that any Republican is better than any damn Democrat.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
The Problem With Leaders: OWS
The Occupy Wall Street movement has acquired a significant amount of attention over the past few weeks, but the most common criticism, perhaps improperly applied, has been that the movement lacks a cohesiveness. There are no prominent leaders or big names which come to mind when you think of OWS. The question then, is, should OWS have a leader or leaders?
At first glance, the obvious answer would be Yes. Creating a figurehead to lead the movement would silence the critics who have demanded clarity in the OWS movement. It would be an easy fix.
Or would it?
You see, just like any other movement which originates on the Left, no amount of positioning, messaging, or symbolism will appease the critics, especially those on the Right. Asking for leaders to rise up out of OWS is simply one more straw man argument in a long line of straw men. No matter what OWS does, the media critics and the Right Wing Machine will stop at nothing to delegitimize OWS. At least those of us on the Left gave credence to the Tea Party, even if we did criticize them. We accepted their complaint that the federal government was broken. We accepted that government spending was out of control. We just didn't agree on the solutions.
OWS has not been provided the same courtesy, nor will it.
Established leaders in the OWS movement will become nothing more than lightning rods, people faced with an onslaught of insults and dismissal, the likes of which have been illustrated in Right Wing responses to Elizabeth Warren, Rachel Maddow, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and yes, Barack Obama. Mention unions to a right winger and watch how fast they choose to ramble on and on about how evil they are. OWS will evoke the same response. The lazy/welfare/hippie stigma is applied to anything on the Left as a way to invigorate the Right Wing base. It's almost as common as their idea that tax cuts will fix everything. Conservatives only know how to think in those two terms. They won't deviate from the flock. It is better to keep OWS decentralized and broad based than to put someone in charge. As long as OWS remains broad, it will be symbolic of the American people, not "liberal" as used in the derogatory sense.
After all, the Right Wing pundits have to feed their dogs frothing at the mouth somehow, right?
At first glance, the obvious answer would be Yes. Creating a figurehead to lead the movement would silence the critics who have demanded clarity in the OWS movement. It would be an easy fix.
Or would it?
You see, just like any other movement which originates on the Left, no amount of positioning, messaging, or symbolism will appease the critics, especially those on the Right. Asking for leaders to rise up out of OWS is simply one more straw man argument in a long line of straw men. No matter what OWS does, the media critics and the Right Wing Machine will stop at nothing to delegitimize OWS. At least those of us on the Left gave credence to the Tea Party, even if we did criticize them. We accepted their complaint that the federal government was broken. We accepted that government spending was out of control. We just didn't agree on the solutions.
OWS has not been provided the same courtesy, nor will it.
Established leaders in the OWS movement will become nothing more than lightning rods, people faced with an onslaught of insults and dismissal, the likes of which have been illustrated in Right Wing responses to Elizabeth Warren, Rachel Maddow, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and yes, Barack Obama. Mention unions to a right winger and watch how fast they choose to ramble on and on about how evil they are. OWS will evoke the same response. The lazy/welfare/hippie stigma is applied to anything on the Left as a way to invigorate the Right Wing base. It's almost as common as their idea that tax cuts will fix everything. Conservatives only know how to think in those two terms. They won't deviate from the flock. It is better to keep OWS decentralized and broad based than to put someone in charge. As long as OWS remains broad, it will be symbolic of the American people, not "liberal" as used in the derogatory sense.
After all, the Right Wing pundits have to feed their dogs frothing at the mouth somehow, right?
Thursday, August 18, 2011
After Labor Day
President Obama has recently been criticized for saying he has a plan to create jobs, but that he will reveal it after Labor Day. People want to hear the plan right now. People are asking why he has to wait until after Labor Day to reveal this plan.
Let me tell you why, peons.
Congress comes back from their little vacation after Labor Day. They're on break. Obama isn't. His trip is not a vacation. It's in his job description.
Judging by the words and phrases in his speech, I'd say that his plan has to do with infrastructure and construction jobs, in addition to payroll tax cuts. Anyone who has actually listened to him speak over the past few days should have that understanding, too. If you're not a listener, there's a good chance you are still asking what the plan is. If you're not paying attention, you might miss all the Republicans saying No to these proposals.
But it doesn't stop there. What is the point in announcing the plan now? Congress has to approve it. That's how our government works. If you don't understand that, go back to grade school. The House and Senate need to fine tune whatever proposal President Obama has regarding jobs. Obama doesn't make the modifications to a plan and send it out to the masses. Our government relies on Congress to do all of that. Then it goes out to the masses.
If President Obama tells you exactly what his plan is, what are the odds Congress will change it before all is said and done? I'd say, given the way the Republicans handled the HCR debate, the chances are pretty good Obama's jobs plan will not look exactly how he envisioned it. In other words, telling you the specifics now is useless. The details will change. I mean, Republicans are already saying No. Do they stand up in front of us and say they have a plan? No.
Maybe John Boehner should drop his plan in the mail. Let me know when it arrives on your doorstep, fellow citizen.
I'm just calling it like I see it, folks. That's how our government works. If you want to yell and complain, aim those screams at Congress. They're on vacation right now. If you want something done before Labor Day, Congress has to get its ass in gear. Tell President Obama you want members of Congress back on the job right now.
Let me tell you why, peons.
Congress comes back from their little vacation after Labor Day. They're on break. Obama isn't. His trip is not a vacation. It's in his job description.
Judging by the words and phrases in his speech, I'd say that his plan has to do with infrastructure and construction jobs, in addition to payroll tax cuts. Anyone who has actually listened to him speak over the past few days should have that understanding, too. If you're not a listener, there's a good chance you are still asking what the plan is. If you're not paying attention, you might miss all the Republicans saying No to these proposals.
But it doesn't stop there. What is the point in announcing the plan now? Congress has to approve it. That's how our government works. If you don't understand that, go back to grade school. The House and Senate need to fine tune whatever proposal President Obama has regarding jobs. Obama doesn't make the modifications to a plan and send it out to the masses. Our government relies on Congress to do all of that. Then it goes out to the masses.
If President Obama tells you exactly what his plan is, what are the odds Congress will change it before all is said and done? I'd say, given the way the Republicans handled the HCR debate, the chances are pretty good Obama's jobs plan will not look exactly how he envisioned it. In other words, telling you the specifics now is useless. The details will change. I mean, Republicans are already saying No. Do they stand up in front of us and say they have a plan? No.
Maybe John Boehner should drop his plan in the mail. Let me know when it arrives on your doorstep, fellow citizen.
I'm just calling it like I see it, folks. That's how our government works. If you want to yell and complain, aim those screams at Congress. They're on vacation right now. If you want something done before Labor Day, Congress has to get its ass in gear. Tell President Obama you want members of Congress back on the job right now.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Because we value entertainment more
People are now asking why it was such a disaster was allowed to happen at the Indiana State Fair this past week end. The band, Sugarland, was about to go on stage. The crowd was awaiting their performance. While all this was going on, storm clouds were on their way, Indiana officials were seeking out advice regarding the weather, and people were admittedly concerned about the looming storm.
So, why was it, then, that people didn't leave?
I'm sure there were people who decided to head out. I'm sure some people looked at the sky and said "No, I'm not hanging around for this storm." I've been in situations where storms were looming as well.
Peer pressure is a powerful thing. If some people don't start the gradual flow, nobody leaves.
People came to that concert to see a show. They stand there waiting. They expect a show. Even when a severe storm stares them in the face, they stare right back at it and hope no rain comes. They still think everything is going to be okay. They think there will still be a show.
On the 4th of July this year, in Shreveport-Bossier, a healthy storm system moved its way across East Texas and Southwest Arkansas. I was watching it on the radar, wondering if the fireworks would be cancelled or delayed. Live footage of the celebratory events were being broadcast on one local television station. From their perspective, skies were clear. The weatherman was on tv, telling us that everything looked good and he hoped things would go off without a hitch. Nothing was further from the truth. I was staring right at the radar. I wasn't going to leave the house just yet.
But as the threat of rain loomed, I decided to hop in the car and head out. As I drove into town, lightning flashed around me. Skies were dark. Rain was pouring down. Streets were soon flooded, at least in one lane, sewer drains overwhelmed by the rush of water. Word spread that people at the Boardwalk were leaving. The crowds were thinning. Rain had scared everyone off. The show had been either delayed or canceled. Nobody really knew.
After the storm passed, people were still on their way out. I was stranded in traffic, but after 30 minutes of waiting in bumper to bumper traffic, the fireworks began going off. I was able to enjoy the show, but at what cost? My legs were still damp from getting drenched by the rain. It was really a mess I should have avoided.
But people in our area have taken this one step further.
When bad storms are approaching, in the past, our local news really didn't throw up a fuss. Over the past two years, the weather teams have improved their coverage of severe weather, complete with early warnings and detailed coverage. They still don't compare to other weather teams I've had the pleasure of knowing, but it's better than nothing.
Sounds great, right?
Well, they interrupted an LSU game and all hell broke loose on the internet. People were extremely unhappy that their beloved LSU Tigers were being blotted out by severe weather coverage. They wanted to see the game. There is even a Facebook page dedicated to this complaining.
So apparently, we'd rather sacrifice our own safety in the name of entertainment. We care more about being entertained than using our better judgment. We don't have the sense to realize bad weather can kill. We'd much rather watch a football game or some fireworks.
Because we value entertainment more than our own lives, we will continue to see sad stories like the one in Indiana.
So, why was it, then, that people didn't leave?
I'm sure there were people who decided to head out. I'm sure some people looked at the sky and said "No, I'm not hanging around for this storm." I've been in situations where storms were looming as well.
Peer pressure is a powerful thing. If some people don't start the gradual flow, nobody leaves.
People came to that concert to see a show. They stand there waiting. They expect a show. Even when a severe storm stares them in the face, they stare right back at it and hope no rain comes. They still think everything is going to be okay. They think there will still be a show.
On the 4th of July this year, in Shreveport-Bossier, a healthy storm system moved its way across East Texas and Southwest Arkansas. I was watching it on the radar, wondering if the fireworks would be cancelled or delayed. Live footage of the celebratory events were being broadcast on one local television station. From their perspective, skies were clear. The weatherman was on tv, telling us that everything looked good and he hoped things would go off without a hitch. Nothing was further from the truth. I was staring right at the radar. I wasn't going to leave the house just yet.
But as the threat of rain loomed, I decided to hop in the car and head out. As I drove into town, lightning flashed around me. Skies were dark. Rain was pouring down. Streets were soon flooded, at least in one lane, sewer drains overwhelmed by the rush of water. Word spread that people at the Boardwalk were leaving. The crowds were thinning. Rain had scared everyone off. The show had been either delayed or canceled. Nobody really knew.
After the storm passed, people were still on their way out. I was stranded in traffic, but after 30 minutes of waiting in bumper to bumper traffic, the fireworks began going off. I was able to enjoy the show, but at what cost? My legs were still damp from getting drenched by the rain. It was really a mess I should have avoided.
But people in our area have taken this one step further.
When bad storms are approaching, in the past, our local news really didn't throw up a fuss. Over the past two years, the weather teams have improved their coverage of severe weather, complete with early warnings and detailed coverage. They still don't compare to other weather teams I've had the pleasure of knowing, but it's better than nothing.
Sounds great, right?
Well, they interrupted an LSU game and all hell broke loose on the internet. People were extremely unhappy that their beloved LSU Tigers were being blotted out by severe weather coverage. They wanted to see the game. There is even a Facebook page dedicated to this complaining.
So apparently, we'd rather sacrifice our own safety in the name of entertainment. We care more about being entertained than using our better judgment. We don't have the sense to realize bad weather can kill. We'd much rather watch a football game or some fireworks.
Because we value entertainment more than our own lives, we will continue to see sad stories like the one in Indiana.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
The Childish Behavior Extends Beyond Congress
One of the things that is bothering me right now about the debt ceiling debate is not that we are at an impasse at the level of the Federal Government, but that we are regularly at odds across America. Right now, every news outlet is playing up the idea that Obama and Boehner are behaving like children. They even bring in reasonably sounding Americans to chastise the bickering. At face value, it looks as though the problem is with government. Americans recognize that the rest of the world is looking at us and shaking their heads.
But that's not entirely true. Reasonable Americans are not commenting about this stuff in forums. They aren't talking about this reasonably on Facebook. They can't bring it up on Craigslist without being flagged. The ideology is a systemic problem at the voter level. As I've said before, the inability to compromise is not a symptom of government, but a result of our own inabilities to compromise. The American people are turned against each other right now.
I don't think I can name one conservative leaning person last night who didn't piss and moan about Obama blaming Bush so early in his speech. Their heads exploded all over the internet with blame that was deserved.
I don't think I saw one conservative on the internet say we should raise the debt ceiling.
I saw many throwing out the talking point that the rich pay most of the tax revenue in this country.
I mean, people...come on. You're regurgitating the same thing over and over again. The problem isn't Boehner. The problem isn't Obama.
It's us.
We cannot come together to compromise. I cannot have a conversation with a conservative anymore. It goes nowhere. It's the same argument day in and day out. It always ends in the same place. All the same things keep being said. It's almost like clockwork. We are at an impasse at the national level because we refuse to compromise at the local level.
Blame yourselves. It's our fault. We're the children. There are no more compromising conservatives anymore. That's what needs to be fixed.
But that's not entirely true. Reasonable Americans are not commenting about this stuff in forums. They aren't talking about this reasonably on Facebook. They can't bring it up on Craigslist without being flagged. The ideology is a systemic problem at the voter level. As I've said before, the inability to compromise is not a symptom of government, but a result of our own inabilities to compromise. The American people are turned against each other right now.
I don't think I can name one conservative leaning person last night who didn't piss and moan about Obama blaming Bush so early in his speech. Their heads exploded all over the internet with blame that was deserved.
I don't think I saw one conservative on the internet say we should raise the debt ceiling.
I saw many throwing out the talking point that the rich pay most of the tax revenue in this country.
I mean, people...come on. You're regurgitating the same thing over and over again. The problem isn't Boehner. The problem isn't Obama.
It's us.
We cannot come together to compromise. I cannot have a conversation with a conservative anymore. It goes nowhere. It's the same argument day in and day out. It always ends in the same place. All the same things keep being said. It's almost like clockwork. We are at an impasse at the national level because we refuse to compromise at the local level.
Blame yourselves. It's our fault. We're the children. There are no more compromising conservatives anymore. That's what needs to be fixed.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
This is why "Common Sense" cannot work
I recently saw a comment on Facebook which suggested citizens take some of the workload off of government by doing the work themselves. The logic is as follows. If you can organize some of your fellow neighbors, then, for example, any pothole that needs to be filled can be handled by the people, costing the taxpayers less because local government won't have to do the repairs. That's the kind of common sense people conjure up in their tiny little heads.
Let's look at that in the REAL WORLD.
It may not cost you less in the long run. For what you pay in taxes, the cost translated from your contribution could be less than what it might cost if you chose to do it yourself. It may be a nickel and dime kind of difference, but it could be more.
But let's set that aside, because that kind of speculation is just that, speculation. I have no idea which option would cost less.
Let's look at the real world implications of regular citizens doing road repair.
First off, not many of us have any training in repairing potholes, so the job itself will likely be done half-assed and incorrectly, resulting in frequent additional repairs, and eventually, professional help.
Secondly, in order to do road repair, you've got to know how to manage traffic. You can't do the work on a busy road without stopping or redirecting traffic. Somebody might get hurt. It's not as easy as it looks.
Thirdly, if the repair is insufficient and someone either damages their car, has a wreck, or hurts another person as a result of the faulty work, who will be liable? If private citizens started doing this kind of work, it would be a legal nightmare.
Government exists because we are either too stupid or incompetent to do it ourselves. The next time you think you've got an easy solution to a problem, try to look at it from all angles. You don't have common sense. You frankly don't have any sense at all. You just have a simpleton's mind. Anarchy would ensue if you were in charge. Local government has all of the necessary components to achieve tasks like road repair. It may not be a perfect solution, but "common sense" solutions are even less viable than something controlled and organized, despite the bureaucracy.
The same kinds of people who think this crap up are the same people who think we can pay for health care by bartering with chickens as currency.
Let's look at that in the REAL WORLD.
It may not cost you less in the long run. For what you pay in taxes, the cost translated from your contribution could be less than what it might cost if you chose to do it yourself. It may be a nickel and dime kind of difference, but it could be more.
But let's set that aside, because that kind of speculation is just that, speculation. I have no idea which option would cost less.
Let's look at the real world implications of regular citizens doing road repair.
First off, not many of us have any training in repairing potholes, so the job itself will likely be done half-assed and incorrectly, resulting in frequent additional repairs, and eventually, professional help.
Secondly, in order to do road repair, you've got to know how to manage traffic. You can't do the work on a busy road without stopping or redirecting traffic. Somebody might get hurt. It's not as easy as it looks.
Thirdly, if the repair is insufficient and someone either damages their car, has a wreck, or hurts another person as a result of the faulty work, who will be liable? If private citizens started doing this kind of work, it would be a legal nightmare.
Government exists because we are either too stupid or incompetent to do it ourselves. The next time you think you've got an easy solution to a problem, try to look at it from all angles. You don't have common sense. You frankly don't have any sense at all. You just have a simpleton's mind. Anarchy would ensue if you were in charge. Local government has all of the necessary components to achieve tasks like road repair. It may not be a perfect solution, but "common sense" solutions are even less viable than something controlled and organized, despite the bureaucracy.
The same kinds of people who think this crap up are the same people who think we can pay for health care by bartering with chickens as currency.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Stop Invoking "Common Sense"
When we face problems in the United States, we often rely on what it is we have learned over the years to combat similar problems. These lessons largely get lumped into the world of something people like to call "Common Sense." The thing is, common sense is not so common.
Let me elaborate.
As Americans, we sometimes pay the least qualified to do the most important jobs. We set up rules and regulations that make sense to us, personally, and unleash them on the general public. As Americans in 2011, we have to recognize one thing. We're stupid. We're selfish. We're whiny. We're impatient. If you cannot admit those things about Americans, then you are living under a rock.
In light of those idiosyncrasies, we have to admit that coming up with a common sense solution is like asking a dog to perform neurosurgery. It just isn't going to happen. A common sense solution is one that we all generally understand, isn't it? Obviously, this isn't the case in America anymore. Just because it makes perfect sense to you does not mean it will make sense to your neighbor. We will all disagree on the solution and because we disagree, it is not common. The commonness is simply not there. When we expect it to be, we are simply fooling ourselves.
Politicians like to fall back on the "Common Sense" buzzword in their stump speeches. We really need to stop invoking the "Common Sense" crap on that leve because it does not exist. We cannot employ that which does not exist.
In essence, what I'm saying is, we are our own worst enemy. Our nuclear waste is facing a fire risk and we are complacent about it. Our water company employees, gas company employees, cable tv employees, and electric company employees have no idea where the lines for their individual services run. On the flip side, tech support, whether online or over the phone is so robotic, useless, and utterly mundane and frustrating that those of us who need help cannot get it, but the algorithms in place are there because our fellow citizens are clueless.
We suffer at our own hand, folks. It is because we are stupid that these solutions that we find deplorable and stupid must exist. The next time you invoke "Common Sense," make sure you understand your opposition first. Then, it all might actually start to make sense. Until then, you're just one more selfish mouse in a maze after your own block of cheese, and that selfish behavior I cannot condone.
Until you know what common senes actually means, you'll just be spewing more useless information into the vacuum of space. A solution is just that, another alternative to a current problem. There is no right or wrong. There is only trial and error. Humans are prone to error, so don't expect us to be mistake-free. We cannot escape our own stupidity.
Quality craftsmanship...dead.
Pride in your work...dead.
Desire to achieve great things...dead.
Admiration for higher education...dead.
Honest employees...dead.
The customer is no longer right.
What did you expect to happen under these circumstances?
Let me elaborate.
As Americans, we sometimes pay the least qualified to do the most important jobs. We set up rules and regulations that make sense to us, personally, and unleash them on the general public. As Americans in 2011, we have to recognize one thing. We're stupid. We're selfish. We're whiny. We're impatient. If you cannot admit those things about Americans, then you are living under a rock.
In light of those idiosyncrasies, we have to admit that coming up with a common sense solution is like asking a dog to perform neurosurgery. It just isn't going to happen. A common sense solution is one that we all generally understand, isn't it? Obviously, this isn't the case in America anymore. Just because it makes perfect sense to you does not mean it will make sense to your neighbor. We will all disagree on the solution and because we disagree, it is not common. The commonness is simply not there. When we expect it to be, we are simply fooling ourselves.
Politicians like to fall back on the "Common Sense" buzzword in their stump speeches. We really need to stop invoking the "Common Sense" crap on that leve because it does not exist. We cannot employ that which does not exist.
In essence, what I'm saying is, we are our own worst enemy. Our nuclear waste is facing a fire risk and we are complacent about it. Our water company employees, gas company employees, cable tv employees, and electric company employees have no idea where the lines for their individual services run. On the flip side, tech support, whether online or over the phone is so robotic, useless, and utterly mundane and frustrating that those of us who need help cannot get it, but the algorithms in place are there because our fellow citizens are clueless.
We suffer at our own hand, folks. It is because we are stupid that these solutions that we find deplorable and stupid must exist. The next time you invoke "Common Sense," make sure you understand your opposition first. Then, it all might actually start to make sense. Until then, you're just one more selfish mouse in a maze after your own block of cheese, and that selfish behavior I cannot condone.
Until you know what common senes actually means, you'll just be spewing more useless information into the vacuum of space. A solution is just that, another alternative to a current problem. There is no right or wrong. There is only trial and error. Humans are prone to error, so don't expect us to be mistake-free. We cannot escape our own stupidity.
Quality craftsmanship...dead.
Pride in your work...dead.
Desire to achieve great things...dead.
Admiration for higher education...dead.
Honest employees...dead.
The customer is no longer right.
What did you expect to happen under these circumstances?
Monday, June 13, 2011
51 to 38 and how these polls don't matter
For those of you paying close attention to the Republican presidential candidate field, the polls regarding who will be the best possible option in 2012 might be grabbing your attention. The polls tend to imply that, although front-runners exist on the Right, when put up against President Obama, none of them have a snowball's chance in Hell. The competitive nature of these elections feeds the media monster and the ultimate goal is not to report news, but generate drama to boost ratings.
What our journalists aren't considering at this point is the Electoral College. They may be talking about individual state elections, but those are primaries and the implications regarding primaries can be derived to suit any viewpoint about the general election in 2012.
While Mitt Romney may lag behind Barack Obama in what, to me, is nothing more than the popular vote, anyone who was an Al Gore supporter knows just how meaningless the popular vote can be. What we should be talking about is how voter fraud and manipulative positioning will be an issue on a state by state basis. Individual politicized initiatives always get placed on the ballot in different states to improve voter turnout in favor of one party in particular. The popular vote doesn't tell me anything. I want to see the Electoral College map for each Republican candidate who could go up against Barack Obama. Is that too much to ask?
I know. It's early. I just feel like watching any news on the 2012 race at this point is meaningless without considering the E.C.
What our journalists aren't considering at this point is the Electoral College. They may be talking about individual state elections, but those are primaries and the implications regarding primaries can be derived to suit any viewpoint about the general election in 2012.
While Mitt Romney may lag behind Barack Obama in what, to me, is nothing more than the popular vote, anyone who was an Al Gore supporter knows just how meaningless the popular vote can be. What we should be talking about is how voter fraud and manipulative positioning will be an issue on a state by state basis. Individual politicized initiatives always get placed on the ballot in different states to improve voter turnout in favor of one party in particular. The popular vote doesn't tell me anything. I want to see the Electoral College map for each Republican candidate who could go up against Barack Obama. Is that too much to ask?
I know. It's early. I just feel like watching any news on the 2012 race at this point is meaningless without considering the E.C.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Flood/Drought solution
We have thousands of miles of pipe funneling a valuable resource into a system that feeds our hunger. These pipes don't funnel precious water. No. These pipes were designed for oil. We have similar pipes running natural gas across our cities. Why is it, then, that we cannot do the same with water?
There likely isn't any money in it. That's the reason for everything, right?
We are looking at disastrous flooding in the Midwest right now, but at the same time, Texas is facing a severe drought. Either way you cut it, entire crops are being lost. Our food supply suffers at the hand of Mother Nature.
Why can't we manipulate Mother Nature a little?
While it would involve a major undertaking across state lines, millions of dollars, and a lot of faith, ever since I've lived in the Midwest, I thought the idea that we could run pipes from that region to the South and Southwest to fill reservoirs and water crops was within our capabilities.
We have an excess of water in one part of the country and a shortage of this valuable resource in others. In the past, before many of our major cities were even in existence, we accomplished this feat using long canals. This concept is not a new one, so why we haven't implemented something on this grand of a scale baffles me. I realize there are some restrictions related to diverting water, but a state could easily allow an exception for when certain bodies of water rise above flood stage, for example. Sounds pretty simple.
The problem is money. For those who argue the government should not fund this, state or federal, I'm all for some private company installing these systems. Oil is a private venture and the same concepts can be applied. All it would take is some leadership. There is money to be made in a crop shortage, so I suspect the supply and demand system prevents us from advancing this far, but when water is admittedly becoming a valuable natural resource, there is certainly money to be made in this idea.
Do it. Try it. Help farmers. Help large cities. Help America.
There likely isn't any money in it. That's the reason for everything, right?
We are looking at disastrous flooding in the Midwest right now, but at the same time, Texas is facing a severe drought. Either way you cut it, entire crops are being lost. Our food supply suffers at the hand of Mother Nature.
Why can't we manipulate Mother Nature a little?
While it would involve a major undertaking across state lines, millions of dollars, and a lot of faith, ever since I've lived in the Midwest, I thought the idea that we could run pipes from that region to the South and Southwest to fill reservoirs and water crops was within our capabilities.
We have an excess of water in one part of the country and a shortage of this valuable resource in others. In the past, before many of our major cities were even in existence, we accomplished this feat using long canals. This concept is not a new one, so why we haven't implemented something on this grand of a scale baffles me. I realize there are some restrictions related to diverting water, but a state could easily allow an exception for when certain bodies of water rise above flood stage, for example. Sounds pretty simple.
The problem is money. For those who argue the government should not fund this, state or federal, I'm all for some private company installing these systems. Oil is a private venture and the same concepts can be applied. All it would take is some leadership. There is money to be made in a crop shortage, so I suspect the supply and demand system prevents us from advancing this far, but when water is admittedly becoming a valuable natural resource, there is certainly money to be made in this idea.
Do it. Try it. Help farmers. Help large cities. Help America.
Monday, May 2, 2011
There will be two kinds of Deathers
At a minimum, after the death of Osama bin Laden, the conspiracy theorists will come up with at least two rants that are rooted by the same mentality.
One will be fairly straightforward. They will question whether or not Osama is really dead. Look on Twitter for the hashtag, Deathers. The conspiracy has already begun.
The second batch of Deathers simply question the motive behind the killing. They will purport that President Obama, when faced with a relatively apathetic public and opinion polls which aren't the least bit flattering, politicized the event, making him more of a political opportunist than a successful leader.
Both, sadly, hinge on the idea that President Obama is not at all trustworthy. Both rely on a general distaste for Obama that resembles not that of a partisan slant, but more of a SEC football fan. Lunacy is the only name for such assertions. From here on out, it is how I view any conspiracy theorist. No lunatic has a voice on my stage unless I am poking fun at their insanity.
One will be fairly straightforward. They will question whether or not Osama is really dead. Look on Twitter for the hashtag, Deathers. The conspiracy has already begun.
The second batch of Deathers simply question the motive behind the killing. They will purport that President Obama, when faced with a relatively apathetic public and opinion polls which aren't the least bit flattering, politicized the event, making him more of a political opportunist than a successful leader.
Both, sadly, hinge on the idea that President Obama is not at all trustworthy. Both rely on a general distaste for Obama that resembles not that of a partisan slant, but more of a SEC football fan. Lunacy is the only name for such assertions. From here on out, it is how I view any conspiracy theorist. No lunatic has a voice on my stage unless I am poking fun at their insanity.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Death threats against Obama should be condemned
While I must sadly preface my remarks with condemnation of the death threats made against Wisconsin lawmakers in the wake of the union busting legislation snafoo, the fact remains that, even prior to his election, Barack Obama was a target of the hate present on the Right, hate rooted in racist ideals. The vitriol within the 2008 election campaigns fed this angst and from it, we were given this new breed of Conservative called the Birther. Beyond Birthers, white supremacist groups and your run of the mill corner drug store racists have gone unpunished. When comments regarding calling for the death of a US President are made, they should be taken seriously.
Remember when the teenager posted the "Kill Bush" thing on her Myspace profile? How much attention did that receive? It made national news!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15258484/ns/us_news-security/
So where is the coverage of threats against Obama? I haven't seen many reports aside from stuff from the Southern Poverty Law Center, but anyone who frequents any political discussion board knows just how frequent such comments can be. Go on Yahoo News and read the comments. You'll find some, at least up until moderators remove them. Go on just about any forum where Conservatives comment and you'll find these sad excuses for human beings.
I'm going to post screen shots from a thread on Topix. If you've never been on Topix, rest assured that if you need to gather evidence showing just how psychotic Right Wing zealots can be, Topix is the place. It has everything from white supremacists to religious bigotry posted on behalf of some high profile Christian extremists.
Each of the following screen shots were taken from the same thread. The thread in question was about the Birther Bill being proposed in Louisiana, something I discussed in my last post. Judging by other commenters in the thread, it seems this same person has a reputation for posting death threats. Why is this person allowed to continue? Because we aren't doing anything about death threats directed at Barack Obama.
The thread is located here. By the time you read it, perhaps moderators will have already removed the objectionable posts.
If you want to see more of the same kinds of comments made by the same user, just do a simple search.
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atopix.com+_caes
Remember when the teenager posted the "Kill Bush" thing on her Myspace profile? How much attention did that receive? It made national news!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15258484/ns/us_news-security/
So where is the coverage of threats against Obama? I haven't seen many reports aside from stuff from the Southern Poverty Law Center, but anyone who frequents any political discussion board knows just how frequent such comments can be. Go on Yahoo News and read the comments. You'll find some, at least up until moderators remove them. Go on just about any forum where Conservatives comment and you'll find these sad excuses for human beings.
I'm going to post screen shots from a thread on Topix. If you've never been on Topix, rest assured that if you need to gather evidence showing just how psychotic Right Wing zealots can be, Topix is the place. It has everything from white supremacists to religious bigotry posted on behalf of some high profile Christian extremists.
Each of the following screen shots were taken from the same thread. The thread in question was about the Birther Bill being proposed in Louisiana, something I discussed in my last post. Judging by other commenters in the thread, it seems this same person has a reputation for posting death threats. Why is this person allowed to continue? Because we aren't doing anything about death threats directed at Barack Obama.
The thread is located here. By the time you read it, perhaps moderators will have already removed the objectionable posts.
If you want to see more of the same kinds of comments made by the same user, just do a simple search.
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atopix.com+_caes
Monday, April 18, 2011
Republicans position themselves to deny me the right to vote for Barack Obama
At this very moment, two Representatives in Louisiana are proposing a bill similar to what has been passed in Arizona pertaining to birth certificates and elections. In doing this, they create a situation where, if the officials cannot accept the documentation submitted to them by President Barack Obama, there is a good chance Louisiana will not let him on the ballot....And I will be unable to vote. Barack Obama has already shown a valid birth certificate, yet the crazy people aren't at all satisfied.
This is the new America envisioned by the Conservative gestapo. Birthers have taken over the Right Wing. Their paranoid delusions stretch so far that even Governor Bobby Jindal has said he will sign this bill should it make its way through Louisiana's legislative branch. Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer vetoed the Arizona bill today. I hope Jindal realizes this will kill any national hopes he has for running for anything.
Where will this end? Who on the Conservative side will stand up to these nuts? When will Birthers lose their grip on the Republican Party?
Do we live in an era where my right to vote for the candidate I choose is denied because crazy people coerce our local elected officials?
Is this the new way to steal an election?
This is another sad day for America. Racism has reared its ugly head and none of us are doing anything about it. None of our leaders condemn it.
Louisiana residents should be ashamed. Republicans should be ashamed. Donald Trump should especially be ashamed for fanning the flame of hate.
Damn you for attempting to take away my ability to vote in the State of Louisiana. Damn you all.
This is the new America envisioned by the Conservative gestapo. Birthers have taken over the Right Wing. Their paranoid delusions stretch so far that even Governor Bobby Jindal has said he will sign this bill should it make its way through Louisiana's legislative branch. Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer vetoed the Arizona bill today. I hope Jindal realizes this will kill any national hopes he has for running for anything.
Where will this end? Who on the Conservative side will stand up to these nuts? When will Birthers lose their grip on the Republican Party?
Do we live in an era where my right to vote for the candidate I choose is denied because crazy people coerce our local elected officials?
Is this the new way to steal an election?
This is another sad day for America. Racism has reared its ugly head and none of us are doing anything about it. None of our leaders condemn it.
Louisiana residents should be ashamed. Republicans should be ashamed. Donald Trump should especially be ashamed for fanning the flame of hate.
Damn you for attempting to take away my ability to vote in the State of Louisiana. Damn you all.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Why secession no longer equates to leaving
Via a podcast download, I am currently watching Rachel Maddow from 4/12/2011. At this moment in the show, Rachel is covering secession, the Civil War, and state sovereignty. Like many liberal pundits, what Rachel fails to see is the reality behind the words being used by Conservatives. As a rational person, it makes sense to her that when Texans scream for secession, we should see it as a sign that these Texans want to leave the United States of America. What I must do in this post, however, is to introduce the idea that something else is going on that has nothing to do with the old world meaning of secession and more to do with the Confederacy which no longer resides "in the attic."
I won't delay my point until the end. Let's get right into it. When Rick Perry talks about secession, he speaks to a population of people. When Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky all propose laws which nullify anything issued by the U.S. Federal Government, they are collectively sending a message to the rest of us. This is not about leaving. This is about retaking the country. This is the South rising again. I have covered this multiple times in previous posts, but I've been ignored, predictably so, because my blog does not represent a much needed wider epiphany on the Left, and to a lesser extent, the Right.
These states are unified. They speak in one voice, not individual voices. The real irony is, they clamor for individualism, but speak as a collective group.
So while Rachel Maddow is spot on when pointing out how serious considerations regarding secession include loss of military protection, loss of Social Security, loss of financial funding from the Fed, and the risk that comes with going it alone, the reality she will not approach is this idea that collectively, these states will align themselves, essentially forming a new nation that likely resembles the old North/South paradigm, if not all out domination of the entire United States.
This is not about leaving. This is one group ready to take control of the entire country. It's the 2004 and 2008 election rhetoric come to life. There are two Americas. It's the flyover state angst. It's the middle America angst. It's the racism that is no longer under wraps.
In 2000, when George W. Bush was appointed President by the Supreme Court, that same morning, a wave of fear, apathy, and shame overwhelmed me. That morning, I predicted hard times, a situation we are currently enduring. In 2004, with his election, a new prediction was made. I said we were on the verge of a second civil war, although the term "civil war" may be inappropriate by definition. In the symbolic sense, it is fitting and serves to highlight what it is I'm afraid awaits America's immediate future.
So while my previous post has concerns over big business and the arrival of a fascist state, the alternative that I am much more afraid of is where the blood does indeed refresh a tree, but it won't be a tree of liberty. Blood could be spilled, our nation left in ruins. The reality is, this future will drive this nation into the ground and we will likely never recover from such a disaster of ideas.
I won't delay my point until the end. Let's get right into it. When Rick Perry talks about secession, he speaks to a population of people. When Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky all propose laws which nullify anything issued by the U.S. Federal Government, they are collectively sending a message to the rest of us. This is not about leaving. This is about retaking the country. This is the South rising again. I have covered this multiple times in previous posts, but I've been ignored, predictably so, because my blog does not represent a much needed wider epiphany on the Left, and to a lesser extent, the Right.
These states are unified. They speak in one voice, not individual voices. The real irony is, they clamor for individualism, but speak as a collective group.
So while Rachel Maddow is spot on when pointing out how serious considerations regarding secession include loss of military protection, loss of Social Security, loss of financial funding from the Fed, and the risk that comes with going it alone, the reality she will not approach is this idea that collectively, these states will align themselves, essentially forming a new nation that likely resembles the old North/South paradigm, if not all out domination of the entire United States.
This is not about leaving. This is one group ready to take control of the entire country. It's the 2004 and 2008 election rhetoric come to life. There are two Americas. It's the flyover state angst. It's the middle America angst. It's the racism that is no longer under wraps.
In 2000, when George W. Bush was appointed President by the Supreme Court, that same morning, a wave of fear, apathy, and shame overwhelmed me. That morning, I predicted hard times, a situation we are currently enduring. In 2004, with his election, a new prediction was made. I said we were on the verge of a second civil war, although the term "civil war" may be inappropriate by definition. In the symbolic sense, it is fitting and serves to highlight what it is I'm afraid awaits America's immediate future.
So while my previous post has concerns over big business and the arrival of a fascist state, the alternative that I am much more afraid of is where the blood does indeed refresh a tree, but it won't be a tree of liberty. Blood could be spilled, our nation left in ruins. The reality is, this future will drive this nation into the ground and we will likely never recover from such a disaster of ideas.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Have we already lost?
The recent turn of events over the last few years has shown me as a voter that corporations control not only the politicians in DC, but our politicians at the local level.
When chunks come out of an airplane in the sky...
When oil spills devastate our shores...
When food contamination poisons our loved ones...
When fast food restaurants skimp on meat and replace it with filler to save money...
We must admit our problem is not with government, but with aging infrastructure that is run by businesses who refuse to change. Regulation has had its head cut off. We don't have the teeth to bite back. Companies hang their hats on risk management. They hire people to assess cost versus benefit risks and those rare events where bad things happen get shoved to the bottom of the list as a result. They hedge their bets at the expense of us, the American citizen.
We don't really have a choice. We live at the whim of corporate budgets. The effects of our complacency are nothing short of detrimental.
I'm not asking if we've lost the 2012 election to the Republicans. I am asking if we've lost the class struggle altogether. Are we already knee deep in Fascism? Are the economic powerhouses in this country in control of everything?
Whether or not Barack Obama will be re-elected will not be determined by a "referendum" on his performance. It will be a testament to the corporate influence the major players behind the scenes have over our election process. As the 2012 campaigns begin to enter our minds in the weeks to come, the misinformation will flood in, the hate we experienced in 2008 will resurface, and we as citizens will be turned against each other. The power at the top will stand over us, look down, and laugh.
You may be disappointed in our political system. You may be disappointed with Barack Obama. What I won't do is stand here and tell you that voting for a Republican will make things any better. At the beginning of 2011, the Republicans set the stage for their 2012 campaign. They are at war with the Middle Class, from union workers to Social Security recipients to our teachers, police, and firemen. Jobs were not on their list of priorities. They chose party over country again and if you are Republican, you should be troubled by this move, not enthusiastic about it. While you may be at war with Liberals and secularism, you need to wake up and realize that you are being attacked by something else, corporate greed. The urgency with which we must launch our counter-attack has never been clearer, so while you may dislike the idea of a second term for Barack Obama, what you do not want is your current spread of Conservative candidates to take a swing at the presidency. In 2016, you can vote for either party again, but a Republican win would send a message to the corporate world that it is open season on the rest of us.
Your choice is between Barack Obama and a Republican powerhouse cramming their flavor of Big Government down our throats (the fast track to Fascism). Any Conservative who tells you they are out to shrink the size of government is lying. On social issues, they want to dictate what we do. On safety issues, they want to dictate what it is we cannot have. On income, they have no desire to help any of us get a job. The past two years have been about power. The Republican Party is now about control. There is no incentive for them to side with the people. They are in this to crush the Democratic Party into oblivion.
So if you are a Republican voter who believes in democracy and the electoral process, do you want to live in a country where you don't have any rivals? Do you really want to live where your beliefs go unopposed? Do you believe in the balance of power?
This is where I wonder if we as Liberals have already lost. Over the past few years, I have been tossing the following idea around in my brain. Is America really more conservative than liberal? Are Liberals simply outnumbered? Are we dead in the putrid water? Do we survive only at the whim of ignorance, bigoted, and the misinformed?
When you look at who is funding Republicans and Democrats in recent elections, you might get the sense that we as Liberals are almost powerless. The only groups throwing big money behind are candidates appear to be unions. The rest? The big bucks come from big companies and the most of the money goes to Republicans.
When Republicans began chipping away at unions in recent months, the message being sent is that they are not attacking unions. They are attacking the Democratic Party. After all, isn't that what a modern day Republican is? Isn't that what defines modern Conservatism? The one thing they all have in common on that side of the political fence is an overt hatred of anything Left of Center.
"Imagine a world without Liberals."
That is the current under-the-table slogan for the Republican Party.
So have we already lost? Is the America where two political parties exist simply gone? The current climate is full of voters who feel neither Democrats nor Republicans are any good. In fact, many voters feel there is no real difference at all. I urge you to look at the attacks taking place on the financial viability of Liberal politics and ask yourself if there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans through those glasses. I say there is.
A recent poll published by NBC News found that the majority of Republicans want their elected officials to stand firm at the risk of a government shut down. Democrats almost overwhelmingly when asked the same question sided with compromise. Independent voters overwhelmingly sided with compromise when asked about both Republicans and Democrats.
Who is the real threat here? Stalwarts or Hopefuls?
If you don't vote, but can...
If you won't vote, but could...
If you swing vote, and see...
Send a message in 2012 that the current incarnation of the Republican Party is not welcome in this climate. Bring us back into focus as a nation. Vote in protest against this machine, even if your politics align you to the Right, fiscally. I welcome Libertarians into my ranks, but I turn my nose at the Social Conservatives that are running us into the ground.
When, in the same NBC News poll, people were asked if this country is on the right track, most said No. Which track are they looking at? It depends on which train you're on. If you sit on the Left, you see a political system in disarray, torn apart by a Right Wing lunatic fringe. If you sit on the Right, you see Barack Obama, Democrats, and Liberalism as a plague.
When posed like that, we have all lost, and once again, I am ashamed to be an American.
When chunks come out of an airplane in the sky...
When oil spills devastate our shores...
When food contamination poisons our loved ones...
When fast food restaurants skimp on meat and replace it with filler to save money...
We must admit our problem is not with government, but with aging infrastructure that is run by businesses who refuse to change. Regulation has had its head cut off. We don't have the teeth to bite back. Companies hang their hats on risk management. They hire people to assess cost versus benefit risks and those rare events where bad things happen get shoved to the bottom of the list as a result. They hedge their bets at the expense of us, the American citizen.
We don't really have a choice. We live at the whim of corporate budgets. The effects of our complacency are nothing short of detrimental.
I'm not asking if we've lost the 2012 election to the Republicans. I am asking if we've lost the class struggle altogether. Are we already knee deep in Fascism? Are the economic powerhouses in this country in control of everything?
Whether or not Barack Obama will be re-elected will not be determined by a "referendum" on his performance. It will be a testament to the corporate influence the major players behind the scenes have over our election process. As the 2012 campaigns begin to enter our minds in the weeks to come, the misinformation will flood in, the hate we experienced in 2008 will resurface, and we as citizens will be turned against each other. The power at the top will stand over us, look down, and laugh.
You may be disappointed in our political system. You may be disappointed with Barack Obama. What I won't do is stand here and tell you that voting for a Republican will make things any better. At the beginning of 2011, the Republicans set the stage for their 2012 campaign. They are at war with the Middle Class, from union workers to Social Security recipients to our teachers, police, and firemen. Jobs were not on their list of priorities. They chose party over country again and if you are Republican, you should be troubled by this move, not enthusiastic about it. While you may be at war with Liberals and secularism, you need to wake up and realize that you are being attacked by something else, corporate greed. The urgency with which we must launch our counter-attack has never been clearer, so while you may dislike the idea of a second term for Barack Obama, what you do not want is your current spread of Conservative candidates to take a swing at the presidency. In 2016, you can vote for either party again, but a Republican win would send a message to the corporate world that it is open season on the rest of us.
Your choice is between Barack Obama and a Republican powerhouse cramming their flavor of Big Government down our throats (the fast track to Fascism). Any Conservative who tells you they are out to shrink the size of government is lying. On social issues, they want to dictate what we do. On safety issues, they want to dictate what it is we cannot have. On income, they have no desire to help any of us get a job. The past two years have been about power. The Republican Party is now about control. There is no incentive for them to side with the people. They are in this to crush the Democratic Party into oblivion.
So if you are a Republican voter who believes in democracy and the electoral process, do you want to live in a country where you don't have any rivals? Do you really want to live where your beliefs go unopposed? Do you believe in the balance of power?
This is where I wonder if we as Liberals have already lost. Over the past few years, I have been tossing the following idea around in my brain. Is America really more conservative than liberal? Are Liberals simply outnumbered? Are we dead in the putrid water? Do we survive only at the whim of ignorance, bigoted, and the misinformed?
When you look at who is funding Republicans and Democrats in recent elections, you might get the sense that we as Liberals are almost powerless. The only groups throwing big money behind are candidates appear to be unions. The rest? The big bucks come from big companies and the most of the money goes to Republicans.
When Republicans began chipping away at unions in recent months, the message being sent is that they are not attacking unions. They are attacking the Democratic Party. After all, isn't that what a modern day Republican is? Isn't that what defines modern Conservatism? The one thing they all have in common on that side of the political fence is an overt hatred of anything Left of Center.
"Imagine a world without Liberals."
That is the current under-the-table slogan for the Republican Party.
So have we already lost? Is the America where two political parties exist simply gone? The current climate is full of voters who feel neither Democrats nor Republicans are any good. In fact, many voters feel there is no real difference at all. I urge you to look at the attacks taking place on the financial viability of Liberal politics and ask yourself if there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans through those glasses. I say there is.
A recent poll published by NBC News found that the majority of Republicans want their elected officials to stand firm at the risk of a government shut down. Democrats almost overwhelmingly when asked the same question sided with compromise. Independent voters overwhelmingly sided with compromise when asked about both Republicans and Democrats.
Who is the real threat here? Stalwarts or Hopefuls?
If you don't vote, but can...
If you won't vote, but could...
If you swing vote, and see...
Send a message in 2012 that the current incarnation of the Republican Party is not welcome in this climate. Bring us back into focus as a nation. Vote in protest against this machine, even if your politics align you to the Right, fiscally. I welcome Libertarians into my ranks, but I turn my nose at the Social Conservatives that are running us into the ground.
When, in the same NBC News poll, people were asked if this country is on the right track, most said No. Which track are they looking at? It depends on which train you're on. If you sit on the Left, you see a political system in disarray, torn apart by a Right Wing lunatic fringe. If you sit on the Right, you see Barack Obama, Democrats, and Liberalism as a plague.
When posed like that, we have all lost, and once again, I am ashamed to be an American.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Double Standard: UCLA Miss Piggy
When a student at UCLA posted a racist rant towards Asians on YouTube, all hell broke loose. The video itself is arguably protected by First Amendment rights, but defenders of her "ooooohhh ching chong ling long ting tong" impression tend to be white, middle aged, loudmouths.
Let me give you all a lesson on comeuppance in the white community.
When you run your mouth, shit happens. You get your ass beat. It's Jerry Springer. It's white trash Maury. That's just how it goes.
There is a double standard being allowed to flourish underneath defending this young woman's comments.
As white people tend to put it, she bit off more than she could chew. She stepped in it. Now she's getting what she deserves.
Lesson:
Don't run your mouth. You're going to piss people off, and usually rightly so. Comeuppance is a bitch.
The Political Correctness critics are all over this one. I'll clue you. If this had been made about a white person, the reverse racism card would have been played in a heartbeat. Sometimes the people with the thinnest skins have the loudest mouths. Just remember that the next time White Honkey gets offended.
Being PC saves yourself from getting your ass handed to you for being stupid. The Golden Rule should guide you in the right direction. This poor fool wasn't thinking and she put something stupid on YouTube. Now, it'll haunt her for years.
If I were her, I'd stop studying in the library. If I were Asian, I'd target the hell out of her all the time just to make her angry. She started the fight and now she's going to have to live with the repercussions. That's how it works. She'll get a dose of just how un-PC the world can be to someone who doesn't have a filter.
She'll be forever known as White Bimbo Racist Miss Piggy.
Let me give you all a lesson on comeuppance in the white community.
When you run your mouth, shit happens. You get your ass beat. It's Jerry Springer. It's white trash Maury. That's just how it goes.
There is a double standard being allowed to flourish underneath defending this young woman's comments.
As white people tend to put it, she bit off more than she could chew. She stepped in it. Now she's getting what she deserves.
Lesson:
Don't run your mouth. You're going to piss people off, and usually rightly so. Comeuppance is a bitch.
The Political Correctness critics are all over this one. I'll clue you. If this had been made about a white person, the reverse racism card would have been played in a heartbeat. Sometimes the people with the thinnest skins have the loudest mouths. Just remember that the next time White Honkey gets offended.
Being PC saves yourself from getting your ass handed to you for being stupid. The Golden Rule should guide you in the right direction. This poor fool wasn't thinking and she put something stupid on YouTube. Now, it'll haunt her for years.
If I were her, I'd stop studying in the library. If I were Asian, I'd target the hell out of her all the time just to make her angry. She started the fight and now she's going to have to live with the repercussions. That's how it works. She'll get a dose of just how un-PC the world can be to someone who doesn't have a filter.
She'll be forever known as White Bimbo Racist Miss Piggy.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Huckabee vs Obama/Muslim Myth
For most Republicans, the Colbert Report is not on their radar. They probably lump him in with Stewart and all that is the scary Liberal media. Unfortunately, Republicans do come on the show, so it would benefit them to hear what has to be said, whether through ridicule, truth, or both.
During the interview, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee was asked about the poll that showed Republicans split on whether or not they thought Barack Obama was a Muslim. The poll from last year said that 46 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim.
To this, Huckabee had several outstanding answers.
1. "I do not believe that."
2. "I just think they have come to a conclusion that is not based on fact" in reference to that 46 percent of Republican voters.
3. "He has articulated repeatedly that he is a Christian."
4. Not only does Huckabee believe that Obama is a Christian, but the said that he also thinks it is irrelevant, even if he were Muslim.
So for all you Republicans out there who are Huckabee supporters AND believe Obama is a Muslim, you have some serious soul searching to do.
During the interview, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee was asked about the poll that showed Republicans split on whether or not they thought Barack Obama was a Muslim. The poll from last year said that 46 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim.
To this, Huckabee had several outstanding answers.
1. "I do not believe that."
2. "I just think they have come to a conclusion that is not based on fact" in reference to that 46 percent of Republican voters.
3. "He has articulated repeatedly that he is a Christian."
4. Not only does Huckabee believe that Obama is a Christian, but the said that he also thinks it is irrelevant, even if he were Muslim.
So for all you Republicans out there who are Huckabee supporters AND believe Obama is a Muslim, you have some serious soul searching to do.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Divided we stand...Wait. What?
Politics in America remains a touchy subject, but for many Americans, the word "touchy" barely even touches on the problems facing us. We are a nation divided. Our politicians are a direct reflection of our own inability to compromise with one another. One side is pitted against the other. Compromise is not a possibility anymore. One side attempts to compromise to the middle and ends up losing, while at the same time, gets framed as uncompromising and so far Left in ideology, the other side has no idea where the middle even begins or ends because they are too far Right in ideology. In the end, nothing gets done and the American people suffer for legislation that has been made ineffectual through backdoor deals and retroactive policies specifically designed to cripple such legislation. Let's face it. We are a mess.
After reading about the horrible event today in Arizona involving Representative Gabrielle Giffords, I went on to read the comments. Depending on the site you chose as your source of information, you were either greeted with comments in line with your political leaning or you were soon enveloped by a sea of vitriol, condemnation, and the rhetoric we have come to know over the past ten years. At that point, whether or not the young man who committed this atrocity was a Democrat or a Republican became moot. Let me repeat that point. This post is not about this young man. It is about our response to the events which transpired.
After reading one comment in particular, it dawned on me. We are likely doomed. We are too divided. We cannot turn back. A major confrontation is inevitable. A war is looming. The comment itself suggested we go ahead and divide our country and be done with it. Let's skip killing off thousands, if not millions of Americans and draw the necessary line. You go where you belong and I'll go where I belong. Let's skip the fighting, the collapse of our economy, and the scuffle over natural resources.
Ah, but that begs the obvious question. Where should this line be? If you follow politics, you might suggest that we go back to the old North and South we knew at the time of the Civil War. I know many Americans in the South want the map to look like that (and if you think I'm exaggerating, you need to spend more time living down here). Unfortunately, the political spectrum of our country has created more of a speckled map of the United States. Republicans and Democrats are neighbors. Individual states are represented by both Republican and Democratic districts. A line dividing us into North and South like that would not go over well. Millions would be left scrambling for their lives just as if there had been an actual war.
What if we allow individual states to actually secede? Secessionists roam the two lane roads just west of here in East Texas. I personally have no problem seeing Texas leave us. Several other states, likely the same ones who have brought cases against the Federal Government over Health Care Reform, would be on this list. Let's set aside the question of whether or not they can sustain themselves on their own. A state with sovereign rights separate from the Union will provide a place for those unhappy with the US Government to go. Let them worry about the anarchy inside their walls.
My point is, I think the only way America can remain standing is if we divide it. United, we are not. We have crossed the line. There is no turning back. You may find my post apathetic and worrisome, but it is the new reality on the horizon. I do not like it and I certainly wish we were not faced with such a scary future. I just don't see how we can recover from the division which has erupted over the course of these past ten years. The threat is very real and while we can stand here hoping it is not true, I do not think hope will carry us for much longer. We need a leader who can simmer down the rhetoric and not only speak the truth, but convince the American people he or she is actually telling the truth without the media spinning the language and feeding the wave of misinformation. Even the strongest and most honest leader I do not think is remotely capable of fighting against such a wave of ignorance and hate.
I do not want anarchy. There is a loud voice in this country which wants out. They do not see that what they are suggesting will create anarchy. Much like their perception of evolution, they believe secession and huge leaps can come overnight. To their dismay, I must be the voice of reason here and remind them that evolution took millions of years. No. Secession and division comes at a price and it will lead to a very long road of recovery.
Some of this post should be read in jest, I admit. At this point in time, I do not see any viable solutions to our problem. Congress needs to be reformed. Our system of elected government needs reform. Election campaign finance needs reform. People like me are not happy, but we are out of ideas. We are just as apathetic about our future as the day Al Gore conceded to George W. Bush. Many of us saw all of this coming. We were unable to stop them.
After reading about the horrible event today in Arizona involving Representative Gabrielle Giffords, I went on to read the comments. Depending on the site you chose as your source of information, you were either greeted with comments in line with your political leaning or you were soon enveloped by a sea of vitriol, condemnation, and the rhetoric we have come to know over the past ten years. At that point, whether or not the young man who committed this atrocity was a Democrat or a Republican became moot. Let me repeat that point. This post is not about this young man. It is about our response to the events which transpired.
After reading one comment in particular, it dawned on me. We are likely doomed. We are too divided. We cannot turn back. A major confrontation is inevitable. A war is looming. The comment itself suggested we go ahead and divide our country and be done with it. Let's skip killing off thousands, if not millions of Americans and draw the necessary line. You go where you belong and I'll go where I belong. Let's skip the fighting, the collapse of our economy, and the scuffle over natural resources.
Ah, but that begs the obvious question. Where should this line be? If you follow politics, you might suggest that we go back to the old North and South we knew at the time of the Civil War. I know many Americans in the South want the map to look like that (and if you think I'm exaggerating, you need to spend more time living down here). Unfortunately, the political spectrum of our country has created more of a speckled map of the United States. Republicans and Democrats are neighbors. Individual states are represented by both Republican and Democratic districts. A line dividing us into North and South like that would not go over well. Millions would be left scrambling for their lives just as if there had been an actual war.
What if we allow individual states to actually secede? Secessionists roam the two lane roads just west of here in East Texas. I personally have no problem seeing Texas leave us. Several other states, likely the same ones who have brought cases against the Federal Government over Health Care Reform, would be on this list. Let's set aside the question of whether or not they can sustain themselves on their own. A state with sovereign rights separate from the Union will provide a place for those unhappy with the US Government to go. Let them worry about the anarchy inside their walls.
My point is, I think the only way America can remain standing is if we divide it. United, we are not. We have crossed the line. There is no turning back. You may find my post apathetic and worrisome, but it is the new reality on the horizon. I do not like it and I certainly wish we were not faced with such a scary future. I just don't see how we can recover from the division which has erupted over the course of these past ten years. The threat is very real and while we can stand here hoping it is not true, I do not think hope will carry us for much longer. We need a leader who can simmer down the rhetoric and not only speak the truth, but convince the American people he or she is actually telling the truth without the media spinning the language and feeding the wave of misinformation. Even the strongest and most honest leader I do not think is remotely capable of fighting against such a wave of ignorance and hate.
I do not want anarchy. There is a loud voice in this country which wants out. They do not see that what they are suggesting will create anarchy. Much like their perception of evolution, they believe secession and huge leaps can come overnight. To their dismay, I must be the voice of reason here and remind them that evolution took millions of years. No. Secession and division comes at a price and it will lead to a very long road of recovery.
Some of this post should be read in jest, I admit. At this point in time, I do not see any viable solutions to our problem. Congress needs to be reformed. Our system of elected government needs reform. Election campaign finance needs reform. People like me are not happy, but we are out of ideas. We are just as apathetic about our future as the day Al Gore conceded to George W. Bush. Many of us saw all of this coming. We were unable to stop them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)