Tag Archives: Rick Santorum

The False Dichotomy Of American Politics

Earlier today, I was having a discussion with some friends and fellow actors (so, you know, Godless liberals all) about the 2012 presidential election and the potential vice presidential picks of one Mitt Romney. While we all generally agreed that Romney is trying to run further to the right now that he essentially has nailed down the nomination, but the real fun comes with his vice president. Will they go further to the right, a la last election season’s Sarah Palin, looking at a Rand Paul or an Allen West? Or will they try to stay more moderate, like with a Chris Christie?

Of course, then there was some discussion as to whether or not Christie could be considered moderate. I argued that, in comparison to many leading the GOP these days, the Michele Bachmanns and the Rick Santorums and the Rick Perrys, Christie is almost downright liberal.

And, since Olympia Snowe decided to retire, I struggle to think of any other Republicans in national politics I could point at and say, “Yes, they’re moderate.”

Speaking of moderate, remember how I mentioned Representative West as an example of right-sided politics, especially in comparison to Romney? Well, some people think he might be “too moderate.” Because he voted against spending cuts sometimes.

The false dichotomies in our political system are reaching a point of ridiculousness. What happened to the adage, “Everything in moderation”? How, then, could someone be too moderate? Moderation should be good. The extremes should be avoided. But in American politics, we’ve drawn lines.

You’re either capitalist or socialist.

You’re either liberal or conservative.

You’re either for abortion or against women’s rights.

You’re either for taxing the rich or for cutting spending.

You’re either a hard worker (rich) or you’re lazy (poor).

I will grant you that not everyone thinks in these dichotomies. But so many do. Including a frightening amount of people involved in the political system. People that believe compromise is going across the aisle and dragging people to their side of things. People that see others that disagree even slightly with what they say as villainous.

I can be for spending cuts in our Defense budget AND for taxing the rich.

I can be a moderate liberal, or socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

I can have stipulations about my support for abortion and still support it.

I can be hard working and poor.

I can agree with the need for social services from our government to supplement our capitalistic society.

I promise you, all of these things are possible. Some are perhaps more difficult or rarer than others, but they can exist. And we need to realize that, collectively. If we allow this rush to extremes to continue, we will fall apart as a nation. Nothing will ever be done because no one will ever work with anyone else in out government. All the time will be spent blaming the other party for some perceived wrong-doing, instead of taking time to work toward fixing things.

Let’s get out of this ridiculous notion and face reality: The world isn’t made of black and white. It’s filled with shades of grey.

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Can We Please Shut Up About “Dog-Gate”?

Hey. Did you know that once, when Barack Obama was quite young and living in Indonesia, he was fed dog meat as a dish?

Somehow, it took conservatives 8 years to find this passage (maybe they’re allergic to books written by liberals?), and now they’re going nuts over it, telling Obama’s dog Bo to beware.

Why are they doing this? Because, apparently, eating dog when you are young and not self-sufficient and not being raised in a culture where such things are frowned upon is the SAME thing as Mitt Romney’s dog story.

In case you’ve forgotten, Romney strapped his dog Seamus to the roof of the car when taking the family on vacation. The dog at one point got sick, Romney just hosed it down. Later, he claimed the dog liked it.

Basically, a big “Not Cool” for Romney. But, clearly, Obama once eating dog is the same, right?

Me, I like rabbits. Love them. If I could be the neighborhood’s ridiculous rabbit man, as opposed to the typical crazy cat lady, I totally would. But, as a youngster, I was once fed rabbit. So, clearly, if I ever GET a pet rabbit, I might go nuts and eat the crap out of it.

The patent ridiculousness of such a statement is so screamingly obvious that I can;t mentally comprehend the idiocy of the argument that it’s the same as treating your pet in a far less that prime manner.

And here’s the really frustrating thing about all of this: ABSOLUTELY NONE OF IT MATTERS.

Romney’s story kinda maybe shows that he treats “lessers” less than fabulously, but that WAS a dog (and I know PETA members will set fire to me for saying this), NOT a human. MAYBE Romney treats people that are in a lower stature a bit better than his dog. And Obama’s childhood diet? Means absolutely nothing, politically speaking.

This is even worse than that stupid Rick Santorum Facebook photo. At least with that photo there was a slight semblance of similarity to his stances. On the whole, a total lie, but SOME semblance.

This “Dog-Gate” crap (And seriously, what the hell is up with adding “gate” to the end of anything a politician does that someone frowns at?) has absolutely no political bearing whatsoever. Find how Romney treats people. Look at his politics and how he’s changed to support everything and nothing. If you like Romney, talk about how Obama ruined our improving economy or whatever. Point is, people need to talk the ISSUES, not gossip about non-consequential bull.

MAN. This entire situation is just mind-bogglingly idiotic.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Similar Politics Does Not Mean Constant Agreement

This week’s “Most awful scandalous thing ever said” has been a comment made by Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen. Wednesday night, she went on “Anderson Cooper 360” and said of Ann Romney, who Mitt Romney says he looks to for advice on women, that she “has never actually worked a day in her life.”

The thing Rosen was attempting to say was that Ann is just as out of touch as Mitt. She doesn’t know the struggles of the typical American woman. She’s never had to hold down a job, or two, or more. She’s never been a working mother, trying to keep her children fed. She’s never had to split time between financial support and emotional support for the family.

Of course, she didn’t quite say that all so clearly. Rosen’s gaffe caused a metric crapton of people to jump all over her case based on the fact that Ann is a mother of five children and has, of course, had to do some work. Being a mother without a job is still a struggle at times.

Which is pretty much exactly how Ann put it, saying “I know what it’s like to struggle.” And, again, since she is a mother, that is likely true. She seems to have turned out a decent group of kids, so there was likely work involved. That’s fair. Rosen should have clarified her points better.

This, of course, hasn’t stopped people from exploding with ire. Even though Rosen tried to explain her comments and has also apologized, we’ve seen this “issue” become the focus of national discourse, with comments ranging from the calm and reasoned, like “Morning Joe”‘s Mika Brzezinski saying “That was an unfortunate statement,” to the defense of Rosen, like Fox News’ Greta Van Sustern’s comments, to the perhaps somewhat harsh, like Vice President Joe Biden’s calling the statement “outrageous,” to, finally, the flat out moronically ridiculous, like Michelle Malkin’s conclusion that Rosen’s comments show a deep seated hatred by Democratic women for conservative stay-at-home mothers.

Add in one of only a few people that get more ridiculous than Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, saying that Democrats are now launching a war on motherhood, and we’ve reached the pinnacle of the absurdity this gaffe can take us.

In what’s clearly a desperate attempt to distance the discussion from the Republican party’s woes on women, some conservatives have made a desperate, absurd attempt to link Rosen’s comments to a liberal bias against mothers, particularly the stay-at-home kind. Anyone with the ability to think will know this isn’t true. But it’s that thought that brings up one facet of what I want to talk about in just a second.

See, President Barack Obama is another person who commented on the gaffe. Obama, who hasn’t always been happy with some of the punditry being tossed around all the time lately, is no less happy about this comment, saying “I don’t have a lot of patience for commentary about the spouses of political candidates.”

But Obama is the de facto leader of the Democratic party. And Rosen is a Democrat. Which leads to people like Wolf Blitzer to make observations like Rosen is being thrown under the bus. Which then leads him to ask Obama’s deputy campaign manager why they were all so quick to do such dastardly under-bus throwing.

So, it’s not just the nut job, over-reactionary conservatives that are jumping to stupid conclusions. Blitzer’s line of thought and questioning seems to suggest that, since Rosen is a Democrat, Obama, as the Democratic leader, must defend all things all Democrats say.

And that’s the annoying thing. People are confusing a personal opinion (and a misstated, ergo misunderstood, one at that) with a party line. As this column points out, that’s frankly ridiculous.

When Limbaugh said his nastiness about Sandra Fluke in a three day diatribe, some conservatives defended and agreed with him, to an extent. Further, we can point at conservative legislation being passed all over the country, like this recent one in Arizona that I’m sure to talk about later, and say, “Hey. This stuff is pretty anti-woman. What the hell?” From there, we can discern a disturbing trend amongst conservatives leaning toward taking away certain women’s rights, especially in the reproductive department.

But a simple comment made by a single Democrat is not a party line. If people treated the GOP the same way, you can bet your bottom dollar that people like Rick Santorum and Allen West would make the majority of their voting base want to ship the entire party to Antarctica. This is all ridiculous sensationalism that continues to miss the entirety of the point. The issue here was, initially, Mitt and the GOP’s possible lack of ability to empathize with female voters and their daily problems, particularly financially speaking. And that is an important issue to talk about. Because empathy and understanding are important when attempting to run a country and guide legislation. If you don’t understand who or what you’re trying to help or fix, how the heck are you going to actually do it?

So, can we please stop the sensationalist stupidity?

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Are The Mega Wealthy Really Job Creators?

There’s been no small rush of political news popping up today. The biggest item on all the news tickers, of course, is Rick Santorum dropping out of the GOP presidential candidacy race. Sure, Newt Gingrich says he’ll stay in until the convention, and no doubt Ron Paul will as well, but the likelihood of either of them getting the nomination or preventing Mitt Romney from reaching the requisite number of delegates is insanely low. Not impossible, mind, but this is pretty much guaranteed to be a race between Romney and Barack Obama now.

I had personally hoped Santorum would stick with it and hopefully snag a couple of big wins in Pennsylvania and Texas, because I wanted to see this thing become a long, dragged out fight with almost zero focus on their Democratic rival for the presidency, but it looks like Romney will have a lot of time to prepare and face off against Obama. Sure, Santorum made writing blog posts easier, but Romney’s guaranteed to say something idiotic about how rich he is again, so I guess there’s no worries there.

But speaking of Romney’s wealth, there’s been another bit of news being tossed about. This one deals with the impending Congressional vote on the proposed “Buffett Rule,” something Obama has been stumping for lately.

For those of you unaware of the “Buffett Rule,” it takes its name from Warren Buffett, who I do believe is still the wealthiest man in America. The idea behind it caught a fervor when Buffett wrote a column in The New York Times entitled “Stop Coddling the Super-Rich.” As a member of the super-rich, Buffett says that the idea that his secretary pays around 15% more in taxes than he does is ridiculous. The super-rich need not be coddled. They can afford heavier taxes. Not only can they afford it, but it’s only fair and right for them to pay more than those on lesser incomes. Those that have made money on investments, like Buffett and Romney, should not be granted so much leeway on their taxes, especially while America suffers financially, both as a whole and in the middle class.

This idea, of course, was met with severe partisan reactions. Those on the left applauded the idea, particularly as it came from someone who would be hit with the raised taxes. Those on the right… called it class warfare. …something that makes no sense whatsoever.

Beyond those attempts, members of the upper 5 to 1% of the economy have tried painting themselves in different lights, like as people that aren’t actually all that rich. After all, they’re just regular Joes that spend $200,000 on food every year. For those curious, that’s $22.83 spent per person per meal for a family of six eating four meals a day.

Another, slightly less ridiculous and massively insulting way they’ve attempted to repaint their image is by claiming to be job creators. After all, if you heavily tax job creators, you’d hinder their abilities to make jobs for people, and America and the economy desperately need more jobs to be made!

This argument is generally the one they’ve tried to stick with (though Ann Romney did recently make the unfortunate claim that she doesn’t “consider herself to be wealthy” by trying to hide the definition of wealth behind a bunch of flowery sentimental junk while her husband gets elevators for his cars). Recently, it’s been brought back in full force, as seen when former President George W. Bush made a speech against raising taxes on the “so-called rich.”

According to Bush, “If you raise taxes on the so-called rich, you’re really raising taxes on the job creators. If the goal is private sector growth, you’ve got to recognize that the best way to achieve that growth is to leave capital in the treasuries of the job creators.”

Ignoring the fact that Bush was president during the economic crisis and a large amount of the blame could be laid at his economic policies’ feet, and ignoring the idea that the best economic policy is to let capital be hoarded, I have to ask: Are the super-rich really job creators?

I’ve met several job creators. Small business owners and the like. I guarantee you, they aren’t super rich. And I’m willing to bet that a large majority of huge companies, like Wal-Mart and McDonalds and the like, weren’t created by the super wealthy. Likely, they were created by people that worked, that had an idea, gathered capital and managed to start a successful business. It likely took years and years, and had its successes and pitfalls.

The middle class are job creators. I’ve seen it happen. Now, I’m sure there are many in the upper, wealthier class that are also job creators.

But how many, really? How many of the super wealthy make jobs with their wealth? How many are constantly creating jobs with their own personal gains?

Look to the actors and athletes who earn millions of dollars. Are they actively creating jobs? Or is it through the support of the middle class giving money to them that any jobs that happen to be created because of what they do actually occur?

How many of the super-rich became that way through inheritence? Or through simple good investments? How many of them sit on their wealth, or send it to the Cayman Islands?

And exactly how would job creation be hindered by them paying more money in taxes? The people, the businesses… they earn millions, billions of dollars. To create a job only takes thousands. If they can tell me exactly how many jobs they are making every month with the profits they have right now, and if they can show me exactly how paying a few extra thousand dollars every year will prevent them from being able to continue making those jobs, maybe I’ll believe them.

But right now? It’s a load of bollocks. It’s all hot air and meaningless words. The only jobs most of them create are jobs for their accountant.

Oh, and to throw in a little Biblical verse, since the right like to claim Christian morality is on their side…

“But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” – Luke 12:48, NIV

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Politicians: Stop Spreading Ignorance

Not so long ago, I wrote a post begging people to do research before they spread falsehoods, particularly about political candidates they disagree with. Specifically, this post dealt with a picture involving Rick Santorum supposedly saying something about agreeing with the Taliban about gay pornography.

It quickly became the most read post in the short history of this blog, and it hopefully stemmed the tide of ignorance flowing amongst the common people.

Of course, then Santorum had to go and pull the same sort of stunt by erroneously stating that seven or eight of the colleges in the University of California system don’t teach American history. In actuality, out of the 10 colleges in the system, only one doesn’t teach American history. Because it’s a medical school.

I just don’t get it. Sure, Santorum’s starting to fade into the background again, with his only hopes being big wins in Pennsylvania and Texas, but that doesn’t mean you should spout off speeches that are wrong about stuff.

What’s worse, people listen to these candidates and believe what they say if it’s somewhat inline with their already existing political beliefs. Anyone that thinks California is a liberal cesspool and that college is nothing but liberal indoctrination is going to hear Santorum say that and nod their head in agreement.

Again, I point out the dire need for people to actually try to learn things on their own accord, to research the facts instead of eat from the spoon handed to them, but the opposite is also needed. Politicians need to figure out how to stop being misinformed.

Seriously, it’s ridiculous. There are so many politicians that have, simply put, been totally wrong about basic facts a quick Google search would correct you on. I’m no politician, and don’t really think I ever will be one (though it isn’t outside the realm of possibility), but don’t they tend to have teams of people working for them? Aren’t there speech writers and researchers that are supposed to help prevent these sorts of falsehoods from slipping through?

The cynic in me wonders if the politicians are then being intentionally ignorant in order to first get attention and second proliferate ignorance. Because an ignorant group of people is a group of people more likely to vote for you, if they’re ignorant about the right things.

But there is no “right thing” to be ignorant about. Facts should be kept in the open as facts. There should be no obfuscation for personal gain. Such tactics are what ruin this country.

But who am I kidding? These people want their own glory, and the country can suffer in turmoil for all they care. I could never be a politician because me and my far-too-honest-about-what-I-think big mouth would never make it past people willing to lie and hide the truth just for a few votes.

Tagged , , , , ,

Do You Really Want Us To Look At The Things You’ve Said, Mitt?

As the GOP presidential race seems to be winding down, with most of the upper crust flocking behind Mitt Romney and the voters seeming to abandon Rick Santorum in light of the fact that Romney hasn’t said enough stupid, vote-losing stuff lately (or, at least, nothing we having come to simply expect Romney to be an idiot about). As such, Romney is once again bringing his focus around toward Barack Obama and making his campaign a more nationally focused one.

And, as such, he’s trying to get people focused on the things he says, as opposed to the brand of his jeans. In fact, he’s decided not only that people need to focus on the content of what he says, but he’s prepared to back up everything he believes in. From that article: “Unlike President Obama, you don’t need to wait until after the election to find out what I believe or what my plans are,” Romney said. “Unlike President Obama, I have the courage to stand behind my plan and the leadership experience to enact it.”

…so, um, what is Romney’s plan?

Seriously, can anyone tell me?

There has been exactly one thing Romney has said that I can say he probably believes in: “Corporations are people.”

He’s clearly against the things Obama stands for, like Obamacare, except for when he’s not, like when he was governor of Massachusetts.

That’s the most easily referenced example, of course. But, seriously, since the time he’s started in politics, his policies have changed and shifted so much, it’s pretty much impossible to nail down what he believes except that he wants to be president. And balance the budget. He never says how, but he’ll balance it. Probably using his magical businessman abilities.

I mean, maybe he’ll be able to actually say some things of substance if/when he becomes the GOP nominee… but right now, he’s pretty much the only candidate that I can’t say, “Oh, he believes in X.” Rick Santorum’s social views are well documented. Everyone knows about Newt Gingrich’s moon base. Ron Paul hasn’t changed his views, really, since his first election in 1832. Obama’s been president, so he’s mostly shown off many of his views…

And Romney’s just that rich guy that wants to be president.

So, Romney, you start saying something of substance, and maybe the media will start talking about it.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Please Stop The Political Deceit

So, despite all the other discussions that have fairly important subtext the majority of people seem to be ignoring, there is still a GOP primary race going on. And boy, is it a party burner.

With Newt Gingrich finally admitting he can’t win before the delegation, deciding to scale back his campaign in hopes of ruining Mitt Romney’s chances of being the delegate, and Romney being wholly and completely unable to stop being an idiot about how rich he is (which makes me wonder if he could ever, y’know, do anything to help his constituency with his complete inability to learn from mistakes), things have been rather ridiculous for the GOP candidates.

But, for some reason, as people are oft wont to do, it’s never enough to hit the people of opposing ideologies where it hurts, as in the things they actually say that are ridiculous and awful, or even hit them with a simple “I disagree” when they say nothing awful. Instead, we have to make stuff up.

No, I’m not talking about the recent, ridiculously moronic wrath taken against President Barack Obama’s statement of solidarity and empathy toward the family of the deceased Trayvon Martin. Not this time, at least.

Instead, I’m talking about a certain photo that has been making the rounds on Facebook. In the last one I talked about, some college kid erroneously attributed himself as not being a member of the lower 99% of the economy simply because he’s lucky enough to soon be debt free. In this one, the target is a specific candidate, Rick Santorum.

Here’s what the photo quotes him as saying:

“While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration. I will ban all pornography. Especially gay pornography. Gay pornography is the reason people choose the gay lifestyle or what I call the deathstyle. If we got rid of that, homosexuality would be gone within a matter of months. This is one of only a few things I see eye to eye on with the Taliban.”

Now, it certainly sounds almost like something Santorum would say. He did say something along the lines of Obama seeming to favor pornographers over families. And it sounds like something he’d think. He’s quite well known for his anti-homosexuality stances. But it all kind of falls apart when you read that last line. Y’know, the one where he says he agrees with the Taliban.

Santorum would never ever say anything like that. Even if he did, you can bet that his political opponents would jump on that like a dog jumps on the only piece of meat he’s seen in weeks. Santorum would be painted as someone who agrees with terrorists and hates Americans, a radical extremist wrong for this country. You can check out Snopes and see what they say on the issue.

Look. Santorum is not a good candidate for America. He is extremist on every single social issue. I have talked about him over and over and again. His politics are terrible. He has said stupid things, made moronic stances, insulted the majority of Americans at one point or another.

Does anyone else remember Santorum and Michele Bachmann signing that “Marriage Vow” that stated enslaved black families lived better lives than black families living under the Obama administration?

THAT is a horrendous thing to do. An awful thing to sign, and by doing so, agree with. It was awful. And that’s not even in the five links I just posted earlier about Santorum’s views. Heck, those five links just happen to be the five articles I’ve written that have his name in the title. I’ve written several others.

There are a billion and a half things to take offense to when it comes to Dickish Rick. It’s easy enough to get terribly boring after a while, and to start being disappointed in humanity. Particularly the American bits.

So why make things up? To what point and purpose is there? It merely weakens the faith people have in you and your position should you be found out. It makes you and your beliefs seem faulty and deceitful. Don’t lie to hurt your opponent, or to set up your own beliefs. Be honest, and let people make decisions informed by reality. Maybe something good will come of it.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rick Santorum Has His Own Jeremiah Wright

Remember how back in 2008, everyone tried to pin Barack Obama with his being a member of the somewhat rather radical/often saying stupid things Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s congregation? And how, by his long association with such a man, Obama clearly had some of the same views?

Ignoring the fact that your pastor and you can fundamentally disagree on any number of issues (Lord knows all my pastors and I have), our good friend Rick Santorum has his own version of Rev. Wright.

Santorum, being Catholic, has not been a member of this man’s congregation, but Greenwell Springs Baptist Church Pastor Dennis Terry is still the often-saying-stupid-things man to associate with Santorum and question him through.

Santorum was recently introduced by Terry at a campaign rally. Terry decided it was a good idea to go on a slight religiously aligned political rant.

The fun part is not when Terry says America was founded as a Christian nation, but rather when Terry told those that don’t believe in Jesus Christ to get out of the nation.

Add this to Santorum’s apparent physical disgust for JFK’s speech about the separation of church and state and it certainly doesn’t paint a good picture. It seems to suggest that Santorum is perfectly fine with heavily theocratic policies, something that will cause the majority of independent voters to turn tail and run straight to Obama at the polls.

Now, Santorum hasn’t said he agrees with Terry. He was simply in the crowd applauding. Possibly because it would look WAY awkward if he didn’t applaud for the guy leading him in. But there is a connection between these two now, and Santorum should be questioned about this. Granted, he will likely brush off questioning as a series of “gotcha” questions, the GOP’s favorite tactic to avoid having to give substance (only because the Mitt Romney method of stoic, stone-faced ignoring the question hasn’t caught on). Even so, the questions need to be asked.

What place do non-Christians have under your presidency? Are the majority of your positions on social issues based in Christian scripture? What would you say to voters who do not share the same beliefs as you? How do you defend your beliefs in a secular fashion, or can you? Can people of other faiths expect to have their views and beliefs respected under your presidency?

I’m sure people that get paid much more than I do can come up with better questions than that, but maybe you get my point. Santorum has had a strong, theocratic basis for many of his views, particularly on social issues. And with this extremist suggestion that all non-Christians should leave the country, Santorum’s stance on church informing state should be questioned, just as JFK’s was so long ago.

Tagged , , , , ,

We Need To Talk About Racism

When Senator John McCain gave his 2008 presidential concession speech, officially making Senator Barack Obama our first black president, some of the first responses I heard were those of my roommates, since we were all in the dorm at the time. Two of those roommates I went to high school with and we were all cool with one another. One voted for McCain, and had no real negative response, while the other voted for Obama, like myself. The third roommate was randomly put into our suite. He was from the woodsy, redneck part of New York (a.k.a. anything not New York City, apparently), and kind of resembled WWE wrestler and “The Real World” cast member Mike Mizanin.

His response was to curse and say he was going to grab his shotgun and go out in the streets to calm any uppity… well, I’m sure you can guess the word, but it’s a rather derogatory term for blacks that resembles an African country a bit too closely.

That was one of many reasons I really disliked that guy.

During President Obama’s time in office, there has been quite a bit of racism floating around the country. Some of the racism has been simply personal, like the allegations that Paula Deen and her brother behaved in racist ways at their restaurant. Other examples have been politically charged, often specifically targeting Obama, like a federal judge insinuating that Obama’s mother had multiracial and multispecies orgies, or the more recent bumper sticker that manages to be both racist and completely opposite of what it’s trying to say (to not renege would be to keep Obama as president).

But racism isn’t always about whites being racist toward blacks. There’s always whites putting down Latinos, too. Some of these cases have been mentioned before, like Arizona residents calling to whiten a school’s multi-ethnic mural and the school almost doing so, or Arizona and Alabama passing severe and quite possibly racially charged immigration laws. Of course, there’s more obvious racism, like Southern Mississippi band members shouting “Where’s your green card?” to Puerto Rican Kansas State basketball player Angel Rodriguez, and the more subtle racism, like GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum rather foolishly suggesting Puerto Rico needs to put more emphasis on English.

Heck, you could probably even rightfully make the claim of racially charged ideas behind attempts to pin Obama and former Harvard professor Derrick Bell as anti-American black radicals by lying about, misrepresenting or blowing out of proportion their stances and the things they’ve said.

And, truth be told, each of these stories has their own awful, disturbing flavor of disgust. The fact that racism is still so prevalent in America today is revolting and is something that should be confronted head on and destroyed the way a plague should be.

Which, of course, makes it all the more disturbing when blatant, violent racism that shows a gaping hole in the application of our judicial system goes almost silently by. I’m talking about the murder of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

It’s very possible you’ve not heard the story, especially if you’re white. Somehow, the story has been talked about by black media personalities en masse, but the majority of the media has decided to stay mum on the issue.

The story, for those unaware, is shocking and disturbing, more so than probably any of the other aforementioned tales, which is saying something. On February 26, Martin was visiting a relative’s house in a gated community in Sanford, Fla., outside of Orlando. George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old neighborhood watch captain, called police to say there was someone that looked “real suspicious.” The police informed Zimmerman they would be sending some people out and told him not to pursue the boy.

Zimmerman did anyway. Martin, returning from a store with a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea, was confronted by Zimmerman, who had a 9 millimeter handgun. After allegedly engaging in a physical altercation, there was shouting. Then a gun shot. When police arrived, Zimmerman was covered in blood, and Martin was on the ground with a bullet wound in his chest.

Here’s the fun part. Zimmerman, who has confessed to killing Martin, has not been charged as he claims he acted in self defense. Zimmerman’s parents are claiming their son can’t be racist because… he’s Latino.

Even worse than the “I have a black friend” defense, it’s the “I’m not white” defense.

What’s hugely disturbing about all of this is the lack of public outcry. Imagine, if you would, the victim was a young white girl. The same way Natalee Holloway, Caylee Anthony or Amanda Knox were. How much national outrage would there be? How much attention would this story get? Probably even more than some of these other stories since Zimmerman is apparently Latino and it could be labelled as a “race crime.” Just against a white person.

But when the victim is a black teenager with a bag of Skittles, the culprit doesn’t even get arrested.

Am I suggesting that injustices like the Amanda Knox story shouldn’t be discussed? No. I’m saying justice should be blind. It shouldn’t favor the young, pretty white girls. It should favor all wronged people, no matter what race or creed.

If justice is not blind, it is not justice. The scales lose their balance when weighed with color and race and sexuality and all other defining characteristics used to separate people. If the scales are tipped, how can we trust our legal system to do what’s right?

And all this is without me even talking about how heavily stacked against non-whites our justice system is via the death penalty and other prosecution, such as the severely unjust execution of Troy Davis.

The first step to fixing these problems is awareness. If people are unaware of these events, the system will stay broken. You can help spread awareness by telling people about the story, or signing and sharing petitions like the one on Change.org.

But awareness isn’t enough. We need to raise hell. We need to let those in charge know we aren’t going to simply accept this kind of behavior. That we want liberty and justice for all. That we want awareness and fairness for all.

Otherwise, America will never be able to grow and become a great nation. We will fall into disrepair as a nation wholly unable to accept all its inhabitants and treat them all as equals. And history will mock us as we truly deserve.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Santorum Is The Most Liberal Candidate In 2012

I desperately attempted to avoid political jibberjabber during the past two days I was at home. I did not even come close to succeeding, but I did manage to (barely) avoid picking fights, simply saying stuff that was, in general, either hilarious or agreeable even to my parents, whose politics don’t exactly mesh with mine in the same way the North Pole isn’t exactly next door neighbors with Antarctica.

But now that I’m on my blog, which can be seen by everyone including my parents, clearly this is a safe environment to start stirring up trouble. So, trouble, here I stir.

As many of you likely know, Rick Santorum is currently the GOP presidential candidate that could ruin everything for Mitt Romney. According to the math I’ve done, if Romney doesn’t win several “winner take all” states and at least 50% of the proportional delegates, he’s in a load of trouble. And with Newt Gingrich and Santorum sapping away the proportional delegates and planning to stick with the race either until August or until someone gets the necessary delegates to be the nominee, Romney might be in trouble on the proportional front. And since Santorum has been winning states, there’s a chance Romney may have to fight all the way through the Republican convention, which will give whoever the nominee actually is about a month to go toe-to-toe with incumbent Barack Obama.

Now, I suppose I can see the appeal of Santorum. He actually has some beliefs, unlike Romney. He’s severely socially conservative, unlike Ron Paul. And he actually manages to live out some of those moral standards, unlike the ever-philandering king of smug false piety Gingrich.

Santorum claims to be the conservative alternative to Romney. The alservative, if you will. But, as I’ve mentioned before, there’s a bit of a hypocrisy in the conservative political stances these GOP candidates take, and Santorum is perhaps the worst offender.

You see, the rallying cry of the GOP, especially the Tea Party movement that took conservative fury and congealed it into a rather odd duck of a political movement, has generally been one of small government. Cut down the bureaucracy. Limit federal power. Let the states decide moral issues. End regulation. Et cetera. And there have been Santorum supporters that like his desire to create a small government.

Except that Santorum has no such desires.

Santorum is one of the biggest proponents for a massive government the GOP has seen in a while, if not ever. Definitely the biggest of the four remaining candidates. Besides his desire to target businesses he finds immoral such as the pornography industry and his apparent desire to require states to make English their official primary language, Santorum has been long known for his severe moral stances he wants to turn into federal law, including a Constitutional amendment to permanently ban homosexual marriages in the United States.

Now, let’s ignore how laws and amendments like that have tended to cause the exact opposite effect once they climbed their way up to the Supreme Court (see: Roe v. Wade, Loving v. Virginia) and instead focus on exactly how massively big government this is.

Santorum plans to take away a state’s rights to decide whether they want to allow gay marriage. Which is pretty anti-state’s rights. He wants to end businesses (that frankly make America a crap ton of money) based on moral standards. Which is regulation of a really weird kind.

Sure, Santorum is all about the “moral, religious” stances that the political right likes to espouse… but he’s going about it in such a hugely unabashed, non-conservative fashion. It’s, quite frankly, ridiculous. The things he proposes to do are so massively in disregard for the structure of power in our government, so massively in disregard for the rights of the people that he is in fact the most liberal candidate on the ballot. Including Obama. His suggestions are so liberal and expansive of federal, and specifically presidential, power that they don’t even really exist on the map of American politics. Not since Franklin Roosevelt has anyone suggested such a massive, heavy-handed application of power, and all FDR did with his version was, by and large, create federal infrastructures. The closest thing Obama has come to any power sweeps on the level of Santorum is the recent contraception mandate, which he later revised.

Do you really see Santorum revising his views on social issues?

So, Santorum supporters. I have to ask you this: Can you explain why you agree with this guy? Seriously. He appears to be standing for what you believe in, but at the same time, he’s spitting in its face. If all you care about is social issues, then I guess he’s your guy. But if you want the federal government to limit its power and back off of our personal lives, then how the heck can you vote for him?

Though, really, I guess I can’t blame you too much. None of the candidates are really any good. But if you like Santorum and you like limited government, take Santorum’s advice: Vote for Ron Paul. Or, take mine: Stay at home and realize that you’re not going to get what you want out of any of these guys.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Advertisements