Ideology as a Spectator Sport

An attempt at a discrimination graphic. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It feels more and more these days that people aren't developing philosophical viewpoints as much as they are choosing up sides, and I'm not sure where that's going to leave us in the end.

I tend to be pretty vocal in my viewpoints, be they political, religious, or otherwise, and I rarely shy away from defending what I feel is right, or just, or important. It isn't a unique trait; most people tend to do the same thing to a certain extent. Belief is what guides us, and whether that belief was achieved through deliberation and inner turmoil or adopted willingly from others as a comfort, it's how we pattern our own behaviors, or at least claim or attempt to do so. So I'm not some kind of special crusader standing up against a sea of ignorance. I'm just that annoying guy spouting off occasionally on the internet, just like all of those other annoying people. You know who you are.

But sometimes it feels like people aren't defending ideologies or beliefs as much as they are defending the home team, rooting against anybody that isn't rooting for them, and maybe our ability to process information and objectively discuss our difference on any level whatsoever is being jeopardized by this kind of Us vs. Them mentality.

It struck me the other day when I was cracking wise about the latest George Zimmerman news eruption, and somebody I don't know (unlike most intelligent people who actively avoid conflict, I still have a public Facebook page) briefly commented on my post "So I take it you are Pro-Trevon." The phrase caught me off-guard. Pro-Trevon? Pro is usually the prefix you attach to high-profile controversial moral/legal topics, like Abortion or the Death Penalty. Trevon Martin wasn't a medical procedure or form of corporal punishment, he was just a kid. A kid who was shot and killed by a man who many people, including myself, believe shouldn't have been allowed to do so without criminal repercussions.

Now, on the surface, I know what the guy meant. He was trying to assess which side of that controversial incident I am aligned with: those who defended the actions of George Zimmerman, or those who condemned the action of George Zimmerman. However, he phrased it as if the question was whether I sided with George Zimmerman or Trevon Martin, and I'm not sure if being for or against Trevon Martin is a rational standpoint to be making. Trevon, after all, is dead. His part of this equation is, unfortunately, over. There's nothing to be Pro or Anti in regards to his situation, unless the question is whether or not you are happy that a young man was shot and killed. And to be perfectly honest, I don't know Trevon, never met him or anybody else who had. Defending him as a person, as being wholly PRO or ANTI him as a human being, is probably way beyond any judgement calls I should be allowed to make. If I was called as a character witness I would be thrown out of court, I have no basis for being PRO or ANTI Trevon. As much as I have a personal distaste for George Zimmerman based on the facts surrounding the case, I can't even say I'm firmly Anti-Zimmerman.

What I AM against is the shooting death of an unarmed kid who was chased down by the person who eventually killed him with no provocation whatsoever. I'm also against the police not fully investigating the shooting death of a kid under such bizarre circumstances, and the possibility that the racial identity of the dead kid points to a pattern of behavior by law enforcement when it comes to how situations like this are handled. There are actually a lot of things I'm ANTI about in this entire clusterfuck of a tragedy, so many that I'm not even sure that there's anything I'm PRO about at all regarding the whole thing.

(Just to put the Zimmerman thing to bed so I don't end up debating THAT all over again... Yes, I think Zimmerman was in the wrong, that everything was handled incorrectly by both him and the authorities, and I will not shed a tear when he finally eats a bullet to escape what his legacy as a human being has become. But do I think he's the pure embodiment of evil walking among us, a monster to be hunted down and destroyed the way he hunted down and killed an unarmed child? No. He's not a monster. He's a fuckup, and the only tragedy about him is that he couldn't stick to fucking up just his own life. Now, moving on...)

It's human nature to try and simplify things, but I'm not sure that a situation as complex as this, with the racial/social/political/cultural/judicial ramifications stretching far and wide, should really be reduced to "Whose team are you on?" As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that this Us vs. Them mentality is exactly the reason why shit like this goes down in the first place. So how does it get to this? Why would a situation that evokes such passion and concern in almost the entire population motivate people to give less thought to the complexity of the situation rather than more? Can we really trace the causes of this muddled cacophony of human frailties and find a mutual solution that involves all of us living together in peace and harmony by demanding to know who is Pro-Dead-Kid and who is Pro-Kid Killer?

Taking a step back, it seems like this is how all of our big philosophical battles are being waged these days. You can't enter a discussion about Israel and Palestine without hearing "Antisemitic." Disagreeing with business owners refusing to cater gay weddings becomes "Christian Persecution." And lets not forget the chest-thumping "You're with us or against us" patriotism the minute someone questions American foreign policy or brings up our proud history of killing and enslaving other races in the pursuit of Freedom and Liberty.

And don't let it be said I'm only picking on the right. Not everybody who espouses a moral objection to same-sex marriages is "Homophobic," and I'm not exactly sure why we can't rally against institutionalized racist policies without "White Privilege" getting thrown into the mix. Is every white person a racist? Is every Republican a bigot? Is every Christian a Homophobe? Is every liberal a Communist? Are there any really absolutes when it comes to the complexities of the human mind and spirit?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be choosing battles, shouldn't be rallying for causes, shouldn't be speaking out for or against things we feel are important, whether for just ourselves or for mankind as a whole. But do we need to reduce it all to black-and-white, us-or-them, team-spirit posturing? Because the problem with that approach is that we're making up the teams as we go along, deciding for ourselves who the opposition is, stating their own arguments for them, and setting them up as the straw men we need to win our battle, and wouldn't you know it, they're doing the same damn thing. I get it, true objectiveness is a myth, we're all guided by our own beliefs. But we don't have to be blinded by them as well.

Maybe it's all too much to ask. Maybe it's too easy to cherry-pick our own facts and ensure that any argument that contradicts or questions our chosen realities is defined as victimization rather than disagreement. All I know is, I'm not Pro-Trevon. My ideologies are not cannot be defined by a prefix and a proper noun, and it doesn't involve being on the winning team. If that's the way we go, my guess is that we'll all lose.

Related articles

• America's 1,407 executions since 1976, mapped
• Improving on ones spiritual beliefs!!!
• Hillary: Deep-seated religious beliefs have to change so there can be more abortions
• How Beliefs and Convictions Are Related?
• George Zimmerman Shooter Could Use Stand Your Ground Defense
• Nebraska Conservatives Battle One Another Over Repeal Of Death Penalty

Don't Get Me Started (A Much-Deserved Rant)

RANT, this way (Photo credit: Nesster)

There's only so much of it you can choke down before the bile has to rise. There's only so much of it you can absorb without reaching a breaking point, especially in the age of Facebook and Google and Smartphones. And so you hit a point where you can't take any more. How can you? You've got kids being sent home from the prom for being too sexy and removed from the yearbook because girls shouldn't be wearing tuxedos while elected officials run around blaming women for rape and saying that women deserve to earn less than men because they don't work as hard and should be devoting themselves to home and family instead anyway, and access to birth control is suddenly an issue again as a large segment of the population is trying to wish this country's female population back into the nineteenth century. Slut shaming has ceased to be an adolescent bully tactic and has instead become an accepted life lesson by the same adults who defend bullying as a rite of passage and then defend their own kids when they cyber-bully a classmate into a suicide attempt or rape an underage drunk girl at a party by claiming she was asking for it anyway as towns rally behind jocks and run rape victims out of town because popular high school football players are more important than protecting young girls from date rape because our daughter doesn't behave like that so its really not our problem, is it? And the kids are fucked anyway because childhood obesity is becoming a massive epidemic and you've got people blaming the kids for for being lazy and eating too much while completely ignoring the fact that their diet consists of the poisonous crap being sold as food these days, with something like 80% of processed foods containing added sugar or even worse corn syrup because the food manufacturers just had to go out of their way to find a more harmful sweetener than cane sugar, since the pathetic state of the FDA where they can't even inspect a fraction of the food industry and level wrist-slap fines that don't even put a dent in the profit margin that the unsafe preparation of food offers still isn't killing people in this country fast enough, and they still haven't figured out how to turn mercury into a flavor-enhancing additive. Which shouldn't be so surprising since this country excels in intentionally poisoning itself with an unending supply of cigarettes and alcohol while the government hypocritically spends billions combating the recreational drugs that don't have corporate sponsorship, and so our government is still attempting to protect it's people from ingesting potentially harmful recreational drugs while eagerly allowing the food companies to shovel shit down their throats, and they care so much about American lives that we're the only industrialized nation left that still has the death penalty but is repelled by the idea of socialized medicine, because nothing says Freedom like being free to die a slow and painful death because you can't afford treatment for your illness in the richest fucking nation on the planet, so the lower class die in emergency rooms and the middle class lose their houses to pay for a week-long hospital stay after a necessary procedure while other people and politicians alike scream about the inequalities and dangers of providing healthcare to all Americans and talk shit about other countries with socialized medicine while the U S of A sports the highest mortality rates and is beat out by Cuba for quality of medical care provided, and this outcry against giving something to people for free, God forbid, doesn't even include the constant attacks against programs designed to assist poor families with shelter and heating and helping them feed their poor children, starving children for fuck's sake, because what kind of a moral Christian nation would we be if we allowed our hard-earned tax dollars to go towards feeding starving innocent children because what kind of commie pinko nation is this that we're so afraid of letting the poor and inform die in the streets and clog up the gutters which are clogging up on their own anyway since the richest country in the fucking world can't be bothered to even maintain its own infrastructure, so at least the US government isn't that hypocritical since it doesn't even believe in maintain its own health, let alone the health of the people the government is supposed to be serving, not exploiting and ignoring. But why bitch about the government when you can just wait a few minutes and listen to the caterwauling insanity of the growing portion of the population dead-set against any kind of humanistic or empathetic world view, the mewling asshats who live in constant fear of anything happening that they don't personally approve of, shouting out against gay couples being allowed to marry as if it was an affront to anything more than their own myopic world views, arguing against shit that doesn't affect them on any level except what could only be referred to jokingly as an intellectual level, these soulless motherfuckers that compare immigrants and poor people to animals then look around for a high-five as if they'd just said something urbanely wise and clever, like they're some kind of modern day Jonathan Swift instead of just another unsympathetic asshole more concerned about somebody else getting something they didn't than any heartfelt consideration for other human beings, rallying against lowering costs or interest rates or god forbid offering free higher education because they want to make sure we have enough stupid people to flip their burgers and dig the ditch they want to shit in because by their reasoning if everyone has access to affordable education then nobody will drive a garbage truck, and they don't like their tax money going to education anyway because they're constantly bitching that the public school systems are a joke and don't teach anything, which is usually an awkward argument because most of the time the people saying this are products of public schools anyway so by their own argument they just might be too fucking stupid to be listened to if they were products of the public school system, but of course they were probably just so smart to begin with or they don't mean their schools but "other" schools which means schools in poor and urban areas which should be gradually shut down by implementing voucher systems so we can revert to the good old days when only the children of wealthy families got any schooling so these greedy bastards can be sure that there is enough of an uneducated workforce to keep the cost of their Egg McFucking Muffin down, and of course this goes right into their reasoning against raising the minimum wage, because not only will their plastic cheap-ass Walmart patio decorations cost them fifty cents more if a multi-billion dollar corporation actually has to pay its workers a living wage, but because they claim you need to underpay laborers less than they can live on otherwise they won't have any incentive to work harder even though the working poor are working harder than these loudmouthed motherfuckers have ever worked in their miserable lives just so they can pay the skyrocketing rent on their shitty one-bedroom apartment and make sure their kids can eat corn-syrup-injected processed crap that keeps them simultaneously fed and malnourished because some fucknut managed to get the meal programs budget cut at the school they won't even be able to go to once the new voucher system allows them to go to a really good private school even though studies have shown that private schools aren't that much better just because they turn a profit and free-market economics doesn't work when you're not producing an actual product asshole, but in reality that voucher is not going to cover the entire cost so the father working three shit jobs and paying payroll taxes on all of them won't be able to pony up the cash for the voucher difference and will the dickhead greedy taxpayer want to spring the bill for shipping kids two hours each way to the nearest public school crappy enough for an equal voucher exchange, why of course not what are we commies or something? And these assholes are everywhere, and they are loud and obnoxious and the symptom of a larger disease, the growing Apathy of the American public, not a physical apathy or even mental apathy but an emotional apathy that is increasingly removing any desire of people that are otherwise active in getting involved in ideas and philosophies and debates and arguments but cannot be bothered to actually attempt to feel anything for anybody but themselves and their ideological viewpoints that are the new religion of a country supposedly founded on Christian morality but is actually serving the deities of money and vanity and won't even consider any kind of concept that doesn't involve an increased profit margin or confirmation that they are everything that is right with the world, this shallow unsympathetic fucks who bitch about tax dollars funding art students or poor children but couldn't give a rat's ass how many innocents are killed by the flying killer robots their tax dollars bought or anything else except how much they have to pay the pool guy or tip the waitress or pay for anything because what the hell are we except cash receptacles and if you don't have enough to make you count as a real person than its your fault for not being smart enough or lucky enough because we don't want public schools teaching evolution while we force survival-of-the-fittest economics theory into common practice instead of using the collective wealth of a nation to benefit all of its citizens, and not just the ones that can afford to live the American Dream, what a fucking joke, the American Dream has become the world's largest Ponzi Scheme that will bankrupt the ones defending it as well as the unappreciated masses they dismiss with contempt, and I can't debate fuckwits like this anymore and pretend that their arguments are valid and treat them with even a fraction of the respect they refuse to show the people they dismiss and denigrate and even blame for everything wrong with this vast social experiment gone vastly awry, and I can't go on playing nice with these vile fucks, they need to be shouted down and cursed out and treated like the soulless bastards they are, because there is only so many times I can be fed "let's agree to disagree" before I have to refuse to pretend their inhumane and narrow-sighted ideas are relevant in any rational sense of the word, and maybe if we stopped playing this he-said-she-said let them think what they want and we don't want to sink to their level game and lashed out against the idiots screaming offensive ideologies into the wind as if greed and arrogance were noble traits, perhaps the sooner we just call out these people for being the scumbags that they are, then maybe we can all vent this growing frustration that results from dealing with this level of ignorance on a daily basis.

Fuck it. I need a nap.

Related articles

• 10/8/13: Baby Heads, Children, and Punctuation
• Strange Land #15: Wake the Fuck Up!
• The Minimum Moral Wage
• 9/28/11 - Class Warfare, Facebook Evolution, Slumming Actors, and Canceled Prime Time Nightmares

9/9/13 - 101 Uses for a Living Severed Head

Aguste Rodin. The Severed Head of Saint John the Baptist, ca 1887 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

With the beginning of the 21st Century nearly upon us, technological advancements in the medical field are rapidly reaching heights never before imagined. Previously ridiculed pulp science fiction novel impossibilities such as cloning and bionic limbs are now becoming modern-day reality. One such advancement (although not one readily admitted to by the medical society) is the patented invention of a machine that now makes it possible to keep a human severed head alive indefinitely. The existence of this specific technology has been deemed both cruel and immoral by many groups, most of them arguing that not only is it a practically blasphemous application of medical life support, but that such a device would have no practical use. To those that have scoffed at this idea, the members of The Mongoloid Moose Think Tank say FOOEY!!! There are numerous uses for such a medical advancement, and we will stop at no end to prove it! So, in an attempt to squelch the complaints and protests put forth by these Frankenstein Destroyers, we submit this list of one hundred and one useful applications for a living severed head. Note: Most of the following suggestions have been made under the assumption that the technology will become advanced enough so that the life support equipment will be eventually condensed into a 7" wide metal disk attached to the neck of the severed head. 1. Nifty Ashtray 2. Cool Fish Tank Decoration 3. Conversation Piece - Place it on your coffee table. Loads of fun! 4. Anti-Burglar Device 5. Christmas Tree Decoration 6. Jack-O-Lantern 7. Pooper Scooper 8. TV Antenna 9. Bedpost 10. Shoe Shiner - Polish not included. 11. Emergency Replacement For Broken Busts 12. Tie Rack 13. Dust Rag 14. Hand Puppet 15. Banister Knob 16. Q-Tip Dispenser 17. Candlestick 18. Sheet Music Holder 19. Post-Modern Drink Coaster - Not just a regular coaster! 20. Pencil Sharpener 21. Paperweight 22. Economy Night Light - Some assembly required. 23. Police Siren 24. Hood Ornament 25. Lawn Mower 26. Marital Aid - You figure it out. 27. Dust Rag 28. Pez Dispenser 29. Battering Ram - Actually, it would be more of an attachment. 30. Crib Mobile 31. Bicycle Horn 32. Ventriloquist Dummy 33. Hole Puncher 34. Bottle Opener 35. Attach to pole to unscrew out of reach light bulbs - I'm sure there's a name for it, but I don't know it. 36. Ice Cube Tray Monitor – Put back an empty tray, get bitten. 37. Stamp Moistener 38. Device for conducting controlled tests to see how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Lollie-Pop 39. Rape Whistle - Rape not included. 40. Pin Cushion 41. Cookie Cutter - Makes bite-size cookies. 42. Doctor's Specimen Container - They can't all be cute and pretty, now can they? 43. Blow Dryer - It takes a while. 44. Lawn Ornament 45. Door Stop 46. Primitive Blunt Weapon 47. Parking Meter 48. Wood Chipper 49. Oven Mitt 50. Bicycle Seat 51. Writer for Image Comics - 'Nuff Said! 52. Roach Motel 53. Mouse Trap 54. Book End 55. Jewelry Display 56. Soap Dish 57. Cheap alternative to Pet Parrot 58. Extra in Bluebeard Documentary 59. Pencil Holder 60. Paint Pallet 61. Horror Movie Prop 62. Co-Star on Baywatch 63. Eavesdropping Device 64. Chastity Belt - Back by popular demand! 65. Tooth Brush Holder 66. Poor Man's Mirror 67. Pool Toy 68. Drain Plug 69. Toilet Bowl Cleaner 70. Hat 71. Poor Man's Disguise Kit 72. Weather Vane - See also: Windsock. 73. Lightening Rod 74. Methane Gas Detector for sewer workers 75. Vice Grip Pliers 76. Baptism Practice Model 77. CPR Dummy 78. 9 Day Deodorant Pad 79. Change Purse 80. Q-Tip 81. Ice Cream Cone 82. Rear View Mirror Decoration 83. Vacuum Cleaner 84. Bathroom Attendant - You give him a quarter, take a mint... Come on, work with me! 85. Spare Horse Shoe 86. Lord Of The Flies - If you don't get it, you didn't finish High School 87. Desk Lamp 88. Poor Man's Mr. Potato Head 89. Maraca 90. Megaphone 91. Science Fair Project 92. Golf Tee 93. Lamp Post 94. Cannon Ball 95. Cool Medallion 96. Prop for St. John The Baptist play 97. Lassie stand-in 98. Spitball Sparring Partner 99. Third Base 100. Creepy Piñata 101. Hat Rack

Related articles

• Can a Severed Head Live On?
• Teen hit by remote control helicopter dies from severe head injury
• Trinidad police find severed head of murdered man
• Mind Blown: Medical Records to Reissue Two Severed Heads Albums
• Severed human head sent in box to Kenya police chief Johnston Kavaludi
• Severed Doll-Head Bra Never Lets You Forget Her Eyes Are up There

11/2/12: Are You Better Off Now?: An Election Response

It's a question that Romney supporters are fond of throwing around smugly, one of those supposedly undeniable truth statements that are supposed to stop you in your tracks because there is no way to answer it without admitting that the person asking is correct in their assumptions. In this case, the assumption is that Obama hasn't made anything better in America. It's a weird about-face, as it is usually the incumbent asking the question as way of underlining how good they've been at their job.

Since we are only days away from the 2012 Presidential Elections, I'm feeling rather motivated to actually answer this question. The last four years haven't been especially easy for anybody not in the top 10% (you know, the people who own the country, it seems), but I think it's fair to answer the question on an individual bases, considering that the question is meant to motivate my individual vote.

Anyway, comparing November 2008 with November 2012, am I better off now than I was four years ago?

Four years ago, I was:

*Laid off after fifteen years with the same company, because the sudden economic downturn crippled the entire industry in a matter of months.

*Subsequently laid up with the Swine Flu for a month (Happy Holidays!) with no medical insurance.

*Suddenly stuck with not being able to afford classes after having started attending college night classes again the previous year.

*Living in a house suddenly worth $30,000 less than it was two years ago.

Today, I am:

*Working for a new small business owner that isn't squeamish about hiring new employees during an Obama presidency, despite all Right Wing claims to the contrary.

*Still in possession of my house, thanks in part to extended federal unemployment benefits that helped me to stay afloat for the year and a half I was unemployed, and helped me stay financially intact enough so that I was prepared to survive the year and a half I was forced to work for an exploitative business owner who denied his employees federally-protected overtime pay and made Labor Day a non-payed holiday.

*One class away from obtaining my degree, thanks to Obama's improvements to the Pell Grant system, including allowing Unemployment benefits to be disregarded when calculating Pell Grant eligibility.

*Living in a state that was ravaged by a hurricane (ironically sharing the name of the employer that laid me off four years ago), and seeing my state survive and recover from the disaster with the help of immediately received support from FEMA, the organization that Romney has gleefully contemplated defunding in past interviews.

Is everything 100% better or back to normal four years later? Of course not. I'm still without medical insurance, and the medical insurance I will be eligible for soon will undoubtedly cost me more than it did when I last had it. Also, I love my new job, but I'm still not close to restoring my financial situation to what it once was, and real estate values still haven't recovered enough for my mortgage lose its underwater status.

But am I better off than I was four years ago, unemployed at the beginning of the worst recession since the Great Depression, licked to the curb by my career occupation at a time in which College Graduates and Six-Figure-Salary professionals were already begging for entry-level positions, sick with an as-of-yet undiagnosed pig disease as I watched Obama being sworn into office?

You bet your ass I am.

Related articles

• The REAL Reason Behind Romney's Fake Donation Drive
• Anti-obama Filmmaker Embroiled In Scandal
• October jobless rate is 7.9 percent: 171,000 jobs created. Good news for Obama
• Pay for College - What Is a Pell Grant?
• Romney's Seven Biggest Debate Lies
• Preconceived Notions and Police Brutality

6/25: Judges, Tech, Glee,

English: Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Am I out of line for saying that the Supreme Court is a little more than a sad joke? A group of judges that vote almost exclusively along ideological political lines, yet are supposed to be the final arbiters of law and justice in our country based not on which political party gave them their position, but their expert interpretation of the law. Every five-four decision they hand down is a bitch slap in the face of every American who is impacted by their decisions.

I realize that a significant portion of the country is eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling on Obama's Health Care plan, especially the media outlets, which are quickly running out of clever headlines. There was a point where I was following the whole Health Care debate issue myself. But now that the ultimate decision on whether or not Obamacare will stay or go rests in the hands of this collection of assholes, my interest has fled almost as rapidly as my hope.

*****

What's that? Samsung is releasing a potent iPhone rival, and Microsoft has developed a new tablet to compete with the iPad? Hold on a second while I don't give a shit.

There. All done.

*****

Glenn Beck is apparently in the works to fix the damage done to the American culture by the hit show Glee (he doesn't go into detail, but I'm assuming he's referring to the promotion of "The Gays") by producing his own right-wing version.

Hate to break it to Beck, but there already was a right-wing version of Glee. It was called Cop Rock.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the revival. Should be interesting.

*****

Related articles

• WATCH OUT GLEEKS: The Old Man Mr. Glenn Beck Working on Anti-GLEE Project

  ---

• Glenn Beck-Produced, Homo-Free Version of Musical Theater to Feature Singing, Dancing, Self-Loathing [Glee]

  ---

• Dean Obeidallah: Why It's Actually Good for Obama If Supreme Court Strikes Obamacare

  ---

• Glenn Beck Vs. Glee: The War Rages On!

  ---

4/25/12 - Ann Romney Just Doesn't Get It

Photo of Ann Romney at the Reagan Dinner in Des Moines on October 27, 2007. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

And the Romney Gaffe Train just keeps on rolling.

Ann Romney has been riding high on the "War on Moms" idiocy being pushed by Republicans ever since Hillary Rosen criticized Ann Romney for weighing in on labor issues when "she has never worked a day in her life." Since then, she and the GOP have been pretending that Rosen's criticism was an attack on her being a stay-at-home-mother, instead of questioning her authority on workplace-related political issues, and taking every possible chance to remind people that she and Mitt squeezed out five kids, because Republicans love large families with lots of kids (as long as they aren't poor black families, mind you).

In her latest "I'm a Mom" interview, Ann started espousing the greatness that is her, and attempted to translate that into a knowledge of how the rest of the country exists, a sore spot for the Romney clan. Sure enough, instead of just keeping the point short and simple, Ann kept rattling in and blurted out this little gem:

“My hats off to the men in this room too that are raising kids — I love that, and I love the fact that there are also women out there that don’t have a choice and they must go to work and they still have to raise the kids.”

Ignoring the ludicrous implication that Ann Romney just LOVES the idea that some women are forced by economic hardship to both work full time and raise their children, one has to wonder if her LOVE of full-time employed men and women raising their children extends to single parents, whom the GOP has been attacking lately both verbally and politically, going as far as to propose legislation that would categorize single-parent households as a form of child abuse. Maybe she's just in LOVE with the romantic notion of a devoted parent having to work full-time in order to support their family while also raising it, but that more or less underlines the fact that the reason she might LOVE such a romanticized ideal of the working parent is that she's never actually had to be one herself.

How could somebody say such a ludicrous thing, that the LOVE the idea that people are working twice as hard to make ends meet? By the same logic, you might respond to criticism about having never suffered through chemotherapy yourself by saying that you LOVE that there are people out there fighting cancer. That can't be right, can it? Maybe we can give Ann the benefit of the doubt and just assume that she isn't really pandering to her husband's political base with every breath she takes. Then again, considering her track record of gaffes and unfortunate quotes, it's easier to assume that Ann is just as emotionally unattached as Mitt is to the real world that the majority of Americans live in.

The entire "War on Moms," of course, is a huge fabrication. The Republicans have spent months fighting back against the "War on Women" they were accused of waging, and accusation backed by their continued attempts to roll back abortion rights by demanding vaginal ultrasounds for potential patients, prevent medical coverage of contraception, and block legislation designed to ensure equal pay in the workforce. Their attempt to push the label back on the Dems in a classic "I'm Rubber/You're Glue" defense failed miserable

The key human element that the Romneys seem to be missing is humility. Any person with an ounce or two of humility or self awareness would know how to handle the growing implications that they are too rich to be in touch with Middle America. When confronted with this "Class Gap," Ann, for example, could have answered questions about their wealth as a barrier between them and Middle America by admitting that yes, they are extremely wealthy, but that they still have the same concerns about the government's policies that middle and lower class families have, and even though they haven't faced the same struggles as others having during this lengthy recession, they are still aware of these problems and want to solve them. Instead, she blurts out the inane rationalization "You know, we can be poor in spirit. I don't even consider myself as wealthy, which is an interesting thing. It can be here today and gone tomorrow." You can also be poor in basic comprehension of how you sound to others, which seems to be a malady shared by both Ann and Mitt, as they continue to whine to a population caught in stagnating wages and plummeting real estate values about hard it is to be so wealthy that you forget how many homes you own and need to have a costly elevator installed in your garage to accommodate your wife's fleet of Cadillacs. Life can be so hard, can't it?

Instead, they and other Republicans keep attempting to claim victim status, arguing that rich people are a minority being persecuted and discriminated against by the Occupy Movement and news coverage focusing on the wealthy. This defense must have sounded completely rational when it was brainstormed around a big conference table by people with six and seven-figure salaries, but it ignores the fact that persecution and discrimination are typically power-based actions leveled against the powerless by the powerful, so claiming that a minority of the population that owns a majority of the nation's wealth and resources is being victimized rings a bit hollow, especially when heard by people who have actually had to struggle against institutionalized persecution and discrimination throughout their lives.

Maybe that's why Ann LOVES working mothers and doesn't consider herself rich: because like Rosen pointed out, she hasn't had to work a single day in her life, and has no idea how hard it is to work full time and raise a family when money isn't an endless commodity for you.

Ann Romney Talks Motherhood, 'Emotionally Draining' Campaign:

'via Blog this'

Related articles

• Ann Romney: 'I Love The Fact That There Are Women Out There Who Don't Have A Choice' And 'Must Go To Work'
• "Life Isn't Easy for Any of Us": Ann Romney's Speech Raises Peril for Both Sides
• Rosen Attack On Ann Romney Not About Motherhood, But About Actual Jobs
• Romney: Welfare Moms Need 'Dignity of Work'
• "So Much For The Phony Outrage": Ann Romney Says Rosen's Attack Was A 'Gift,' 'I Loved It'

3/30/12 - Republicans Defend Racism and Trayvon Martin's Murder

Opposition poster for the 1866 election. Geary's opponent, Hiester Clymer, ran on a white supremacy platform. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So here we are again. As the old saying goes "The more things change, the more things stay the same." We are now living in a world most would have thought impossible a mere few decades ago, in which a black man holds the highest office in the land, the Presidency of the United States. It feels as if a new era is being ushered into American history, one that might be seen by Americans centuries from now as the dividing line between our racist, exploitative past and the enlightened legacy we invariably left behind.

But then an unarmed black teenager is shot dead by a non-black gun owner and law enforcement enthusiast, and Republicans immediately dust off their black canes and top hats and leap into their well-choreographed "It ain't us, it's them" song-and-dance routine. It's almost like they can't help themselves.

It's hard to explain or rationalize. There seems to be this inherent inability on the Right to be able to admit that racism exists anywhere in the country, in any form whatsoever. What's even more bizarre is that they always attempt to argue against the existence of racism by claiming that those who disagree with them are racist, proving once again that Republicans seem to inherently lack any real sense of irony.

Portrait of U.S. Representative Joe Walsh (R-IL) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Take, for example, the comments by Tea Party favorite Rep. Joe 
Walsh (R-Ill.) in response to the controversy surrounding Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) appearing on the House floor in a Hoodie and quoting bible passages. Rush was speaking out in regards to what is now seen by many as the travesty of justice involving the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, a young black man whose death was not fully investigated by police at the time, supposedly because the white man who shot him claimed self-defense, despite reasonable evidence to the contrary.

I will grant you that the House floor is technically not the place for activism. I say technically, because the House (and Senate, let's be fair) is regularly populated by whorish politicians who eagerly take the floor to push personal agendas motivated by either ideological biases or lobbyist dollars, often in defiance of public opinion and public interest. Rush's only real mistake in this case was incorporating a prop into his act that defied some dress code that Republicans will no doubt claim is mentioned somewhere in the constitution.

Now... it's bad enough that the Republican presiding over the chamber at the moment (Rep. Gregg Harper of Mississippi) had Rush removed from the floor despite the fact that he was reading quotes from the bible, something Republicans are usually all fighting for the right to do in government buildings. Angrily shouting down a fellow Representative for speaking out against the death of an innocent black child doesn't exactly help the GOP's public image when it comes to race relations. But then, just to make it clear that the Trayvon Martin incident isn't about race,

"I hope Congressman Rush will be as outraged with all of the black on black crime going on in the city of Chicago weekend after weekend," Walsh said. "This is where our outrage has got to be as well."

It's understandable that Walsh might try to indirectly defend the fatal shooting of children, considering how distasteful he seems to find paying the $117,000 he currently owes in late child support payments. It is quite possibly that Walsh actually hates all children, and not just his own. So it's feasible that this Republican Tea Party candidate (two groups not wholly unused to accusations of racism) wasn't even aware of how racist his argument against  Rush truly was.

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It's a Republican argument (supposedly based in unshakable logic ) that has been around ever since Reagan's apocryphal (and racist) "Welfare Queens" argument that welfare needed to be eliminated not because they don't care about poor black people, but that poor black people are merely lazy freeloaders taking advantage of the white middle-class taxpayers who unwillingly pay into the Welfare System.

Now, Reagan didn't phrase it exactly that way; I'm merely translating what is obvious to anyone not self-deluded enough to see through the forced logic. The narrative the Republicans are constantly struggling to maintain is that there is no racism left in the world. That way, they can back racist legislation without having to explain how racist it really isn't, even though it is. If they admit that racism is still alive and well, for example, they will invariably have to also admit that disenfranchising black voters is actually a racist act, and not just an attempt to prevent voter fraud.

But the problem is that when you are trying to support a racist ideal is that your logic comes out all eschewed and invariably becomes racist itself. What Rep. Joe "Deadbeat Dad" Walsh is saying here is that his black colleague is out of line because he doesn't speak out against black-on-black violence. The implication here is that he is a hypocrite for singling out this case of a violent white man, because blacks are WAY more violent. He's also implying that a white man killing a black teenager shouldn't be such a big deal because black men kill black teenagers all the time, although in the case of the latter the police tend to actually investigate the incident.

Now, if you think I'm being unfair to Walsh (about his black-on-black violence comment, not the fact that he stiffed his ex-wife and children) and am merely twisting his words to make them sound illogical, try this: the next time a white person is killed by a black person, argue that it's not a big deal, because white-on-white violence happens all of the time. Doesn't work, does it? You know why? Because the outrage isn't about the random color of the two people involved. In the case of Trayvon Martin, the outrage is not that a white man chased down and shot an unarmed black teenager ostensibly because he looked "suspicious" (ie: Black), but that the shooting was not properly investigated by either the police or the media until nearly a month of grass-roots activism helped the case gain national attention. It is about a case of grave injustice that left a teenager dead and his killer uninvestigated or prosecuted. To reduce it to being just about a white-on-black killing is... wait for it... racist.

This "Don't blame us, blacks are even worse" argument comes full circle with the inevitable cries of "Reverse Racism." In this case, the white Republican complains that blacks aren't oppressed or persecuted at all, but instead it is those poor defenseless whites who own the majority of American wealth and control the majority of American power who are constantly discriminated against for being white. To put it another way, they defend their argument that there is no real racism in America anymore by claiming that they are the victims of racism. Makes perfect sense, no?

Hoodie (Photo credit: jollyUK)

Instead of taking apart this flawed logic (which is a lengthy enough argument in it's own right), look at the term they have dubbed this incessant whining about being discriminated against: "Reverse Racism." This term that the Right has coined exposes their blindness to the inherent racism involved in their argument. The word Racism does not mean "whites prejudice against black," it means a hatred or intolerance of another race. Doesn't matter what that race is, hating it for being just that is racism. "Reverse Racism," therefore, would actually be a lack of racism, or rather, loving somebody because of their race. With this in mind, tell me how these "There is no Racism in America" Republicans can make such a claim when they don't even know what the word Racism means? Or, to put it another way, believing that racism is just about blacks is... wait for it... racist.

Now, if you're a Republican reading this (the thought just made me giggle), save your indignation for someone who cares. Launching into the predictable "Oh Yeah, well Liberals blah blah blah" defense is a complete waste of time, and don't cry to me that I've unfairly branded you as a racist just because you're a Republican. Suck it up, call me a Reverse Racist, and go back to applauding Newt Gingrich for saying that child labor laws should be lifted so that underage black children can work as janitors in their own schools and learn how to be productive members of society. Besides, if you're really that offended, I can switch back to talking about how much Republicans hate women. There's plenty of supporting evidence there as well.

Related articles

• Why the Trayvon Martin killing isnt racist, its the truth. (youngliberalandfat.wordpress.com)
• On Trayvon. On the state of race in America (eturner7215.wordpress.com)
• Breitbart.com Commenters Spew Racist Hatred at Trayvon Martin (littlegreenfootballs.com)
• Conservatives, Trying to Feel Better About Their Racism (crooksandliars.com)
• The Hooded Effect (com4609a.wordpress.com)

3/28/12 - Trayvon Martin and Obamacare

Trayvon Martin Protest - Sanford (Photo credit: werthmedia)

All of a sudden I'm entering 2011 as the current date instead of 2012. Something deep within my subconscious is suddenly attempting to turn back the clock. This can't be a good sign.

*

The Trayvon Martin tragedy has becoming the newest thing to get pissed about, and rightfully so. However, as usual, passionate indignation mixed with media exploitation has created an echo chamber that threatens to drown out what the real issue is here.

The politicians and talking heads aren't making anything easier, either (As if they ever do). In the latest little back and forth, you've got Obama coming out and empathizing with Trayvon Martin's family and remarking how close to home this kind of thing strikes when you're a black father. This turned out to be a bad move, as Imaginary Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich and John "I'm more religiously alien than the Mormon I'm running against" Santorum immediately jumped to the defense of the increasingly marginalized and persecuted White America by claiming that Obama was trying to divide the nation by injecting race into the situation. Of course, these guys are probably too busy running presidential campaigns (or in Gingrich's case, book signing tours disguised as presidential campaigns) to notice that the country is already divided by the Trayvon Martin tragedy: on one side are all of the people outraged at the lack of justice (once again) involving and innocent black teenager being gunned down, and on the other side are all of the white people attempting to defend the man who shot a kid armed with a bag of Skittles without sounding racist.

The joke, of course, is that race is a major issue in the Trayvon Martin case, but it isn't what we should all be focusing on. Sending Skittles to police stations and wearing hoodies in solidarity is the kind of feel-good media-friendly activism that Michael Moore built his career on, but all that does is distract from the more long-reaching tragedy that took place. We can spend all of our time digging into Zimmerman's past and replaying 911 calls to figure out whether he said "Coon" or "Goon", but rallying against one idiot as an effigy of racial prejudice does little more than stoke the flames of outrage and give everyone a chance to shout, but all of the Hoodie Activism in the world is going to decrease the amount of racism in the world. Racists actually tend to dig their heels in on incidents like this, in case you haven't noticed.

The real issue, and the problem that should be dominating our dialogue instead of Zimmerman's student status, is the institutionalized bias that resulted in a man found standing over a dead teenager with a smoking gun essentially being taken at his word by police to such an extent that witnesses who contradicted his story were told they were wrong, and not even being taken into custody despite having a previous criminal record. Whether this bias was due to the fact that Zimmerman was white and Martin was black, or that Zimmerman's father is a former judge, is a minor point over the greater issue that the actions of the police department in this case have obviously been guided by some internal ideology, and not a concern for protecting public safety or serving justice.

Add to this the existence of pro-gun lobby laws like macho-sounding "Stand Your Ground" law, which begs to ask whether public safety legislation that sounds like an NRA slogan or a 70's Vigilante Film Title should ever be passed into law, and you have government and law enforcement creating an environment in which violence is not only tolerated, but actively encouraged. I'm not what you would call a pacifist. I'm a long-standing fan of Dirty Harry and Death wish. But I also know how to separate testosterone-fueled fantasy from reality. Unlike Zimmerman, apparently, whose paranoid world view sees a black teen in a hoodie with his hand in his pocket as an outlaw that needs to be chased down and brought to "Final Justice." There will always be people like Zimmerman, but if law enforcement officials respond to this kind of overreaction with a pat on the back and a knowing wink, a lot more of them might feel justified in acting out. That, oh outraged citizens, is the real issue at hand.

*

So, "Obamacare" finally gets it's day in court, and the crazies crawl out of the woodwork to dance in front of the cameras and put on a paranoid schizoid show for the media. I'm not talking about the "Borthers" or "Teabaggers" either; these are elected officials showing off their crazy as they suck up the free attention by spouting crackpot ideology that would sound just as authentic being muttered by a derelict wrapped in tin foil rubbing against you in a crowded subway car.

Take Michele "I have more kids than you!" Bachmann (R-Minn.), for example. Standing among the media circus, happy yet again to be the center of attention (and much like a child, completely unaware of the difference between Good Attention and Bad Attention), Bachmann warned the gathering crowd of anti-health care fanatics that “In the future, you see, we will not be electing a president. We will be electing a health care dictator!"

That's right, people! We'll be electing Health Care Dictators before you know it! Of course, most dictators aren't really elected, at least not fairly, nor do they often bother to defend their policies through a lengthy legal process. Also, most dictators have secret police forces that run around slipping radioactive pellets into the breakfast oatmeal of people who stand around calling them names in front of their palaces while on television.

Even better, however, is the insanely myopic and unflinchingly disconnected question asked by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “If government can tell you what to buy in terms of health insurance, what’s next?"

I have to agree with the senator from the great state of Wisconsin (and how proud they must be). If we allow our government to demand that everyone have affordable health care, what could possibly be next? I mean, before you know it, they could start trying to exert control over who we can or can't marry, whether or not we can use contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies, force us to have unnecessary medical procedures, or even try to dictate which of us should be allowed to raise children. Senator Johnson is right, any party espousing this kind of madness needs to be stopped in its tracks.

You've got thousands of protesters assembling to warn about Obama's "Death Panels" and "Health Care Rationing" if Obama's plan is put into effect because they are afraid of the government getting between them and their doctors, and they are being led by politicians openly and actively attempting to pass legislation that would allow employers and religious organizations to do the exact thing they fear.

You see? This is what happens when you have a political party run by people with no sense of irony.

*

Response to my question about what kind of nails a particular nail gun uses: "It should have a fat head, a thick shaft, and be roughly three and a half inches long."

I'm probably getting to old to be giggling, but it sure ain't stopping me.

Related articles

• The Trayvon Martin Case (robertlindsay.wordpress.com)
• Paranoia in the Age of Obama (thedailybeast.com)
• Pictures and Prejudice in the Trayvon Martin Case (themoderatevoice.com)