Ignore The Resolute Voices Of Regression

Some might see it as a noble refrain to say we shouldn’t use a tragedy to advance a political agenda (e.g. guns, confederate flag). But, it shouldn’t always be seen that way. First, this notion assumes all political agendas are equally sincere and rational, when we know this to be false. Some agendas are immensely more honorable than others. Second, it may be a nice notion to believe human beings can always solve big problems and address major issues (including human rights violations) when far removed from adversity and calamity, but unfortunately we mere human beings are more imperfect than we care to admit. Sometimes it is only in the wake of calamity, even when resolutely confronted by the voices of regression, that we are able to recognize and fix historical injustices.

• • •

Biblical Issue Or Not, Huckabee Is A Friend Of The Gays

On a recent CNN appearance, potential Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was asked if there should be “room for those who want same-sex marriage to be the law of the land.” Of course we all know Huckabee is opposed to same-sex marriage on religious grounds, which is fine for Mike Huckabee, as long as it doesn’t actually inhibit the rights of others. Mr. Huckabee is free to “believe” whatever he wants to believe, but let’s not mistake a person’s beliefs with human rights. “The very fact that I talk about the relationships I have with friends who are gay, indicate that I’m not a person who shuts everybody out around me who disagrees,” said Huckabee. Ah, playing the gay variety of the “friend” card I see. Huckabee can’t possibly be against the human rights of gays, because he has friends who are gay. And besides, his hands are tied. If you have a problem with Huckabee’s beliefs, well, you need to take it up with God. “It is a biblical issue. And as a biblical issue, unless I get a new version of the scriptures, it’s really not my place to say, ‘Okay, I’m just going to evolve.’” Actually, it is everyone’s place to say what is right and what is wrong and not hang it on ancient scriptures written by, let’s just say it, people who were less “evolved” on social issues. Huckabee’s beliefs are not the word of God, his beliefs are simple bigotry masquerading as holy scripture. And Huckabee is well within his rights to hold these beliefs, but it is NOT a “biblical issue” when it comes to human rights and the laws that govern this country. The United States of America is not a theocracy, so when it comes to human rights, you can check your “biblical issues” at the door.

• • •

It’s Super Bowl Sunday, So Let’s Talk Racist Nicknames

Since millions of people have football on the brain today, let’s talk about the racist slang term used by an NFL team: Redskins. Yeah, I know the Washington Redskins aren’t in the Super Bowl, but what better time to talk about that team’s ridiculous name then on the biggest football day of the year. So forget about “Deflate-gate,” and testing the PSI of footballs, because I have a much more important test for us all to perform. If you think there is nothing wrong with the Redskins name, here’s a simple test: Would you call a Native American a “redskin” to his or her face? No? Then why is it ok to use that racist slang term as the official moniker of an NFL team?

• • •

Chickenhawk America

On Friday’s Real Time with Bill Maher, the first guest was Jim Fallows, national correspondent for The Atlantic, there to talk about his article, “The Tragedy of the American Military.” And it’s certain to be a juicy piece with the following subtitle: “The American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously. The result is a chickenhawk nation in which careless spending and strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can’t win.” Yeah, I’d say that about sums it up. Hey, it’s late on a Friday night, actually, early Saturday morning now. I just got done watching Real Time, and I fully admit I have not read this article yet, I’ve only skimmed it. I intend to follow up later with more in-depth analysis, but I felt compelled to share a few things. — I’ve had this thought for a while: I tell people, particularly the many conservatives in my family, that I “support the troops.” And I’m not lying. I mean, fuck, I don’t have the balls to do what they do. But, there is also the fact that there are politicians, whether they are earnest or wrongheaded or both, that got us into these bullshit wars that were never winnable in the first place. The “troops” are just doing a job, and then we say we support them. We welcome them home. We sometimes give them parades. But here’s the problem: There is an unhealthy level of hero-worship of people serving in America’s military. Bill Maher says the military is “such a scared cow,” and he’s right. Basically, if we criticize anything related to the military, that means we aren’t supporting the troops. But maybe, just maybe, anyone who actually stops, thinks, maybe uses a bit of brain capacity, will realize how ridiculous that notion is. We can criticize the military industrial complex, and the feckless and spineless politicians who feed it, and we WILL NOT be accused of criticizing the troops in the process. And if anyone cares to do so, they shall be summarily dismissed from the realm of nuanced and careful thought, because they are the reactionaries among us. They cannot tolerate any dissent among the ranks. As President George W. Bush once said, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” Because that’s about as nuanced as we can expect when it comes to the modern American military hero-worship crowd. In their myopic view, if you criticize our military, or the people giving the orders, you are against the troops, and you are aiding the enemy. — Now hand me a deflated football, because there’s a Super Bowl coming up, and I’ve got more important things to consider than militaristic geopolitical nonsense.

• • •

Hashtag TYPHILLYPOLICE – Philly Police, Social Media, And False Support?

On New Years Day 2015, people on social media showed their support of Philadelphia police officers with the hashtag #TYPHILLYPOLICE. Now, I know I’m going to get some shit from some people (if they read this) for going down the path I’m about to go down, but you know what? Fuck it. Obviously I have no problem with people showing support for their local police. Obviously I have plenty of respect for police officers doing a job that is often thankless and certainly dangerous. So, what’s my problem? My problem is that this hashtag, this effort, and similar efforts like it, are clearly in response to protests related to Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and other black men (and children) killed by police officers in recent months. I wonder how many of the people using this hashtag are doing so genuinely, and more importantly, solely in support of Philadelphia police officers or their local police force? Or could it be they are also using this hashtag to voice their own form of protest against Michael Brown and Eric Garner protestors? Please excuse my cynicism, but I just don’t buy it. I don’t remember this much of an outpouring on social media in support of police until people had an “other” in society for which they needed to voice their own protest against.

• • •

The Many Inconvenient Truths Shunned By Conservatives

It seems when you point something out that’s uncomfortable for conservatives, let’s call it an “inconvenient truth” (damn you Al Gore), the conservative reaction is to trot out isolated anecdotal evidence in an attempt to refute said inconvenient truth. So, if we are talking about global warming, then of course the conservative reaction is to hype stories about record snowfall, as if the two cannot coexist. If we are talking about police brutality and excessive force, then the conservative reaction is to highlight stories of police compassion and restraint, as if those two qualities shouldn’t always be part of the job description. If we are talking about racism, then conservatives talk about reverse racism, as if that’s a thing, and as if racism isn’t just racism, regardless of which race it is. And if we are talking about government programs for the less fortunate in society, conservatives must highlight the small percentage of people who abuse these programs, as if the people who are deserving should be punished because of the abuses of the undeserving. It’s as if conservatives have a lesson to teach us all, but they forgot to learn the subject themselves.

• • •

Torture? Nah, We’re The Good Guys

We are Americans, we are the good guys. That means whatever we do is righteous. After all, we state it as a matter of fact, so it must be true. So that means we didn’t torture. Or if we did torture, it was necessary. Or, it wasn’t torture, it was enhanced interrogation. Because we all know the use of superlative descriptions instead of plain-spoken language is always the best way to convince people of our pure intentions.

• • •

Somebody Whose Sensibilities Probably Need To Be Offended

In his year-end press conference, President Obama spoke about the North Korean sponsored hack of Sony Pictures. He voiced his disagreement that Sony decided to cancel the release of the movie The Interview. “We cannot have a society in which some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship here in the United States,” said Obama. “If somebody is able to intimidate folks out of releasing a satirical movie, imagine what they start doing when they see a documentary they don’t like, or news reports they don’t like.” And I mostly agree with the president, although I wouldn’t call it “imposing censorship” on the part of North Korea, because this is not really a retreat of First Amendment rights. It was a business decision, and business decisions are always subject to what could be called “self-censorship,” meaning companies, particularly motion picture companies in the 21st century, craft their products to appeal to a wide audience. And that sometimes means avoiding certain topics. That could be considered a form a censorship, but it’s self-imposed, which is different then the state censoring speech. Of course that was not what Obama was implying, but I feel some people are making this into more than what it is because we hate that North Korea was able to virtually reach across a vast ocean and change our lives, in even the slightest way, by denying us the ability to watch a silly satirical film. But then Obama said something in a way you don’t normally hear from a president. “[I]magine if producers and distributors and others start engaging in self-censorship because they don’t want to offend the sensibilities of somebody whose sensibilities probably need to be offended.” Is it just me, or is that last part pretty raw and unusually candid for a sitting president? I feel like that’s something I could have easily said in a blog post about uptight social conservatives or dogmatic religious leaders. But here we have a sitting president saying someone in the world probably needs a dose of offensive reality to recalibrate their sensibilities.

• • •

Dick Cheney’s Mind Is Scary?

On Monday’s Daily Show, Jon Stewart said, “Dick Cheney’s mind is the scariest fucking place in the universe.” But is it really? Okay, I know it’s a joke, but the premise is that Dick Cheney dreams up some scary fucking scenarios in that cranium of his, and rightfully so we should all be scared of the mentally and violently unhinged former Vice President. But Dick Cheney is not scary, because Dick Cheney is nothing more than a fearful old white dude, still, 13 years later, invoking 9/11 to justify his fearful old white dude thoughts. Dick Cheney is that special breed of white conservative that is never wrong, in his view that is. He is that type of conservative that will NEVER own up to being wrong about anything. When has Dick Cheney ever said he was wrong about something? I’m pretty sure it’s never happened, and I’d love to be proven wrong. Please post whatever links you can find that would prove me wrong, because, well, I don’t think I am. Yes, I did that intentionally. 🙂

• • •

A Camera Did Not Hold Police Accountable In The Eric Garner Case

After the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, I supported the idea of body-mounted cameras for police officers. But yesterday we found out that even video evidence was not enough to indict a police officer in the death of Eric Garner in New York City. So, I guess cameras won’t make a difference after all. What would make a difference is if people adopted a less lethal mindset, and I’m especially talking to conservatives here. How many people need to die to placate your desire for authoritarian obedience? Because you need to take a step back, and then another, and well, at least one more, and analyze the situation for what it is, not for what you might like it to be. Eric Garner was breaking the law, selling cigarettes illegally to avoid taxes. Even if he was resisting officers, he wasn’t charging or looking to start a fight. From a physical standpoint, he was entirely on defense, and from a verbal standpoint, he was just plain obstinate. And for many law and order types, you know, people who have no problem with the punishment far outweighing the crime, the fact that Garner was not obeying a person in a position of authority is justification enough for the final outcome, his death. No, of course they won’t say they wished to see him die, but their argument is that he got what was coming to him, because if he had simply obeyed the police, he would still be alive. And in a simplified worldview, that might be true, but do the police not have any culpability here? Shouldn’t the escalation of a situation, and the tactics used to diffuse it, be based on the merits of the crime that is being committed? The police are given the power that they are given in society means it falls on them to not escalate beyond the situation at hand. Had Garner committed a more serious crime, maybe the use of force that led to his death could be justified. But for selling some cigarettes illegally? I don’t think so. But even with video evidence, the grand jury didn’t believe it was worth pursuing. As I said in my previous article, it’s incredibly hard to indict police officers, even using evidence that would easily lead to the indictment of mere civilians.

• • •
1 2 3 7