South Carolina Republican Congressman Joe Wilson's heckling of President Obama during an address to a joint session of Congress should not have surprised anyone, but the media still can't seem to get it right.
The issue regarding Joe Wilson's outburst has nothing to do with illegal immigrants, health care reform, or whether he or Obama are lying. What Joe Wilson's heckling, Texas Congressman Louis Gohmert's "What Plan?" and "What Bill?" hand-made posters, and Minority Whip Eric Cantor's playing on his cell phone during a Presidential Address to a joint session of the United States Congress reveals is that the current Republican Party is not mature enough to participate in a democracy.
There is nothing wrong with calling the President a liar, even when the President isn't lying – that's politics, but to shout such vitriol during a Presidential Address to a joint session of Congress, (ESPECIALLY when the President ISN'T lying), is juvenile and unacceptable.
The current GOP thinks that the United States Government is nothing more than the WWE and I would not be shocked if Minority Leader John Boehner showed up to a State of the Union Address wearing a rainbow-colored afro and waving a giant red foam finger.
Luckily the current Republican Party's lack of character and dignity are equivalent to their lack of political relevance.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
***BREAKING NEWS***
POLITICS. WASHINGTON, D.C.
AP is reporting that the first draft of Dick Cheney's memoirs have been rejected. Anonymous sources claim an editor was heard yelling, "I wanted to read about his time in the White House, not another novel defending the virtues of Mephistopheles!"
SPORTS. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.
Former Ohio State running back, Maurice Clarrett, has filed another lawsuit against the NFL. According to lawyers familiar with the case, Clarrett is now claiming that he should have been allowed to enter the draft early since the Minnesota Vikings were just allowed to sign a baby!
POLITICS. WASHINGTON, D.C.
AP is reporting that the first draft of Dick Cheney's memoirs have been rejected. Anonymous sources claim an editor was heard yelling, "I wanted to read about his time in the White House, not another novel defending the virtues of Mephistopheles!"
SPORTS. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.
Former Ohio State running back, Maurice Clarrett, has filed another lawsuit against the NFL. According to lawyers familiar with the case, Clarrett is now claiming that he should have been allowed to enter the draft early since the Minnesota Vikings were just allowed to sign a baby!
Monday, August 17, 2009
Inalienable Right
The pro-health care reformers' inability to counter even the most obviously irrational arguments is absolutely infuriating.
I have no problem with Republicans and the insurance industry being against health care reform – it's their duty. Politicians have donors and constituents to appease, and corporations have employees with families to feed along with share holders who expect a return on their investments – to not whole-heartedly fight to maintain the status quo would be irresponsible. But the most popular anti-health care reform arguments are so remedial that it is the equivalent of fighting an uphill battle without ammunition, yet they are winning; and even the most competent of journalists and political analysts are missing the lyrics for the music.
Lately, the most ire arousing is the failure to instantly shoot down the "Obama says 'if you like your coverage then you can keep it,' but if there is a government option available then employers are going to stop providing that coverage" argument.
So let me get this straight, the fact that businesses will jump at not providing their workers with health insurance the second that they are given the opportunity to do so is why we DON'T need reform?
This argument is ludicrous and proves the opposite of what the arguer is claiming, yet I still have not heard one person with a microphone immediately call "bullshit!"
Yes, because providing employees with health insurance is so financially straining, businesses would welcome the chance to stop paying for coverage, but that is a major reason why we need health care reform. And if the existence of public health care leads to a company discontinuing health coverage for its employees, the money that that business used to allot for workers' insurance is not going to evaporate – It would just mean that instead of letting an insurance company put that money into a pool that the workers disproportionately, or may never, have access to, those dollars will be directly passed on to the employees in the form of a wage or salary increase, thus giving the workers the power to spend the money that they earned instead of some corporate bureaucrat.
Also, a public plan would give businesses AND employees more leverage when it comes to negotiating health care benefits. It's basic economics – supply versus demand. If companies en masse start dropping health care coverage, then insurance companies are going to start losing business. If insurance companies start losing business, then they are going to have to try harder in order to entice companies into purchasing coverage. Those enticements would most likely be providing better coverage at a lesser price which would benefit both business owners AND employees. And if not all businesses offered medical insurance to their employees, then health care benefits would become a greater tool for both a company to use when trying to attract the most talented workforce, AND for the employee to use when deciding where to work.
Another blatantly contradictory statement is the "government can't run anything, and a public option would put the private sector out of business" argument.
Ugggh! I'm sure it is not their intent but what these people are basically saying is either "the government plan would be so terrible that everybody would choose it over private insurance" or "the government program would be so good that we shouldn't have it."
There are a number of ways to expose the stupidity of this claim with the first being to merely repeat what was just said.
Either the government CAN run an organization or it can't – Which is it? Either the government is NASA and our Armed Forces, or it's the line at the DMV.
Now, obviously, Republicans know first hand that the government can't run anything, (e.g. the past 8 years), but an inept government health care program would simply mean that the private sector would flourish. And the private sector flourishing is supposedly what Republicans are for, correct? Yes, a failed public program would cost the federal government billions, (kind of like the war in Iraq), and "How are we going to pay for it?" is a legitimate concern, (more on that later), but, being that our country is a popular democracy, I guarantee if a government program doesn't work, then we won't keep it, (e.g. slavery, prohibition, women's and Blacks' right to vote, etc.).
The truth is that the VA and Medicare programs offer strong evidence that the government CAN run a health care system; and the existence of the US Postal Service and FedEx, and the proximity of UC Berkeley to Stanford are proof that a public system CAN coexist with the private sector.
The "socialized-medicine would stop innovation" argument is usually made by people without an understanding of basic human psychology. We are "America" – Our culture is to strive to be the best, and we are always going to be at the forefront of science and technology. We are not going to stop being "America" just because everybody can afford to go to a doctor. And if a highly qualified individual doesn't pursue a career in medicine just because the paycheck isn't as big as it used to be then that is a good thing – I don't want a guy who is purely motivated by money to be treating my child, anyways.
The "death panels" argument is plain stupid, and shouldn't even be justified with a rebuttal, but financially, I'm against "death panels" because it doesn't make sense for the government to spend billions of dollars on making sure all our citizens can live to a ripe old age to then just kill them when they get to that ripe old age. Our current system is much more cost efficient when it comes to killing people. And politically it doesn't make sense for politicians to pass a law that kills the people who voted for them, (do you realize how easy it will be to run for office against "the guy who killed Grandma"?). Besides, Saint Peter is the only "death panel" that I need, dag gummit!
The "rationing" argument: Rationing is what we have now, and a reason why we need reform – Anyone who is against "rationing" should be FOR health care reform. To think that a not-for-profit government program would "ration" care more than a profit-motivated private corporation does, is idiotic.
The "bureaucracy" argument: Bureaucracy is what we have now, and a reason why we need reform – Anyone who is against "bureaucracy" should be FOR health care reform. A fun health care bureaucracy game that I like to play is called: "call the insurance company when they are wrong." It's a rather simple game – all one needs is to be billed for a service that the insurance company was supposed to cover. First, call the insurance company and explain the reason for the call, then simply multiply the number of times that the call is transferred by the number of minutes that are spent on hold, and then pull out an encyclopedia to see if that number is greater than the age of the universe.
The "Obama is Hitler!" argument: Hmmm, the guy pushing for inclusiveness and "bi-partisanship" is like Adolf Hitler? What's really pissing off these white supremacists is that now we a have a Black president and the only way that they can put him down is by denouncing their idol. President Obama is not comparable to Hitler and a government health care program has nothing to do with Nazism – I have yet to see one World War II-set movie in which there is a plot to kill Hitler because he was FOR socialized medicine!
The "tort reform/medical malpractice" argument: Yes, frivolous lawsuits and malpractice coverage are a major reason for the exorbitant price of health care, but the need for tort reform has been a problem for decades, and it is not just a coincidence that the "tort reform/medical malpractice" argument only surfaces whenever there is a push for actual health care reform. The "tort reform/medical malpractice" argument is a distraction technique. If the people who are bringing it up now were honestly concerned with the strain that malpractice claims place on our health care system, then they would have been passionately lobbying for reform throughout the Bush presidency.
The "When has the government ever taken away power and given it back?" argument: I would love to address this whiny/paranoid argument but I have to go remove a micro-chip that some dudes who repelled from a black helicopter inserted into me.
Again, the United States of America is a popular democracy which means WE are the government. When have WE ever taken power and given it back – Other than slavery, prohibition, women's and Blacks' right to vote? How about school desegregation, internment camps, and recently, Mohammed Jawad?
The "How are we going to pay for it?" argument is a legitimate dispute, but it usually takes having all of their other absurd statements shot down before the anti-health care reformers make this claim.
Being concerned with our nation's rising debt is a major reason to be FOR healthcare reform because not reforming our healthcare system will be much more costly. Yes, health care reform will be expensive, but THAT IS WHY WE NEED IT! Health care spending is nearing 20% of our GDP and to not address this problem will be fiscally devastating. Health care reform will reduce bankruptcies, reduce economic strain on small-business owners, reduce the financial burden that the uninsured place on private insurance companies, and reduce the overall cost of health care. Not having health care reform will be much more expensive.
But if cost were truly a concern for these people, they would have been protesting throughout the Bush administration and they would oppose national parks, all foreign aid for disaster relief, and the war in Iraq.
Yes, there are some anti-health care reformers who are against all government spending, but these people, like Ron Paul, are not practical and most likely have Asperger's syndrome. Most people who are making the "How are we going to pay for it?" argument are hypocrites who had no problem with Dubya running up the deficit. They are "us versus themmers," and are simply obstructionists who think our government is merely a team sport. Yes, these "town hallers" are honestly pissed off, but they are not angry for the reasons that they say they are. They are either, by definition, "conservatives" which means they want to conserve the way things are regardless of the alternative, or they are just mad because they are sore losers, stupid, crazy, and/or racist. And they are without credibility because the past 8 years were an experiment that unequivocally proved, (with the culmination of "bailouts" and being on the verge of a global economic collapse), that conservatives' economic policies do not work. (Thankfully, when it comes to governing our nation, Republicans are currently irrelevant.)
I have always been a free market capitalist, but I am also a realist. I, like the conservatives, do not want the United States to turn into France, but unlike many conservatives, I am actually aware of history and would prefer avoiding a class-warfare, French-style, revolution. Yes, public health care is a form of socialism, but so are farm subsidies, interstate highways, and the local fire department.
The current health care debate is really about "unalienable rights" and whether medicine is necessary for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Should the citizenry's access to health care be a stipulation in the social contract from which our Government derives its power?
Health care is increasingly becoming something that the poor, unemployed, working/middle class, small business owners, and everybody with "pre-existing" conditions cannot attain on their own, and since the government footing the bill for our federal court system, public education, and national defense, are not causing these "town hallers" to weep, "I want my country back," then neither should the government providing health care.
I have faith in President Obama, and I am sure we will have meaningful health care reform soon but, unfortunately, due to the media's inability to present a logical debate, America will most likely have to wait until a health care bill can be passed in memory of Ted Kennedy.
(...And to this lady at Arlen Specter's town hall the other day who shouted about awakening "a sleeping giant": Really? Now that the federal government is attempting to stabilize medical costs, provide health care coverage to the poor and uninsured, and make corporate illness profiteers more accountable to their customers, now you've become interested in our government? The Supreme Court deciding a presidential election with a 5-4, "burn after reading" decision didn't do it, 9/11 didn't do it, being lied into an unnecessary war didn't do it, the Valerie Plame scandal, the handling of Katrina, the firing of US attorneys for strictly political reasons, waterboarding, wiretapping, deregulation nearly causing another great depression didn't do it, but trying to make sure that citizens with a "pre-existing condition" can have access to affordable health care did it? You're stupid, crazy, and/or lying! Please shut up and let the adults with consciences do the decision making!)
I have no problem with Republicans and the insurance industry being against health care reform – it's their duty. Politicians have donors and constituents to appease, and corporations have employees with families to feed along with share holders who expect a return on their investments – to not whole-heartedly fight to maintain the status quo would be irresponsible. But the most popular anti-health care reform arguments are so remedial that it is the equivalent of fighting an uphill battle without ammunition, yet they are winning; and even the most competent of journalists and political analysts are missing the lyrics for the music.
Lately, the most ire arousing is the failure to instantly shoot down the "Obama says 'if you like your coverage then you can keep it,' but if there is a government option available then employers are going to stop providing that coverage" argument.
So let me get this straight, the fact that businesses will jump at not providing their workers with health insurance the second that they are given the opportunity to do so is why we DON'T need reform?
This argument is ludicrous and proves the opposite of what the arguer is claiming, yet I still have not heard one person with a microphone immediately call "bullshit!"
Yes, because providing employees with health insurance is so financially straining, businesses would welcome the chance to stop paying for coverage, but that is a major reason why we need health care reform. And if the existence of public health care leads to a company discontinuing health coverage for its employees, the money that that business used to allot for workers' insurance is not going to evaporate – It would just mean that instead of letting an insurance company put that money into a pool that the workers disproportionately, or may never, have access to, those dollars will be directly passed on to the employees in the form of a wage or salary increase, thus giving the workers the power to spend the money that they earned instead of some corporate bureaucrat.
Also, a public plan would give businesses AND employees more leverage when it comes to negotiating health care benefits. It's basic economics – supply versus demand. If companies en masse start dropping health care coverage, then insurance companies are going to start losing business. If insurance companies start losing business, then they are going to have to try harder in order to entice companies into purchasing coverage. Those enticements would most likely be providing better coverage at a lesser price which would benefit both business owners AND employees. And if not all businesses offered medical insurance to their employees, then health care benefits would become a greater tool for both a company to use when trying to attract the most talented workforce, AND for the employee to use when deciding where to work.
Another blatantly contradictory statement is the "government can't run anything, and a public option would put the private sector out of business" argument.
Ugggh! I'm sure it is not their intent but what these people are basically saying is either "the government plan would be so terrible that everybody would choose it over private insurance" or "the government program would be so good that we shouldn't have it."
There are a number of ways to expose the stupidity of this claim with the first being to merely repeat what was just said.
Either the government CAN run an organization or it can't – Which is it? Either the government is NASA and our Armed Forces, or it's the line at the DMV.
Now, obviously, Republicans know first hand that the government can't run anything, (e.g. the past 8 years), but an inept government health care program would simply mean that the private sector would flourish. And the private sector flourishing is supposedly what Republicans are for, correct? Yes, a failed public program would cost the federal government billions, (kind of like the war in Iraq), and "How are we going to pay for it?" is a legitimate concern, (more on that later), but, being that our country is a popular democracy, I guarantee if a government program doesn't work, then we won't keep it, (e.g. slavery, prohibition, women's and Blacks' right to vote, etc.).
The truth is that the VA and Medicare programs offer strong evidence that the government CAN run a health care system; and the existence of the US Postal Service and FedEx, and the proximity of UC Berkeley to Stanford are proof that a public system CAN coexist with the private sector.
The "socialized-medicine would stop innovation" argument is usually made by people without an understanding of basic human psychology. We are "America" – Our culture is to strive to be the best, and we are always going to be at the forefront of science and technology. We are not going to stop being "America" just because everybody can afford to go to a doctor. And if a highly qualified individual doesn't pursue a career in medicine just because the paycheck isn't as big as it used to be then that is a good thing – I don't want a guy who is purely motivated by money to be treating my child, anyways.
The "death panels" argument is plain stupid, and shouldn't even be justified with a rebuttal, but financially, I'm against "death panels" because it doesn't make sense for the government to spend billions of dollars on making sure all our citizens can live to a ripe old age to then just kill them when they get to that ripe old age. Our current system is much more cost efficient when it comes to killing people. And politically it doesn't make sense for politicians to pass a law that kills the people who voted for them, (do you realize how easy it will be to run for office against "the guy who killed Grandma"?). Besides, Saint Peter is the only "death panel" that I need, dag gummit!
The "rationing" argument: Rationing is what we have now, and a reason why we need reform – Anyone who is against "rationing" should be FOR health care reform. To think that a not-for-profit government program would "ration" care more than a profit-motivated private corporation does, is idiotic.
The "bureaucracy" argument: Bureaucracy is what we have now, and a reason why we need reform – Anyone who is against "bureaucracy" should be FOR health care reform. A fun health care bureaucracy game that I like to play is called: "call the insurance company when they are wrong." It's a rather simple game – all one needs is to be billed for a service that the insurance company was supposed to cover. First, call the insurance company and explain the reason for the call, then simply multiply the number of times that the call is transferred by the number of minutes that are spent on hold, and then pull out an encyclopedia to see if that number is greater than the age of the universe.
The "Obama is Hitler!" argument: Hmmm, the guy pushing for inclusiveness and "bi-partisanship" is like Adolf Hitler? What's really pissing off these white supremacists is that now we a have a Black president and the only way that they can put him down is by denouncing their idol. President Obama is not comparable to Hitler and a government health care program has nothing to do with Nazism – I have yet to see one World War II-set movie in which there is a plot to kill Hitler because he was FOR socialized medicine!
The "tort reform/medical malpractice" argument: Yes, frivolous lawsuits and malpractice coverage are a major reason for the exorbitant price of health care, but the need for tort reform has been a problem for decades, and it is not just a coincidence that the "tort reform/medical malpractice" argument only surfaces whenever there is a push for actual health care reform. The "tort reform/medical malpractice" argument is a distraction technique. If the people who are bringing it up now were honestly concerned with the strain that malpractice claims place on our health care system, then they would have been passionately lobbying for reform throughout the Bush presidency.
The "When has the government ever taken away power and given it back?" argument: I would love to address this whiny/paranoid argument but I have to go remove a micro-chip that some dudes who repelled from a black helicopter inserted into me.
Again, the United States of America is a popular democracy which means WE are the government. When have WE ever taken power and given it back – Other than slavery, prohibition, women's and Blacks' right to vote? How about school desegregation, internment camps, and recently, Mohammed Jawad?
The "How are we going to pay for it?" argument is a legitimate dispute, but it usually takes having all of their other absurd statements shot down before the anti-health care reformers make this claim.
Being concerned with our nation's rising debt is a major reason to be FOR healthcare reform because not reforming our healthcare system will be much more costly. Yes, health care reform will be expensive, but THAT IS WHY WE NEED IT! Health care spending is nearing 20% of our GDP and to not address this problem will be fiscally devastating. Health care reform will reduce bankruptcies, reduce economic strain on small-business owners, reduce the financial burden that the uninsured place on private insurance companies, and reduce the overall cost of health care. Not having health care reform will be much more expensive.
But if cost were truly a concern for these people, they would have been protesting throughout the Bush administration and they would oppose national parks, all foreign aid for disaster relief, and the war in Iraq.
Yes, there are some anti-health care reformers who are against all government spending, but these people, like Ron Paul, are not practical and most likely have Asperger's syndrome. Most people who are making the "How are we going to pay for it?" argument are hypocrites who had no problem with Dubya running up the deficit. They are "us versus themmers," and are simply obstructionists who think our government is merely a team sport. Yes, these "town hallers" are honestly pissed off, but they are not angry for the reasons that they say they are. They are either, by definition, "conservatives" which means they want to conserve the way things are regardless of the alternative, or they are just mad because they are sore losers, stupid, crazy, and/or racist. And they are without credibility because the past 8 years were an experiment that unequivocally proved, (with the culmination of "bailouts" and being on the verge of a global economic collapse), that conservatives' economic policies do not work. (Thankfully, when it comes to governing our nation, Republicans are currently irrelevant.)
I have always been a free market capitalist, but I am also a realist. I, like the conservatives, do not want the United States to turn into France, but unlike many conservatives, I am actually aware of history and would prefer avoiding a class-warfare, French-style, revolution. Yes, public health care is a form of socialism, but so are farm subsidies, interstate highways, and the local fire department.
The current health care debate is really about "unalienable rights" and whether medicine is necessary for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Should the citizenry's access to health care be a stipulation in the social contract from which our Government derives its power?
Health care is increasingly becoming something that the poor, unemployed, working/middle class, small business owners, and everybody with "pre-existing" conditions cannot attain on their own, and since the government footing the bill for our federal court system, public education, and national defense, are not causing these "town hallers" to weep, "I want my country back," then neither should the government providing health care.
I have faith in President Obama, and I am sure we will have meaningful health care reform soon but, unfortunately, due to the media's inability to present a logical debate, America will most likely have to wait until a health care bill can be passed in memory of Ted Kennedy.
(...And to this lady at Arlen Specter's town hall the other day who shouted about awakening "a sleeping giant": Really? Now that the federal government is attempting to stabilize medical costs, provide health care coverage to the poor and uninsured, and make corporate illness profiteers more accountable to their customers, now you've become interested in our government? The Supreme Court deciding a presidential election with a 5-4, "burn after reading" decision didn't do it, 9/11 didn't do it, being lied into an unnecessary war didn't do it, the Valerie Plame scandal, the handling of Katrina, the firing of US attorneys for strictly political reasons, waterboarding, wiretapping, deregulation nearly causing another great depression didn't do it, but trying to make sure that citizens with a "pre-existing condition" can have access to affordable health care did it? You're stupid, crazy, and/or lying! Please shut up and let the adults with consciences do the decision making!)
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Race Card Driver
The current Skip Gates situation has nothing to do with race, but it has a lot to do with acting stupidly!
Skip Gates is an asshole! He is uncompromising and views everything through the lens of race. But being an asshole shouldn't be an arrestable offense...especially when within one's own home.
One reason that I don't have a problem with calling Mr. Gates an asshole is because I am rather familiar with him – During my African-American Studies courses at UCLA I was exposed to Professor Gates' work and his views on race relations within the United States; but the main reason that I don't have a problem with calling Mr. Gates an asshole is because I, myself, am an asshole. And that is the main issue here.
Regardless of the exact order of events, and exactly what was said, the pertinent facts are clear: Somebody called the cops and reported a break-in at Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s address. The Cambridge Police responded. Mr. Gates was there, it was his house, there was not a break-in, and there wasn't any need for police assistance yet Gates' behavior led to a middle-aged Black man, who walks with a cane, and was in his own home, being placed in handcuffs and arrested for a charge that was immediately dropped.
Skip Gates AND the Cambridge Police acted stupidly!
The police responded to a non-situation yet arrested a highly-renowned Black scholar because he just couldn't resist being "uppity" in his own house. That's stupid! It's stupid legally, it's stupid behaviorally, and it's stupid public relations wise!
But the controversy surrounding this case was not spawned because Gates and the Cambridge Police acted stupidly – the controversy arose because Gates and the Cambridge Police couldn't handle their stupidity being pointed out.
Police officers deserve our respect and admiration but they are not ENTITLED to our respect and admiration. A lot of us who went to school with kids who became cops realize that they were idiots and/or assholes when they were young and now they are just grown-up idiots and/or assholes with a gun and a badge.
But police officers are human beings and they have a very dangerous job. Like my Mom always used to tell me, "Every time they put on that uniform it's like putting a bulls-eye on their chests."
Their lives are on the line nearly every second that they are on duty, and if they allow one citizen to be unruly and challenge their authority, it will lead to other citizens being unruly and challenging their authority, and so on, until the "ultimate punishment" will be the only method available to maintain order.
Skip Gates was unruly, and he challenged the cops' authority, so he got arrested. He was quickly released and, since he didn't get ass-raped or shanked while he was locked up, "no harm, no foul."
But the arresting officer in this case, Sgt. James Crowley, chose to be a police officer and with his authority comes responsibility; and, again, like my Mom always used to tell me, "If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen."
Please do not misunderstand me – just because Gates and the Cambridge Police acted stupidly, it doesn't mean that they are stupid – it just means that they acted stupidly. I act stupidly every day. That doesn't mean that I am stupid it just means that I am really good at it – and there is nothing wrong with that. The problem isn't acting stupidly – the problem is lacking necessary self-awareness and/or being so thin-skinned that even the slightest criticism is devastating to one's ego.
Gates did not appreciate a White cop giving him directions in his own home, and Sgt. Crowley did not appreciate Gates being defiant. Both Gates' and Crowley's egos were threatened and, since Crowley had a gun and a badge, it led to Gates being arrested. That's it, that's all – a man was arrested for no reason other than because he could be. And that's stupid! Professor Gates' and Sgt. Crowley's fragile sense of self are why Gates was arrested; and the Cambridge Police Department's necessity to project infallibility in order to maintain order are why they are so offended by President Obama's widely-publicized assertion that they "acted stupidly."
The reason that this is being debated as a "racial" issue, (other than because Professor Gates is adamant that it is), is because instances like this, of police abusing their power, happen everyday, especially to minorities.
Inadequate individuals do not attack the strong, they attack the weaker. And when it comes to our justice system, the poor and uneducated are the weaker; and the majority of the poor and uneducated are minorities.
10 years ago I was pulled over while driving with my Black roommate in the car. Our only crime was driving late at night while being young, (and him being Black).
I was Pre-Law at Cal State San Marcos, (1 of 8 majors at 1 of 4 schools – my 4 years of college were the best 8 years of my life), so I knew a little more than most about the 4th amendment. Almost immediately upon approaching my vehicle they asked my roommate for his ID. I told my roommate and the cops that he did not have to show them anything – He was a passenger, I was the driver, and we were (supposedly) pulled over for a moving violation. But they persisted and kept asking him questions. I repeatedly told him not to say anything, and repeatedly told them that he didn't have to answer their questions – Again, I was the driver, and we were (supposedly) pulled over for a moving violation. They did not like my attitude, and I could tell, but it was the night before my Mom's funeral and I didn't want to get held for 24 hours just because, so I shut my mouth and we were soon on our way without any citation or warning.
Had I continued being an asshole I would have been taken into custody simply because they were the cops, and I was not. Race was the reason that I was pulled over, but giving the officers no avenue to demonstrate their power other than to arrest me would have been the reason that I spent the night in jail.
But Professor Gates is not poor and uneducated, and race did not play a role in his arrest, (other than it being the motivation for his agitation).
Yes, racial profiling exists, but the problem is not elevated arrest rates among certain demographics, the problem is law enforcement abusing its power.
I remember quite fondly when, during my "Malcolm X and the History of the Black Liberation" course at UCLA, after Professor Wolfenstein read statistics contrasting the ethnic makeup of our prison population with the general population, he and the rest of the class agreed that the statistics revealed that minorities were unfairly prosecuted, I, (one of 3 Whites in the class), raised my hand and stated that, "the numbers reveal that a higher percentage of minorities commit crimes."
I’m an asshole. But the reality is – we were all right.
Skip Gates and Sgt. Crowley are assholes, but they, and President Obama, are all right – It was stupid that Professor Gates was arrested, and it had nothing to do with race.
Skip Gates is an asshole! He is uncompromising and views everything through the lens of race. But being an asshole shouldn't be an arrestable offense...especially when within one's own home.
One reason that I don't have a problem with calling Mr. Gates an asshole is because I am rather familiar with him – During my African-American Studies courses at UCLA I was exposed to Professor Gates' work and his views on race relations within the United States; but the main reason that I don't have a problem with calling Mr. Gates an asshole is because I, myself, am an asshole. And that is the main issue here.
Regardless of the exact order of events, and exactly what was said, the pertinent facts are clear: Somebody called the cops and reported a break-in at Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s address. The Cambridge Police responded. Mr. Gates was there, it was his house, there was not a break-in, and there wasn't any need for police assistance yet Gates' behavior led to a middle-aged Black man, who walks with a cane, and was in his own home, being placed in handcuffs and arrested for a charge that was immediately dropped.
Skip Gates AND the Cambridge Police acted stupidly!
The police responded to a non-situation yet arrested a highly-renowned Black scholar because he just couldn't resist being "uppity" in his own house. That's stupid! It's stupid legally, it's stupid behaviorally, and it's stupid public relations wise!
But the controversy surrounding this case was not spawned because Gates and the Cambridge Police acted stupidly – the controversy arose because Gates and the Cambridge Police couldn't handle their stupidity being pointed out.
Police officers deserve our respect and admiration but they are not ENTITLED to our respect and admiration. A lot of us who went to school with kids who became cops realize that they were idiots and/or assholes when they were young and now they are just grown-up idiots and/or assholes with a gun and a badge.
But police officers are human beings and they have a very dangerous job. Like my Mom always used to tell me, "Every time they put on that uniform it's like putting a bulls-eye on their chests."
Their lives are on the line nearly every second that they are on duty, and if they allow one citizen to be unruly and challenge their authority, it will lead to other citizens being unruly and challenging their authority, and so on, until the "ultimate punishment" will be the only method available to maintain order.
Skip Gates was unruly, and he challenged the cops' authority, so he got arrested. He was quickly released and, since he didn't get ass-raped or shanked while he was locked up, "no harm, no foul."
But the arresting officer in this case, Sgt. James Crowley, chose to be a police officer and with his authority comes responsibility; and, again, like my Mom always used to tell me, "If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen."
Please do not misunderstand me – just because Gates and the Cambridge Police acted stupidly, it doesn't mean that they are stupid – it just means that they acted stupidly. I act stupidly every day. That doesn't mean that I am stupid it just means that I am really good at it – and there is nothing wrong with that. The problem isn't acting stupidly – the problem is lacking necessary self-awareness and/or being so thin-skinned that even the slightest criticism is devastating to one's ego.
Gates did not appreciate a White cop giving him directions in his own home, and Sgt. Crowley did not appreciate Gates being defiant. Both Gates' and Crowley's egos were threatened and, since Crowley had a gun and a badge, it led to Gates being arrested. That's it, that's all – a man was arrested for no reason other than because he could be. And that's stupid! Professor Gates' and Sgt. Crowley's fragile sense of self are why Gates was arrested; and the Cambridge Police Department's necessity to project infallibility in order to maintain order are why they are so offended by President Obama's widely-publicized assertion that they "acted stupidly."
The reason that this is being debated as a "racial" issue, (other than because Professor Gates is adamant that it is), is because instances like this, of police abusing their power, happen everyday, especially to minorities.
Inadequate individuals do not attack the strong, they attack the weaker. And when it comes to our justice system, the poor and uneducated are the weaker; and the majority of the poor and uneducated are minorities.
10 years ago I was pulled over while driving with my Black roommate in the car. Our only crime was driving late at night while being young, (and him being Black).
I was Pre-Law at Cal State San Marcos, (1 of 8 majors at 1 of 4 schools – my 4 years of college were the best 8 years of my life), so I knew a little more than most about the 4th amendment. Almost immediately upon approaching my vehicle they asked my roommate for his ID. I told my roommate and the cops that he did not have to show them anything – He was a passenger, I was the driver, and we were (supposedly) pulled over for a moving violation. But they persisted and kept asking him questions. I repeatedly told him not to say anything, and repeatedly told them that he didn't have to answer their questions – Again, I was the driver, and we were (supposedly) pulled over for a moving violation. They did not like my attitude, and I could tell, but it was the night before my Mom's funeral and I didn't want to get held for 24 hours just because, so I shut my mouth and we were soon on our way without any citation or warning.
Had I continued being an asshole I would have been taken into custody simply because they were the cops, and I was not. Race was the reason that I was pulled over, but giving the officers no avenue to demonstrate their power other than to arrest me would have been the reason that I spent the night in jail.
But Professor Gates is not poor and uneducated, and race did not play a role in his arrest, (other than it being the motivation for his agitation).
Yes, racial profiling exists, but the problem is not elevated arrest rates among certain demographics, the problem is law enforcement abusing its power.
I remember quite fondly when, during my "Malcolm X and the History of the Black Liberation" course at UCLA, after Professor Wolfenstein read statistics contrasting the ethnic makeup of our prison population with the general population, he and the rest of the class agreed that the statistics revealed that minorities were unfairly prosecuted, I, (one of 3 Whites in the class), raised my hand and stated that, "the numbers reveal that a higher percentage of minorities commit crimes."
I’m an asshole. But the reality is – we were all right.
Skip Gates and Sgt. Crowley are assholes, but they, and President Obama, are all right – It was stupid that Professor Gates was arrested, and it had nothing to do with race.
Friday, July 24, 2009
The Zodiac Killer
It is officially the end of one of the worst periods of the year – though it is still holocaust deniers' favorite month, (Jew-lie), it is no longer the birthday season for people with the most awful astrological sign.
I'm an Aries. I like being an Aries. Whenever I tell women who are into astrology that I am an Aries, they always respond with an intrigued/panic-stricken look. Their mouths then say, "Aries are passionate," but their faces say, "You're gonna fuck me 'til I love you and then never call."
"Aries" sounds cool, it is the FIRST sign in the Zodiac, and a ram is a rather butch animal. Also, "Ares" is the Greek God of war. But people born between June 22 and July 22 aren't as fortunate as me because those who have had birthdays within the past four weeks are Cancers.
Whenever someone tells me that they are a Cancer I respond with a compassionate/disgusted look. My mouth then says "That sucks," and my face says, "Don’t kill yourself, but if you do I'll understand."
Cancer is devastating and the most widely-affecting disease on the planet; and the word "Cancer" never elicits positive associations.
But Cancers then always respond, "Cancer, as in Crabs," as if that makes it better: "Oh, it's not carcinoma, it's sexually transmitted..."
Granted, Crabs aren't as bad as Herpes, but when I hear "Cancer" I don't think "Deadliest Catch;" and just because your sign doesn't need an oncologist isn't a plus.
And imagine the stigma that kids who are Cancers grow up with. Every time that they get introduced it's the equivalent of saying, "This is Tommy – he's a Leo, this is Sally – she's malignant..."
The astrological sign, Cancer, needs to be done away with because its detriments far outweigh its benefits. I don't care if Venus is in retrograde, horoscopes should not metastasize, and being a "Cancer" is not okay!
There are plenty of other crustaceans to choose from, and I'm pretty sure nobody would mind if we even replaced the sign with a mollusk. But though Scallops are good when cooked right and wrapped with bacon, I think the best choice for replacing "Cancer" is "Lobster." Lobsters also have claws, taste great, and are expensive; but even for people who don't like eating lobster, the worst connotation the name conjures is "Maine," "market price," or "Monk fish"...and none of those require biopsies!
I'm an Aries. I like being an Aries. Whenever I tell women who are into astrology that I am an Aries, they always respond with an intrigued/panic-stricken look. Their mouths then say, "Aries are passionate," but their faces say, "You're gonna fuck me 'til I love you and then never call."
"Aries" sounds cool, it is the FIRST sign in the Zodiac, and a ram is a rather butch animal. Also, "Ares" is the Greek God of war. But people born between June 22 and July 22 aren't as fortunate as me because those who have had birthdays within the past four weeks are Cancers.
Whenever someone tells me that they are a Cancer I respond with a compassionate/disgusted look. My mouth then says "That sucks," and my face says, "Don’t kill yourself, but if you do I'll understand."
Cancer is devastating and the most widely-affecting disease on the planet; and the word "Cancer" never elicits positive associations.
But Cancers then always respond, "Cancer, as in Crabs," as if that makes it better: "Oh, it's not carcinoma, it's sexually transmitted..."
Granted, Crabs aren't as bad as Herpes, but when I hear "Cancer" I don't think "Deadliest Catch;" and just because your sign doesn't need an oncologist isn't a plus.
And imagine the stigma that kids who are Cancers grow up with. Every time that they get introduced it's the equivalent of saying, "This is Tommy – he's a Leo, this is Sally – she's malignant..."
The astrological sign, Cancer, needs to be done away with because its detriments far outweigh its benefits. I don't care if Venus is in retrograde, horoscopes should not metastasize, and being a "Cancer" is not okay!
There are plenty of other crustaceans to choose from, and I'm pretty sure nobody would mind if we even replaced the sign with a mollusk. But though Scallops are good when cooked right and wrapped with bacon, I think the best choice for replacing "Cancer" is "Lobster." Lobsters also have claws, taste great, and are expensive; but even for people who don't like eating lobster, the worst connotation the name conjures is "Maine," "market price," or "Monk fish"...and none of those require biopsies!
Monday, July 20, 2009
RockyRob Video Beat Down
Welcome to the 1st "RockyRob Video Beat Down."
Watch the videos then leave a comment explaining which one you prefer. And if you'd like, include reasons for your preference. Enjoy!
*Explicit Lyrics*
Watch the videos then leave a comment explaining which one you prefer. And if you'd like, include reasons for your preference. Enjoy!
*Explicit Lyrics*
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
AP - DNR RNC
WASHINGTON (AP) - Today the Republican National Committee dropped a resolution to call the Democratic Party the "Democrat-Socialist" Party but instead voted on a motion to formally recognize the Democrats' "March to Socialism."
In a related, yet way less reported story, today the Democratic National Committee did not vote on something totally insignificant.
(Though some Democrats were overheard chuckling at the consideration of officially referring to the current Republican Party as the "Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight-Republicans," the "Republicans That Totally Messed Up Our Country-Party," or simply "The Party That Seems To Be Entirely Filled With Republican Douche Nozzles Who Are Always Focused On Absolutely Insignificant Shit Other Than Actual Governing-Party.")
Copyright 2009 Associated Press
In a related, yet way less reported story, today the Democratic National Committee did not vote on something totally insignificant.
(Though some Democrats were overheard chuckling at the consideration of officially referring to the current Republican Party as the "Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight-Republicans," the "Republicans That Totally Messed Up Our Country-Party," or simply "The Party That Seems To Be Entirely Filled With Republican Douche Nozzles Who Are Always Focused On Absolutely Insignificant Shit Other Than Actual Governing-Party.")
Copyright 2009 Associated Press
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
