Let's Keep Damaging the Economy by...

Continuing to screw the poor people.

Sure, the economy blows. It's awful. And the student loan bubble is about to burst and then the shit is really going to hit the fan. It's really tempting for the federal government to do what individual families do when they are facing a financial hardship - they cut out the good stuff. No meals out, no trips to amusement parks, no extra goodies in the stockings on Christmas morning. The non-essentials, essentially. It's bologna sandwiches and Hamburger Helper for a few months, and you gotta suck it up.

When we move up the ranks to discuss the federal government, we seem them attempting to practice the same kind of logic. Cut out the non-essentials,  and reevaluate what we are spending too much of our money on. The only problem here is that the federal government doesn't really seem to comprehend what is actually essential. They keep increasing defense budgets, for example, but threaten to cut education and social service budgets.

Maybe this is just me, but I think an individual is more likely to need food on their table every day than a fancy nuclear weapon a few decades down the road thrown at whatever country's throats we feel like shoving democracy down at that current moment.

Simply put, making poor people poorer does nothing but damage the economy further. A person who is supplied a small amount of food supplement money each month costs the state a lot less than a person whose children are taken into state custody when they can no longer be fed at home. A homeless person who makes use of a shelter once in awhile costs less money than a homeless person who has to be hospitalized for frostbite or hypothermia, or jailed for sleeping in public.

Whatever equations the federal government is doing to try to convince themselves that cutting social services will financially work for this country are being left unfinished, or the wrong variables are being used. While there is not much we can do to shape policy and what our legislators are determined to make law and mandate, we can reshape our own personal opinions about welfare and how it is used, and perhaps in the long run, the vicious circle won't be so vicious anymore.

Why it Scares Me Michele Bachmann is a [Foster] Mother.

Recently, at a book-signing in in South Carolina, a young boy at the age of eight walked up to Michele Bachmann and said "My mommy's gay, and she doesn't need fixing." For such a small statement, you can take a hell of a lot out of it. The fact that a child is eight years old and already has some idea of equality for gays and lesbians is fantastic. The fact that he is eight and understands that some people don't like his mom for being who he is, is not.

There is a link to this video in the article that is linked above. If you watch the video, you see the sequence of events goes like this. Rep. Bachmann is extremely welcoming to the boy, and when she can't hear what he says (after his mother says to him "didn't you have something you wanted to say?"), she asks him to come closer, eventually encircling him in some kind of odd, over-the-table hug so she can hear what he says. You'll notice how purely nice she is to the child, including lowering herself to his level, and speaking to him in child-friendly language ("I couldn't hear you, I think my ears were too far away."). However, once she hears what young Elijah has to say, she immediately recoils, removes her embrace, stands up, and basically dismisses him without another word.

Afterwards, as quoted in the article, Rep. Bachmann said, about Elijah"[He] obviously didn't want to say what he was put up to say, and I just think it's reprehensible when someone uses a little child to advance a political agenda." (Before I continue, if anyone just thought of how shamelessly Sarah Palin uses her family, especially her children, to further her political agendas, you get brownie points). Now, with all honestly, Rep. Bachmann may be right in her assuming that child was asked to say that to her, without much knowledge on his part, but the fact that she assumes this child cannot possibly hold opinions of his own about how people, and particularly politicians like Michele Bachmann treat gays and lesbians, like his mother, is terrifying.

I am pretty sure that at the age of eight years old, I had opinions about shit. It might have been that Honey Nut Cheerios were (are) better than regular Cheerios, or that the garlic pepper my dad puts on everything is disgusting (I have since learned better), but I had opinions. And I strongly believe, had my parents been the ridicule of every Republican candidate around, I would have an opinion around that too. Rep. Bachmann thus makes it clear in her statement that she has a slim understanding of children when she infers from Elijah's nervousness about speaking to, in his mind an incredibly important person, and the fact that he is a "little child," that he cannot have formed that opinion by himself. Dear god, EIGHT YEAR OLDS HAVE FEELINGS ABOUT THINGS? Preposterous.

I also want to point out how incredibly undignified Rep. Bachmann's actions were towards Elijah after he completed his sentence. You're right, Representative, he is a little child, thus your cold indifference to him after you learned of his stance on gay rights truly proved to him just how truly awful a person you can be.

Perhaps this could all be forgiven if Rep. Bachmann just didn't have a lot of experience with children, which is highly possible given her chosen career. But, alas, Rep. Bachmann has five biological children, and was the foster mother to twenty three teenaged girls. Somehow, a mother, who has cared for twenty eight children throughout her lifetime, quickly and unashamedly accused a young child of not having the ability to construct his own opinions, simply because she did not agree with his view.

So yes, the fact that Michele Bachmann has raised five children, and cared for twenty three more, and somehow has not gathered enough insight to continue to be a welcoming, warmhearted presence for a child who simply is tired of his mother being a victim of society's antics, scares me. It scares me she simply couldn't have said, while still remaining close to him, "I'm sorry you feel that way," or "Just because your mom and I don't get along, doesn't mean I think something is wrong with her," etc.

It seems as if pundits and commentators have consistently said that if a woman was to take office, she would need to discourage the "feminine" traits of being motherly, caring, considerate, and so on and so forth. Well, America, you may have found your perfect match.

Why Rick Perry is a Very Confused Man.

I have to give it to the GOP presidential contenders for the amount of awesome material they are giving liberals like me this jolly political season. For awhile now, I have been cheerfully giggling at the ridiculousness of Rick Perry's campaign, and all the gaffes that have gone along with it. From forgetting the third of the three main agencies he plans to dismantle if he becomes president, exclaiming that the voting age is 21, confusing that America is/was at war with Iran instead of Iraq, failing to remember Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor's last name, and stating there are eight Supreme Court justices instead of nine, poor, bumbling Rick Perry has gone Joe Biden multiplied by a hundred.

Mostly, I considered these actions harmless. In effect, Mr. Perry was digging his own little, Texas-shaped grave. Then, this happened. Mr. Perry decided to up the ante, and even against the wishes of many of his campaign staff, posted a video clearly declaring an anti-gay policy platform (wearing a jacket from Brokeback Mountain, no less).

Now this, this I consider harmful. It's really not because Rick Perry is anti-gay, because that is still a required component for a neo-conservative in a modern political race. It's not even really the fact that he posted a ridiculously innocent-like video on YouTube about it. It's the statement he makes comparing the banishment of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy with American schoolchildren not being able to pray and celebrate Christmas in public schools.

Obviously, Mr. Perry is attempting to make a classic argument, in which if one similar thing is legal, and another similar thing is not, there is a flaw in whatever system those two things are operating within. An example of this type of argument, that personally works for me, is: When it is considered illegal for an adult to not wear his or her seat-belt while in a car, but it is not considered illegal for an adult to not wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, ATV, or other similar vehicle, there is a flaw in the system surrounding an individual's right to to determine his or her own level of safety. This argument makes sense. Why? Analyze the similarities. Both situations have to do with an individual's own personal safety, and a seat-belt and a helmet offer similar types of protection (preventative).

Now let's analyze Mr. Perry's argument. The two facets are this: Gays and lesbians serving openly in the military; and Christian children practicing their faith (specifically praying and celebrating Christmas) in public schools. Already, we have a problem with the comparison of the subjects - gay and lesbian adults, and schoolchildren of the Christian faith. To expand upon the problem, being gay is not a choice, as religion is, but an integral part of a person's identity. Thus, Mr. Perry is comparing a choice against a given, which causes much confusion.

Secondly, the comparison of the situations, a career versus actions within a public institution, is also problem stricken. Except in rare cases, an employer in this country is not allowed to not hire someone based upon their age, gender, disability, religion, and sexual orientation (amongst others), but Mr. Perry is clearly saying here that this policy does not need to be upheld by the U.S. government itself. At this point, some people might be saying "Aha! You can't discriminate against someone because of their religion! Let the little kiddies pray!" And those people would be correct, in the first part of their statement; you can't discriminate within the terms of religion, thus all public schools therefore have to be hands off. If a school sponsored prayer, or the celebration of a specific religious holiday (regardless of how irreligious it has become), then it is therefore discriminating against every other student who believes in something else other than Christianity.

It would also be prudent at this time to remind Mr. Perry that children are indeed allowed to pray in school, as long as they are not disrupting other children with their behavior (which goes for ANY behavior, not just prayer). Celebrating Christmas is also usually allowed. I don't remember ever being punished for wearing an (ugly) Christmas sweater to school, or bringing gifts for friends. Mr. Perry's confusion here is with the difference between individual behavior, and school-sponsored behavior.

When you clear away all the hullabaloo from this scenario, we are left with this: Mr. Perry is confusingly stating "we" are discriminating in a situation in which we clearly are not. He is therefore confusing non-discrimination with...non-discrimination? Confusing indeed, Mr. Perry.

Why Herman Cain is NOT the Biggest Douchebag.

Alright, let's get one thing straight: Herman Cain is undoubtedly a douchebag. His slimy little grin makes me shudder from head to toe, and certainly not in a good way. He somehow wedged his way into the GOP Presidential race, which was a big enough shit show to begin with, with his completely ridiculous and unfounded "999" tax policy idea, and a seriously frightening (non)explanation of why President Obama's actions regarding Libya were wrong. The race seemed to still be in full swing for Mr. Cain when the worst thing happened that can happen to a, erm, politician (if he can be called that): his Chief of Staff (ahem...) was found to be incapable of maintaining its "discretion," shall we say.

To be fair, the past few political seasons have seen the downfall of many political men for cheating, or being rather scandalous. Mark Sanford's affair, both Arnold Schwarzenegger and John Edwards cheating on their spouses and having children with the mistresses (lest we forget Edwards' wife, the late Elizabeth Edwards, was dying from cancer at the time), and of course the year of the inappropriate Twitter and Craigslist pictures for Anthony Weiner and Chris Lee, both of which concluded in the resignations of the Congressman.

Thus, our surprise at Herman Cain's actions should be limited. Cheating and having affairs, and even instances of sexual harassment are rather commonplace in this country. We just don't like it when the people who are supposed to be the beacons of trustworthiness, responsibility, and "standing by your values," are the ones who commit such acts of immorality, as "normal" as they are. When Mr. Cain effectively ended his campaign this past week, I personally let out a sigh of relief. I felt, and I think a lot of people felt, it was due time for Mr. Cain and his campaign staff, to amputate this very gangrenous Achilles heel of his.

The straw that broke the camel's back was the announcement of Cain's participation in a 13 year-long extra-marital affair.  This is the key premise on which I base my argument that, as much of a douchebag Mr. Cain is, he is not the biggest douchebag in this situation. Why, you ask? Simply this: extra-martial affairs are disgusting, they are immoral (in my opinion), and the vast majority of the time, they lead to unimaginable amounts of heartbreak, but they are consensual. Or at least, in this case it was. It troubles me a great deal, more than a great deal, actually, that Mr. Cain's campaign did not end at that first allegation of sexual harassment.

Let's start at this: sexual harassment is illegal. It is something that can cause a person to be fired, to be arrested, to be fined, and so on and so forth. I work for the state, and I have been explicitly told that I could be fired for something as small as "leaning over someone inappropriately" or "suggestively moving or posing in a way that makes someone uncomfortable." I'll make sure not to drop my folders next time I wear a skirt to work, essentially. Yet, somehow, Mr. Cain's campaign chugged along after several allegations, and allegations with plenty of evidence, of sexual harassment.

To me, this means that something that should have happened at the moment of the first allegation, or if not then, assuredly after the second, did not happen. And that is, Mr. Cain was not told, or at least by enough or a powerful enough person(s), to end his campaign. He, in fact, felt supported enough to continue. So the biggest douchebag(s) in this situation? Those who paved the way for Mr. Cain to continue his campaign. I am still scratching my head why there was not a mass exodus of Cain campaign staff. Some quit, absolutely, but once again, not enough. Their inaction does nothing but offer support, whether real or intended, to the claim that Mr. Cain was not wrong in his own actions.

I would have liked to see the vast majority of his staff quit, all other GOP Presidential hopefuls denounce his actions and his candidacy, and a (much) larger amount of public protest. Only when people actually commit to reacting against conduct and behavior they say is unfit for any person, let alone a presidential contender, will that behavior and conduct actually start to diminish.

Introduction.

When I was a child I hated writing. Despised it, actually. I remember watching The Waltons (yeah, I was that kind of classy 10 year old...) and wondering why on earth John Boy was obsessed with the idea of becoming a writer. Yet somehow, over the past 15 years or so, I have come to find writing isn't that horrible. Sometimes I even find myself enjoying it (still not sure when that happened). It is almost a puzzle of sorts - you can see all the pieces at the beginning, and know what the end goal is supposed to be, and the work is figuring out how the pieces fit best to give you what you need for the picture to be the clearest when finished.


This blog for me is hopefully going to be a place where I can develop my writing - instead of having an assignment placed upon me by professors (even though I do enjoy those from time to time), I plan to use the awesome tool of StumbleUpon, perhaps links posted by friends, and other items I happen to come across on the great interwebs to inspire me to write something, hopefully once a day. It might be a paragraph, or a mini-novel, or somewhere in between; the main goal is just to get me writing and creating a (hopefully?) meaningful analysis of something related to the topic.

Topic for today:


"ProPublica review of pardons in past decade shows process heavily favored whites" is an article from The Washington Post that was published within the last few hours. The connotation of the article seems to be that of surprise. I'm not entirely sure how anyone who purports themselves to be educated about the criminal justice system this country uses can be surprised by this article.  Wait, wait...you mean to say that minorities, especially blacks, are not treated equally by policejudgeslawyersguardspresidentsetc? Of course I mean to say that, in fact I will argue that the entire American CJ system is attempting to incarcerate the entire population of young black males.

Firstly, how can we be surprised by this material? It has been proven that when people are asked to visualize what a "criminal" is inside their mind, the vast majority of the time they come up with a black male. 44% of the people in our prisons are black, when they make up only 13% of the overall population. 1 out of 9 black males between the ages of 20-35 is currently incarcerated. Problem? I think so.


The statistics go on forever. The fact that the indentured racism, that has gone hand in hand with the American criminal justice system since the days of the Restoratio, is now so glaringly obvious at the Presidential level has me personally wondering why this isn't front and center for Congress. Plain and simple, when it comes to arrests, diversions, adjudications, and convictions, and race, we're doing it wrong. So wrong, in fact, there is simply we no way we can keep the next several generations of minority youth from being gravely and drastically affected by the choices legislators, lawmakers, and law enforcers have made to keep as many black people as property as possible.


Because, truly, at the end of the day, that's what a prisoner is - property of the state. Their entire well-being and daily activities are dictated by actions and decisions not of their own, but of some "master." It is not too far of reach to conclude that America has not ended slavery - we just reformed it.



I would suggest to everyone that you read that article linked above, and look into The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindess by Michelle Alexander.