Last week we were face with two shootings, one in Dayton, Ohio and one in El Paso, Texas with a combined total of roughly 30 dead. The tragedy of this event is hard to put into words, two shootings back to back in the same weekend. The question I always ask myself after these is "why?" Unfortunately, this often the question that often gets thrown aside in favor of the knee-jerk reactions that sprout after these disasters.
The last few mass shootings across the world have targeted minorities, spurring the cause of these tragedies as "white supremacy". It's a start in the right direction, now we need to start asking ourselves why there is a rise in this kind of racism and prejudice. It may lead us to asking questions about current society and culture, hard questions we need to address; however, these questions that are almost universally avoided.
We hate to look inward as a society because we might like what we see, an ugly face looking back at us, push those demons as far away as we can. Instead we blame gun, and now for some reason, video games; and media (music, movies, games, books, ect...) has always been one of the easiest targets, despite being around for centuries. Ban or restrict one of those items, pat yourself on the back with a job well done, you might even get a statistical decrease in violence; but does it really solve the problem?
Sunday, August 11, 2019
Rand Paul's Blunder?
A few weeks
ago, on the floor of Congress, the bill extending healthcare to 9/11 First
Responders was to be voted on. The Senator from New York asked for a unanimous
vote, however, Senator Rand Paul (Kentucky) asked for an amendment to offset
costs. Considering this would be a fund that would continue for nearly a
century, discussing what can be done to offset it seems like a logical idea;
and it would be if politics weren’t completely dominated by emotional uproar.
Senator
Paul’s suggestion for an amendment to offset the costs quickly exploded into a
fire storm of anger and disgust. Though one would agree that perhaps now wasn’t
the time to bring up this subject, considering the controversial nature that
surrounds it, especially after Jon Stewart’s fiery rant in front of Congress
and the death of the 9/11 first responder who joined; but that doesn’t make it
anti-American or hate filled idea. Well not according to twitter where the tag
“#RandPaulHatesAmerica” is trending, being roasted by throngs of reactionary
people.
This goes
into issues with Politics in the age of Social Media, instead of a more
thoughtful process of reviewing what happened, it is easier to simply react
than to think and especially to join the crowd that has already grabbed their
pitch forks. A sheepish mentality wrapped in the white cloak of moral
self-righteousness with a pat on the back from the elites. It is an age-old model in the history of
political discourse, and so easily used to galvanize people against the other
side.
Rand Paul’s
record isn’t perfect, the controversial Tax Cuts he voted for in 2017 and the
increase in military spending in 2016 are a few blemishes on his record. Though
the Tax Cut Bill, he voted in favor while a provision known as “Pay-Go” (info
linked below) was in the bill, and later removed in a subsequent bill. This
little detail is often left out, skewing his image and pushing a narrative of
him as a servant of billionaires; recent Twitter trends have even tried to push
the idea that he is a Russian asset in our modern version of “McCarthyism”.
Most of his record, however, shows
him as a defender of Constitutional Rights, ant-war and interventionalism, and
a fiscal conservative who has given numerous rants on the wasteful spending by
Congress. When Jon Stewart says Sen. Paul is hated by other members Congress,
this is the reason why, he is one who actively stands against waste, and stands
for our rights.
On a final
note, the central part of this narrative is that Senator Paul “Blocked” the
bill, he didn’t, and this where I have to discuss how language is best weapon
of them all. Headlines after this story broke should have read “Rand Paul seeks
to add spending Amendment to 9/11 bill”; however, that’s not sexy enough, it’s
sensational. Using the word “Block” is enough to stir up controversy and
increase click count. And while the press has the right to use such language,
it’s dishonest and clouds the truth that they say they so profoundly defend.
Links
Historical Definition
The easiest comeback in our current political lingo is to call
someone or a group, Nazis, I don’t think I need to much more detail. Recently,
Senator Ocasio-Cortez referred to the Customs and Border Patrol camps at the
U.S. – Mexican border as Concentration Camps. While the dictionary definition may
simply be a place where a large amount of people are concentrated in a single
area, it’s the historical definition that matters here, that these camps are
being equated to the Nazi death camps operated by the SS during World War 2.
Not only is calling your opponent a “Nazi” an easy insult,
it’s also the easiest way to widen the political divide. In order to solve
these issues, we need to be willing to come together and access the problem
with clear minds. Taking self-righteous stands does nothing but perpetuate the
“us vs them” mentality and listening becomes ancient history. Very little will
be accomplished with this, political rhetoric gets harsher and Congress will
suffer nothing but gridlock as the blame game becomes the norm over debates.
The statement from the Holocaust Memorial Museum (linked
below) provides an exceptionally good reason why these analogies are not
healthy for our already polarized society. And while I do respect Sen. Ocasio-Cortez’s
efforts to rectify the horrible situation at the border, she might find herself
with more enemies than allies. Rhetoric that is self-righteous and tries to
shame the other side does little more than harden their resolve.
The situation with our southern goes back as far as I can
remember, and I started following politics under Pres. George W. Bush’s
administration. The continuous banter has resulted with little to no change at
all. How a subject so simple as policing our own border had become such
divisive and even a racially driven topic is beyond me. If we could affirm that
illegal immigration is “illegal” and that immigration is the life blood of the
United States, we could move on to streamlining of immigration system. Instead
it remains an underfunded bureaucratic nightmare simply remain a political
talking point that will never be fixed.
I’ll conclude here with a quick explanation on the concept
of his “Historical Perspective”. It is this method in which we study history
without imposing the views of our time on events and people of the past, it
helps create context. And it is with that context we can take lessons from, so
that we understand people and events within their own timeframe and hopefully
not repeat the same mistakes. This is a concept that is often ignored, often
producing revisionist history (a subject for another time) and creating erroneous
comparisons.
Sunday, June 30, 2019
Quick Thought: The Democratic Debate, Part 2
How can I describe the second Democratic debate? I could call it a debate, but I would call it more of a brawl then a debate, which at least led to some variation. That variation can divided in three ways, Bernie and socialism, Biden and the legacy of Obama, and Democratic rhetoric for the rest. There were a couple times I even our right laughed during this debate, so let us delve into a few highlights.
Probably the most amusing part was Senator Kamala Harris not wanting this debate to become a "food fight". A noble sentiment, we all want a debate thats civil and remains on topic, a debate that is clear an concise, but obviously that is not going to happen and its more soundbite material to make her look more moderate and appealing. Of course, that's not hard standing next to Senator Bernie Sanders who pushes a socialistic agenda.
Speaking Sen. Sanders, I agree with him on his stance on ending the continuous and endless wars we've been in for close to two decades, reigning in the President's war powers, and making the President go to Congress to authorize military force. However, when it comes to Health Care, not only do I disagree with his position, he comes out with completely no plan on how to implement his single-payer, government run system. The other candidates suggested plans phasing private health insurance or allowing for both, Bernie meanwhile would rely on people turning against their private health insurance in some form of revolution, basically a hallow plan that relies on an honor system.
Former Vice-President Joe Biden, despite being the front runner and likely their best bet to beat Trump, came off looking like a tried politician with little to nothing other than "I was Obama's VP". Standing on someone else's record is not a good strategy, it doesn't build confidence that you can do a good job without that other person being there. If he can focus on his record in Congress and ability to work across the aisle (as well as trying to gracefully confront some of the "racial" aspects of it), perhaps that can help him, along with his more charming personality.
Also, lets not forget the most bizare points of this debate, Andrew Yang's plan to given everyone a $1000 a month, a plan that has no basis in reality and will never make it past Congress. And Marianne Williamson, who will defeat Trump with love and will call New Zealand to tell them... their cool...
Aside from those point, most of the debate was the same echos we heard in the first debate, calls for gun control, we need to fight climate change, ect... They're all playing it safe, while some like Sanders stand out with his more radical views, they'll play to the base and not go so far that they jeopardize there candidacy. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says that appeasing the "dude in the diner" is sacrificing the electorate, what fails to understand is that Trump won appealing to that "dude", because he or she is the electorate.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287166468
Probably the most amusing part was Senator Kamala Harris not wanting this debate to become a "food fight". A noble sentiment, we all want a debate thats civil and remains on topic, a debate that is clear an concise, but obviously that is not going to happen and its more soundbite material to make her look more moderate and appealing. Of course, that's not hard standing next to Senator Bernie Sanders who pushes a socialistic agenda.
Speaking Sen. Sanders, I agree with him on his stance on ending the continuous and endless wars we've been in for close to two decades, reigning in the President's war powers, and making the President go to Congress to authorize military force. However, when it comes to Health Care, not only do I disagree with his position, he comes out with completely no plan on how to implement his single-payer, government run system. The other candidates suggested plans phasing private health insurance or allowing for both, Bernie meanwhile would rely on people turning against their private health insurance in some form of revolution, basically a hallow plan that relies on an honor system.
Former Vice-President Joe Biden, despite being the front runner and likely their best bet to beat Trump, came off looking like a tried politician with little to nothing other than "I was Obama's VP". Standing on someone else's record is not a good strategy, it doesn't build confidence that you can do a good job without that other person being there. If he can focus on his record in Congress and ability to work across the aisle (as well as trying to gracefully confront some of the "racial" aspects of it), perhaps that can help him, along with his more charming personality.
Also, lets not forget the most bizare points of this debate, Andrew Yang's plan to given everyone a $1000 a month, a plan that has no basis in reality and will never make it past Congress. And Marianne Williamson, who will defeat Trump with love and will call New Zealand to tell them... their cool...
Aside from those point, most of the debate was the same echos we heard in the first debate, calls for gun control, we need to fight climate change, ect... They're all playing it safe, while some like Sanders stand out with his more radical views, they'll play to the base and not go so far that they jeopardize there candidacy. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says that appeasing the "dude in the diner" is sacrificing the electorate, what fails to understand is that Trump won appealing to that "dude", because he or she is the electorate.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287166468
Thursday, June 27, 2019
Quick Thought: The Democratic Debate, Part 1
As King Theodoen said as the Battle of Helms Deep kicked off "So it begins." Last night was the first of the Democratic Party primary debates, and as far as debates go, it was rather mild. Much of it was the same emotionally filled rhetoric we hear throughout the elections, a tug on the heart strings with domestic policy that are really the prevue of Congress. However, to step aside from my usual cynicism, lets looks a few highlights of this debate.
One of the few brights for me, surprisingly, was Senator Cory Booker, who when asked about the guns & shootings in this country, took an approach more that was more trying to get to the root of the issue, rather than than simply banning. There honestly needs to be a more pragmatic approach that analyzes the issue, just as we try to solve any problem.
Another highlight was Representative Tulsi Gabbard and her anti-war position, an opinion that seems to be more often heard coming from libertarians and far leftists like Senator Bernie Sanders. Americans need to come to grips with the fact that we've been at war since 2001, that's nearly Two decades of war in multiple Middle-Eastern and North African countries. It should also be noted that we haven't "Declared War" since 1942 against Hungry (a member of the Axis powers during WWII), and yet the Korean War, Vietnam War, Iraq War, ect. have all happened since then, something to think about.
One last highlight to glance upon is the healthcare debate, which focused on the slipt between a single-payer government run system, or allowing for people to keep their private insurance as well. I personally prefer the latter, giving people the option is fundamentally better as it allows for more freedom on health issues. Plus, with a government system in place, it could force private insurance companies to be more competitive and offer more customizable plans, as well as insure that people get the care they need.
So that's my take away from last nights debate, and now we move on to the second debate, the real heavy hitters, Bernie, Biden, and Harris going to face to face. This will be a far more interesting debate as go across the Democratic Party spectrum, from moderate and centrist, too the extreme far left, grab your popcorn as the real show is about to begin.
One of the few brights for me, surprisingly, was Senator Cory Booker, who when asked about the guns & shootings in this country, took an approach more that was more trying to get to the root of the issue, rather than than simply banning. There honestly needs to be a more pragmatic approach that analyzes the issue, just as we try to solve any problem.
Another highlight was Representative Tulsi Gabbard and her anti-war position, an opinion that seems to be more often heard coming from libertarians and far leftists like Senator Bernie Sanders. Americans need to come to grips with the fact that we've been at war since 2001, that's nearly Two decades of war in multiple Middle-Eastern and North African countries. It should also be noted that we haven't "Declared War" since 1942 against Hungry (a member of the Axis powers during WWII), and yet the Korean War, Vietnam War, Iraq War, ect. have all happened since then, something to think about.
One last highlight to glance upon is the healthcare debate, which focused on the slipt between a single-payer government run system, or allowing for people to keep their private insurance as well. I personally prefer the latter, giving people the option is fundamentally better as it allows for more freedom on health issues. Plus, with a government system in place, it could force private insurance companies to be more competitive and offer more customizable plans, as well as insure that people get the care they need.
So that's my take away from last nights debate, and now we move on to the second debate, the real heavy hitters, Bernie, Biden, and Harris going to face to face. This will be a far more interesting debate as go across the Democratic Party spectrum, from moderate and centrist, too the extreme far left, grab your popcorn as the real show is about to begin.
Tuesday, February 26, 2019
Quick Thought: Star Trek Off the Rails
In the second season of Star Trek Discovery is becoming more and more of a strain to watch with each passing episode. I could write page after page discussing each canonical issue, with the most glaring being the "Klingons" and "Section 31", but there's more to this than a lack of adherence to canon (which as always been somewhat dubious). The issue is that the show is feeling more like high budget Fan Fiction than an actual true continuation of the franchise.
One item I would like to point out is that one can criticize a piece of media without out right hating it. I don't hate Discovery, however it's flaws are far more glaring than pervious incarnations of the franchise. Liking a show, game, movie, ect.. simply for it being part of a series you like, is not a good way of thinking, nor is attacking those who criticize said media.
While the second season started out stronger than the opening to the first, slowly this series has turned into a disjointed mess. The focus of the season was be on an entity called "The Red Angel" and it's connection to Spock, and some possible doom the galaxy is facing. However, this plot thread has been usurped a half an episode "Klingon" arch, a "Section 31" arch, a story about a giant sphere with a lot of knowledge, a haphazardly quick arch about Saru's species, and a bizarre arch involving Tilly, the fungal network, and the resurrection of Dr. Hugh Culber.
I'm not going to in to massive levels detail, but when I say "disjointed" and "haphazard" it feels like the writers are chopping semi-fleshed out stories and ramming them into an episode. The one arch involving Tilly, the Network, and Dr. Culber, is the worst culprit, it barely even makes sense, a series of disconnected events, each triggering the next, without any more of explanation. It also makes the Fungal Network a mcguffin that can resurrect any character, regardless if their death isn't connected to it.
These are reasons why I said earlier that this season feels like high budget fan fiction, instead of drama there is conviencence. There are no rules, and while I might be a bit hypocritical for saying that, the previous series skirted the rules at times when the writers needed ways to resolve the plot, this show just doesn't care. This feeling of fan fiction isn't helped by the over dramatics every time "Starfleet" principles are mentioned and the dramatic music plays, people stand, and the scene goes into slow motion.
Again, I don't hate Discovery, but is it a disappointment; indeed it is. This not a show for the fans of the Rondenberry & Berman eras, this is a Star Trek for the masses, this is a Star Trek for the sake of Star Trek. The themes and ideas of Star Trek are there, but without the depth that gave them meaning and purpose. The series Rodenberry envisioned was not a perfect picture of the future, but one that was hopeful, we'll stumble and make mistakes, and humanity will face it's own demons and overcome them. In conclusion, take my opinions here as see fit, go watch the show and decide for self and decide if it's worthy of the name "Star Trek".
One item I would like to point out is that one can criticize a piece of media without out right hating it. I don't hate Discovery, however it's flaws are far more glaring than pervious incarnations of the franchise. Liking a show, game, movie, ect.. simply for it being part of a series you like, is not a good way of thinking, nor is attacking those who criticize said media.
While the second season started out stronger than the opening to the first, slowly this series has turned into a disjointed mess. The focus of the season was be on an entity called "The Red Angel" and it's connection to Spock, and some possible doom the galaxy is facing. However, this plot thread has been usurped a half an episode "Klingon" arch, a "Section 31" arch, a story about a giant sphere with a lot of knowledge, a haphazardly quick arch about Saru's species, and a bizarre arch involving Tilly, the fungal network, and the resurrection of Dr. Hugh Culber.
I'm not going to in to massive levels detail, but when I say "disjointed" and "haphazard" it feels like the writers are chopping semi-fleshed out stories and ramming them into an episode. The one arch involving Tilly, the Network, and Dr. Culber, is the worst culprit, it barely even makes sense, a series of disconnected events, each triggering the next, without any more of explanation. It also makes the Fungal Network a mcguffin that can resurrect any character, regardless if their death isn't connected to it.
These are reasons why I said earlier that this season feels like high budget fan fiction, instead of drama there is conviencence. There are no rules, and while I might be a bit hypocritical for saying that, the previous series skirted the rules at times when the writers needed ways to resolve the plot, this show just doesn't care. This feeling of fan fiction isn't helped by the over dramatics every time "Starfleet" principles are mentioned and the dramatic music plays, people stand, and the scene goes into slow motion.
Again, I don't hate Discovery, but is it a disappointment; indeed it is. This not a show for the fans of the Rondenberry & Berman eras, this is a Star Trek for the masses, this is a Star Trek for the sake of Star Trek. The themes and ideas of Star Trek are there, but without the depth that gave them meaning and purpose. The series Rodenberry envisioned was not a perfect picture of the future, but one that was hopeful, we'll stumble and make mistakes, and humanity will face it's own demons and overcome them. In conclusion, take my opinions here as see fit, go watch the show and decide for self and decide if it's worthy of the name "Star Trek".
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
Quick Thought: The Covington School Incident
The political, economic, and social temper of this country is so volatile that it appears more potent than the eruption of any of the Earth's super volcanoes. Case in point, the incident that took place last weekend in Washington DC. A series of marches and rallies were taking place, including the "Pro-Life" march and the "Indigenous People's" march. On the steps of the Lincoln Memorial (only a few days from Martin Luther King day, of all days) an incident involving hate from both a religious and racial focus took place.
The most sought after culprit in this incident were the students of "Covington Catholic High School" who, in most videos of the incident, seemingly went after a Native American Elder. While the Elder plays his drum and chants trying to defuse the the situation, and one of the students, wearing a MAGA cap, stands silently before him (according to the student, he was doing to this in the same vein as the elder (BBC)), while his classmates chant behind him. These chants included such phrases as "build the wall", and other school related items.
What is overlooked in this incident is how did it actually start? Considering that many of the kids were wearing MAGA hats, apparel seen by many as a symbol of hate, many put the blame on them. As I have found with many of the these incidents, much still lies beneath the surface, and as a student of history, context is important to understand why an event happened. This level of depth is beyond what many reactionaries want as a quick clip or sound bite does more to prove their ideological beliefs.
The students are completely blameless in this, as so wonderfully said by Alec Guinness in the first Star Wars, "Who is more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows him?" An extremist religious group known as the "Black Israelites" were seen in the footage just prior to the aforementioned incident provoking both the Native American group and the Students, shouting inflammatory comments (Washington Post). Their comments may have stirred bad blood and heated it to the boiling point.
In closing, it's confrontations like this that create my ambiguous opinion on the political and social culture created under the Trump administration. While first simmers of this can be felt all the way back to the Bush administration, the whole nation now seems to be exploding. While on one hand, a shake of the status quo in politics is a good thing, shaking of stagnation and getting people to think; on the other hand, it seems like we're spiraling down a deep chasm that no one seems bothered to want to get out off.
Links:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/01/22/who-are-black-israelites-center-viral-standoff-lincoln-memorial/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46943364
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hebrew_Israelites
The most sought after culprit in this incident were the students of "Covington Catholic High School" who, in most videos of the incident, seemingly went after a Native American Elder. While the Elder plays his drum and chants trying to defuse the the situation, and one of the students, wearing a MAGA cap, stands silently before him (according to the student, he was doing to this in the same vein as the elder (BBC)), while his classmates chant behind him. These chants included such phrases as "build the wall", and other school related items.
What is overlooked in this incident is how did it actually start? Considering that many of the kids were wearing MAGA hats, apparel seen by many as a symbol of hate, many put the blame on them. As I have found with many of the these incidents, much still lies beneath the surface, and as a student of history, context is important to understand why an event happened. This level of depth is beyond what many reactionaries want as a quick clip or sound bite does more to prove their ideological beliefs.
The students are completely blameless in this, as so wonderfully said by Alec Guinness in the first Star Wars, "Who is more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows him?" An extremist religious group known as the "Black Israelites" were seen in the footage just prior to the aforementioned incident provoking both the Native American group and the Students, shouting inflammatory comments (Washington Post). Their comments may have stirred bad blood and heated it to the boiling point.
In closing, it's confrontations like this that create my ambiguous opinion on the political and social culture created under the Trump administration. While first simmers of this can be felt all the way back to the Bush administration, the whole nation now seems to be exploding. While on one hand, a shake of the status quo in politics is a good thing, shaking of stagnation and getting people to think; on the other hand, it seems like we're spiraling down a deep chasm that no one seems bothered to want to get out off.
Links:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/01/22/who-are-black-israelites-center-viral-standoff-lincoln-memorial/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46943364
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hebrew_Israelites
Sunday, January 20, 2019
A Profile in Courage or Hate?
The political landscape of the United States in 2018 is equivalent to a dark and perverted Monty Python sketch that has gone off the deep end. The nomination and subsequent hearing of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is an image of this absurdity in real time. It is filled with off the scale partisan politics, self-righteous speeches, and pure hatred and contempt. The review of allegations of sexual assault by Kavanaugh, which have been privately reviewed, has become a trial by emotion and public opinion. It is a media circus that has potentially destroyed the lives of two people, and brought their families in the light of public scrutiny and death threats.
With the election of Donald Trump, a person who could be viewed as the definition of the "Ugly American" incarnate, in 2016, it is as if the grotesque side of American society and politics rose up from the depths. People screaming on both sides of the political spectrum threw tolerance and decorum into the dumpster, while actual racists seemed to be popping out of the woodwork and running for elected office, anyone who remotely agreed with the current administration was branded a fascist. It seemed like even your own opinion, regardless of how mild it was, would garner resentment and anger; even being part of the administration seems political suicide.
Regardless of who President Trumped nominated to the Supreme court, they would have faced a hearing equivalent to a group of angry kindergarteners fighting over a toy. President Obama's last appointment, just before the election was basically shunned by Republicans who pushed any hearings until after the election. One way or another, this was going to be an "eye for an eye", the Democrats were were most likely not going stand idly by and let the Republicans get what they wanted. The allegations against Kavanaugh were revealed in a letter to Senator Feinstein in July and seemingly held on to like a proverbial trump card, until it was leaked after hearings.
In no way am I writing to this to attack Dr. Ford and her allegations, if someone's character is unfit to hold the position of of Justice of the Supreme Court then they should not serve. I look at issues like this with an eye of skepticism, the political climate and the timeline of events that have transpired, and the fact that there has already been an FBI investigation into the candidates back ground, lends a hand to that skepticism. Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford may be unwilling pawns in a political game by two political parties to "one up" each other. The fact that a senate hearing spent timing examining jokes in a high school yearbook is only part of absurdity.
Regardless of what the FBI investigation finds, this event will remain a blackspot on the history of American politics, and an examination of the stupidity of partisan politics. Politicians make themselves look as if they are pillars of our society, do gooders who who are the moral compass of our society; Judge Kavanaugh could possibly be counted among these people due to his time served in the political arena. However when we put people on pedestals we overlook the flaws, the ugly side. Ultimately, the issue with Kavanaugh is not whether we believe women, but whether we're going damn someone without considering their side. It's hard not to look at social media with disgust at how our society treats someone, how we are so willing destroy someone so totally and so brutally, it is as if the age of reason never happened and that we are going to back to the age of public stoning.
I want to end this with the description of an image I saw on Facebook; we treat politics as a game and seem to care little how it effects others as long as it fits with our own personal beliefs. The image was a drawing of a WWI soldier with his hands clasped over his face and the caption read "There is no Politics in the Mud".
With the election of Donald Trump, a person who could be viewed as the definition of the "Ugly American" incarnate, in 2016, it is as if the grotesque side of American society and politics rose up from the depths. People screaming on both sides of the political spectrum threw tolerance and decorum into the dumpster, while actual racists seemed to be popping out of the woodwork and running for elected office, anyone who remotely agreed with the current administration was branded a fascist. It seemed like even your own opinion, regardless of how mild it was, would garner resentment and anger; even being part of the administration seems political suicide.
Regardless of who President Trumped nominated to the Supreme court, they would have faced a hearing equivalent to a group of angry kindergarteners fighting over a toy. President Obama's last appointment, just before the election was basically shunned by Republicans who pushed any hearings until after the election. One way or another, this was going to be an "eye for an eye", the Democrats were were most likely not going stand idly by and let the Republicans get what they wanted. The allegations against Kavanaugh were revealed in a letter to Senator Feinstein in July and seemingly held on to like a proverbial trump card, until it was leaked after hearings.
In no way am I writing to this to attack Dr. Ford and her allegations, if someone's character is unfit to hold the position of of Justice of the Supreme Court then they should not serve. I look at issues like this with an eye of skepticism, the political climate and the timeline of events that have transpired, and the fact that there has already been an FBI investigation into the candidates back ground, lends a hand to that skepticism. Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford may be unwilling pawns in a political game by two political parties to "one up" each other. The fact that a senate hearing spent timing examining jokes in a high school yearbook is only part of absurdity.
Regardless of what the FBI investigation finds, this event will remain a blackspot on the history of American politics, and an examination of the stupidity of partisan politics. Politicians make themselves look as if they are pillars of our society, do gooders who who are the moral compass of our society; Judge Kavanaugh could possibly be counted among these people due to his time served in the political arena. However when we put people on pedestals we overlook the flaws, the ugly side. Ultimately, the issue with Kavanaugh is not whether we believe women, but whether we're going damn someone without considering their side. It's hard not to look at social media with disgust at how our society treats someone, how we are so willing destroy someone so totally and so brutally, it is as if the age of reason never happened and that we are going to back to the age of public stoning.
I want to end this with the description of an image I saw on Facebook; we treat politics as a game and seem to care little how it effects others as long as it fits with our own personal beliefs. The image was a drawing of a WWI soldier with his hands clasped over his face and the caption read "There is no Politics in the Mud".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)