The constitution (or the people charged with exercising it) has failed to recognize and practice many of its statues since its inception, making it untrustworthy. I don't believe that since something is written down, I'm protected, because that hasn't been the case.
IT'S JUST A PIECE OF TEXT. It's just a set of laws (some which permit individual states to do horrible things) that a group of people (majority of whom just happen to have been notorious bigots) made up. It also allows great injustices to prevail, like how, when, and where people are allowed to engage in adult activities.
People want to denigrate the Bible because they think its fictional, irrelevant, or can't be proven. I think that the constitution is fictional, and hypocritical. People act like I can't look upon the constitution unfavorably. Telling me to leave the country because I voice disapproval of the constitution (or don’t choose to participate in the judicial system in a conventional manner) is like that "Christian" pastor going online perpetrating an ignorant atheist, then coming back to minister to his alter ego. Its hypocritical. If you put all your faith in something (other than spiritual) that's wrong, and its warping your view of life.
People worship the constitution and make it seem like I must too. People hold the constitution to be some infallible text. The constitution did not invent freedom or even grant freedom. People act as if you are going against the word of freedom if you question it. My freedom comes from my humanity, ultimately people's worship of the constitution seems to justify the idea the U.S. is better than other countries because the U.S. has the constitution. People, people, people make the constitution untrustworthy and corrupt. And there has never been a time when they haven’t.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Happy Women's History Month 365: Why I ♥ heart Sarah Palin
I've never subscribed to ANY political party. But if I were to, the Republican party would not be high up on mai list. I don't identify with their general sensibilities or views of society and economic hierarchy. However, I greatly appreciate what Sarah Palin has done (vastly inadvertent) for women in politics. Thank you Sarah.
Ronald Reagan, Strom Thurmond, George W. Bush, George Washington, the list goes on and on for men in politics with reprehensible behavior. Men in politics represent the noble, the greedy, the detestable, and the (nearly) righteous. Truly the spectrum of men in politics is wider than women. Therefore, men are seen as multi-dimensional figures. Of course some of them are bad, of course some of them are ugly, of course some of them will make mistakes, and make bad choices, and force the country into turmoil. Because even though that is part of their character's capacity, so is the other extreme for doing good.
Women in politics aren't seen the same way to the same extent. Our most notable women are Clinton, Pelosi, Chisholm, and Rice. Lesser known politicians are Maxine Waters and C. Delores Tucker. But for the most part (nothing is total of course), women in the history of politics have been respectable do-gooders. This is a nice legacy to uphold. But I am constantly defending Palin. Not because I agree with her book banning, wolf aerial hunting, victims pay for forensic rape kits, charging Alaskan tax-payers to foot the bill for her daughters to see the world, pulling strings to get her in-laws unjustly hired and fired antics. But because she is one more woman sculpting the national, political view. One more woman to crack a ceiling. One more woman to add to the face of women in politics. She has shaped an idea of what women can be in American politics, at this point, for good or bad isn't that important.
Though I'm SURE I will never subscribe to any political party in my life (save, perhaps the Nunya Party*) I have to give Palin her props, just for existing. I 'love' her ideology even less than I 'love' the Constitution (Problem with that? There isn't a dayum thing you can do about it, I'm not going anywhere, and frankly its none of your business). It's none of your business how a person votes AND if they choose to vote or abstain from voting one and all. But I defiantly hope Palin's accomplishment is not as forgotten as those of Geraldine Ferraro.
*http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/51282-nunya-party
Ronald Reagan, Strom Thurmond, George W. Bush, George Washington, the list goes on and on for men in politics with reprehensible behavior. Men in politics represent the noble, the greedy, the detestable, and the (nearly) righteous. Truly the spectrum of men in politics is wider than women. Therefore, men are seen as multi-dimensional figures. Of course some of them are bad, of course some of them are ugly, of course some of them will make mistakes, and make bad choices, and force the country into turmoil. Because even though that is part of their character's capacity, so is the other extreme for doing good.
Women in politics aren't seen the same way to the same extent. Our most notable women are Clinton, Pelosi, Chisholm, and Rice. Lesser known politicians are Maxine Waters and C. Delores Tucker. But for the most part (nothing is total of course), women in the history of politics have been respectable do-gooders. This is a nice legacy to uphold. But I am constantly defending Palin. Not because I agree with her book banning, wolf aerial hunting, victims pay for forensic rape kits, charging Alaskan tax-payers to foot the bill for her daughters to see the world, pulling strings to get her in-laws unjustly hired and fired antics. But because she is one more woman sculpting the national, political view. One more woman to crack a ceiling. One more woman to add to the face of women in politics. She has shaped an idea of what women can be in American politics, at this point, for good or bad isn't that important.
Though I'm SURE I will never subscribe to any political party in my life (save, perhaps the Nunya Party*) I have to give Palin her props, just for existing. I 'love' her ideology even less than I 'love' the Constitution (Problem with that? There isn't a dayum thing you can do about it, I'm not going anywhere, and frankly its none of your business). It's none of your business how a person votes AND if they choose to vote or abstain from voting one and all. But I defiantly hope Palin's accomplishment is not as forgotten as those of Geraldine Ferraro.
*http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/51282-nunya-party
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Rush Limbaugh's ATTACK on America
If I had the ability to read just one person’s mind, I’d tap into the infamous mind of Rush Limbaugh. Why use such an amazing power on such a dubious character? Limbaugh is influential to a significant portion of our country. Those who care for the plight of Americans must aid President Obama in keeping the motives of his “enemies closer” than the plethora of his yes-men.
On January 16th of this year, Limbaugh said he was asked by a "major American print publication" to commemorate Barack Obama's Inauguration by joining a select group of prominent politicians, educators, and pundits each writing 400 words on their hopes for the Obama presidency. Limbaugh just couldn't do it. "...I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed," Limbaugh said.
Grasping Limbaugh’s reasoning will help develop a dialogue Limbaugh (and his constituents) can understand as to why witnessing President Obama’s policies (namely economic) fail would be the worst possible scenario for Americans and eventually the rest of the world. If failure ensues, sure Obama will have egg on his face, but more importantly the American people will suffer the brunt of the downfall. If Obama’s policies fail, he still has a job and will still get a paycheck. However, it’s likely that the sporadic shanty Tentvilles (similar to 1930s era Hoovervilles) that are springing up all across America will be more a constant.
Is it really as bad as all that? Mustn't we commend Limbaugh for having the courage to speak against an administration that he truly thinks is riddled with problems? Should he be expected to be encouraging? Isn’t it his prerogative to mar an American tradition with nationally syndicated cynicism? It would be nice to hear encouraging words from Limbaugh, the countries most popular, highest paid ($38 million contract, and $100 million in bonuses) conservative radio host with over 20 million listeners weekly. It would have been appropriate, but he couldn’t bear to put his feelings aside to enrich an honored American ceremony.
The issue doesn’t lie with Limbaugh's total disapproval of Obama and his administration. Instead, dismay is with his lack of respect for the country, which is the people. You can wave the American flag around all day (as he does on his website), but when you proudly state your hope and desire that the policies aimed at pulling the majority of Americans out of a record high recession fails, (before it's even put in place to have opportunity to demonstrate capacity to turn the tides) you are not concerned or in touch with the core of the country, its people.
Limbaugh told Barbara Walters that he feels Barack Obama is a sincere and genuine person. He very well could have said that instead of "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." His true attitude was expressed when Walters asked if he thought his work is worth $138 million dollars a year especially during a foreboding recession. Without hesitation Limbaugh said he is very much worth the millions. "What recession?... I choose not to participate," he claimed. Must be nice. It’s apparent that he's in a position to hope the economic plan and other Obama policies fail, because unlike the vast majority of the country (and world) Rush is party to an elite group that will remain above water no matter how the economy ebbs and flows, or perhaps, droughts and floods.
Expectations for President Obama are high, and his choices will make or break millions of people. It’s important that we view him with a critical, yet encouraging and hopeful eye.
On January 16th of this year, Limbaugh said he was asked by a "major American print publication" to commemorate Barack Obama's Inauguration by joining a select group of prominent politicians, educators, and pundits each writing 400 words on their hopes for the Obama presidency. Limbaugh just couldn't do it. "...I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed," Limbaugh said.
Grasping Limbaugh’s reasoning will help develop a dialogue Limbaugh (and his constituents) can understand as to why witnessing President Obama’s policies (namely economic) fail would be the worst possible scenario for Americans and eventually the rest of the world. If failure ensues, sure Obama will have egg on his face, but more importantly the American people will suffer the brunt of the downfall. If Obama’s policies fail, he still has a job and will still get a paycheck. However, it’s likely that the sporadic shanty Tentvilles (similar to 1930s era Hoovervilles) that are springing up all across America will be more a constant.
Is it really as bad as all that? Mustn't we commend Limbaugh for having the courage to speak against an administration that he truly thinks is riddled with problems? Should he be expected to be encouraging? Isn’t it his prerogative to mar an American tradition with nationally syndicated cynicism? It would be nice to hear encouraging words from Limbaugh, the countries most popular, highest paid ($38 million contract, and $100 million in bonuses) conservative radio host with over 20 million listeners weekly. It would have been appropriate, but he couldn’t bear to put his feelings aside to enrich an honored American ceremony.
The issue doesn’t lie with Limbaugh's total disapproval of Obama and his administration. Instead, dismay is with his lack of respect for the country, which is the people. You can wave the American flag around all day (as he does on his website), but when you proudly state your hope and desire that the policies aimed at pulling the majority of Americans out of a record high recession fails, (before it's even put in place to have opportunity to demonstrate capacity to turn the tides) you are not concerned or in touch with the core of the country, its people.
Limbaugh told Barbara Walters that he feels Barack Obama is a sincere and genuine person. He very well could have said that instead of "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." His true attitude was expressed when Walters asked if he thought his work is worth $138 million dollars a year especially during a foreboding recession. Without hesitation Limbaugh said he is very much worth the millions. "What recession?... I choose not to participate," he claimed. Must be nice. It’s apparent that he's in a position to hope the economic plan and other Obama policies fail, because unlike the vast majority of the country (and world) Rush is party to an elite group that will remain above water no matter how the economy ebbs and flows, or perhaps, droughts and floods.
Expectations for President Obama are high, and his choices will make or break millions of people. It’s important that we view him with a critical, yet encouraging and hopeful eye.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
