Am I a Liberal?

I have been having an identity crisis lately. I usually consider myself to be a hardcore democratic liberal, but I may be starting to doubt myself.

The reason is that democrats are just as bad as republicans. They all want to take freedoms away from people, the only difference is the freedoms that they want to take.

The republicans want to take away freedom of religion. They want everyone to pray to their Christian God in public schools, they want laws to be written that follow the teachings of the bible, they even want to teach creationism as science. But some of this right wing posturing is the direct result of the Democrats wanting to take away religious freedom. Democrats want to make the Christian majority feel like they are wrong for being Christian. They want to censor religious freedom, so that a child can't say a prayer at lunch time in school without being at risk for suspension. At the same time, they want to celebrate the religious belief of any minority who might complain that their religion is being persecuted unfairly. Isn't Christianity being persecuted unfairly?   Why is it ok to persecute one religious belief and not another?

Hard core liberals like to paint the conservatives as the ones who engage in religious intolerance, but both parties are at fault.

There is long list of rights that each party wants to take away from the average American. Republicans want to take away the right to privacy (Patriot act anyone?), Democrats want to take away our freedom of speech (censorship of tv and movies for "child protection" came from democrats, as did all this PC mumbo jumbo). Republicans want to regulate what you do in your bedroom, while democrats want to regulate what business does. Republicans want to take a woman's right to chose, democrats want to take away the right to bear arms.

My point is that I don't agree with any of this. both sides of the aisle are working hard to limit the rights of Americans, and nobody sees it because everyone is to worried about what the other side of the fence is doing to realize what their own team is up to.

It needs to stop. The consititution and bill of rights need to be protected. The problem is that everyone is so concerned with their own rights that they forget that other people have the same rights. If we don't concern ourselves with the rights of others, everyone will eventually lose all of their rights. When that happens, it will be a sad day for America.

Bullying

This is the new Hot-Button Issue. It is a shocking outrage. Kids at schools are bullying each other!!!


Come on. This isn't anything new. Kids have been bullies and bullied since the beginning of human society. All social animals engage in some type of bullying.

So why has it become an issue?

Society is weak. That is why. Kids are coddeled to death by their "super supportive" parents. Kids think that the world should be handed to them and everything should come easy with minimal effort. They are raised being told that everyone should be nice to them all the time.
Well we don't live in a world of rainbows and butterflies. The world is full of dissapointment and even tragedy. The bullying dynamic in school is just the begining. Bullying doesn't go away in the adult world, it is just more subtle and refined. But it is still bullying.
Parents need to stop forcing their kids to play the victim game. Kids need to learn that life isn't always going to be fair, that there are some who will never play by the rules. My dad told me to always stand up for myself, even if that meant getting suspended from school. He would rather have me fight for myself and for what is right than roll over and let people walk all over me. People don't teach their kids these things anymore. Kids are soft. They can't handle a little adversity. What kind of adults will these kids grow in to?

We often say as a society that children are our future. Do we really want to set them up for failure and continue to encourage their weakness?

I'm sure my views on this aren't the most popular, so tell me what you think

YOU don't deserve 1st amendment protections

A director of the American family Association feels as though he and those of his faith have the right to decide who deserves protections under the 1st amendment of the Constitution. Apparently, the founding fathers, when writing that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, meant that all citizens have to have the same views on religion.

I am scratching my head too. This very idea that people who practice a different religion shouldn't have the freedom of religion goes against everything that the Constitution of the United States stands for. It is one of the main principles that makes this country so amazing. It is one of the reasons why everyone wants to come to America.

If this viewpoint were actually made into law, America would no longer be a democracy. It would turn into  a theocracy, like Saudi Arabia and Iran. The only difference is that it would be a Christian theocracy instead of a Muslim one. It would be just as bad. History shows us this. Any group that retains too much power will enforce laws as they see fit. Maybe the Christian majority in this country wouldn't mind it so much, but when one fundemental right gets taken away, the rest will soon follow. At that point it will be too late.

Fortunately for this man, the 1st Amendment also guarentees freedom of speech. This man has every right to express his views, however radical they may be. Another thing that makes America so great is that we have a system of checks and balances which (in theory) prevents radical viewpoints like these from becoming law.

I love America.

Cain kills his chances

Hermain Cain stated this week that if you don't have a job, and you aren't a millionaire, it is your own fault. He told the unemployed to "look in the mirror" when trying to figure out why they don't have a job.

In a political environment where all politicians are yelling and screaming about how they are the ones who know how to bring jobs to the country, and with the unemployment rate still at an all time high, this was an extrememly irresponsible and hypocritical thing to say. How is a canidate going to run on a platform of being the best "job creator", then turn around and say that its the unemployeds own fault that they don't have a job? 

Well at least we know how he really feels.

Ok, so I do see his main point. People do have to take responsibility for themselves. Government can't swoop in and rescue everyone. If manufacturing jobs are going downhill, go back to school and learn a new skill. Take a lower paying job to help support yourself and your family while you look for something better. I get that.


However, the current economic crisis is not the fault of the individual American. There are thousands of people who are unemployed because they got laid off, their job moved overseas, or their company went out of business.  Yes, there are some who are taking advantage of the long term unemployment insurance, some who refuse to look for work because they get paid to do nothing, but these are the exception, not the rule. Many of the unemployed just don't have the skillset to go to college and gain new skills. Others have taken lower paying jobs just to try to squeeze by, but are unable to fully support their families on these lower wages.

What Cain said was a slap in the face to the millions of Americans who are struggling everyday to make ends meet. Not everyone can be a millionaire CEO. These comments truly show how out of touch he is with the American people.

To think I actually liked him before this.

More about the "N" word

After getting a few tweets about my use of the word,  I got to thinking about what makes it one of the most polarizing, offensive words in America. But it isn't just that word. What makes any word so powerful?

The truth is, it isn't the word. It is people. People make innocent words hateful. They make words offensive. People make words powerful.

However, it isn't the user of the word that makes it powerful. It is the person hearing it who assigns a words worth. A word is only hurtful if you allow it to be hurtful. A word is only offensive if you allow yourself to be offended by it. It is only powerful when you give it that power. And when you give words power over you, you give the users of those words power over you.

We shouldn't get mad at those who use hate speech. That is exactly what the perpetrators want. Our outrage gives them power.

As a society, we need to stop allowing words to have so much power. We need to stop the censorship and stop trying to keep all of our dirty little secrets in the closet. Allowing ourselves to have open discussions about these words and these issues would strip them of their power to hurt us.

Isn't that worth the conversation?

What do you think?

The "N" Word

Rick Perry's family leased a hunting lodge called Niggerhead. This is the latest political scandel to awaken the media frenzy.

Yes, the name of the ranch is offensive. Yes, a leading political figure should not be hunting at a lodge called Niggerhead (especially one vying to be president of the United States). However, the real issue runs much deeper.

Hermain Cain was the only person on television who was not afraid to say the word "nigger". This term has become so polarizing that respected journalists fear to say it even when it is a neccessary part of the news (case in point, no one would say Niggerhead when reporting the name of the lodge, they all said "N" word head, or something similar). Why does this word have such an effect?  Why don't racial slurs against other groups command the same respect? The biggest question is, why is it ok for certain groups to use this word and not ok for the rest?

This is just one example of political correctness run amok, and societal rules that were meant for good being twisted. Another example is affirmative action. The intent behind the law was great. It was also a good solution for the problem at the time. It helped minorities get jobs that were being denied to them soley on the basis of race. It helped to break up the "good ole boy" network. But when does it go to far?  Why is ok to discriminate against one group for the sake of another? 

The answer is that is never is. Never. I don't care what race, gender, or whatever you are. Everyone in America is equal. If there is one job, it should go to the most qualified applicant, black, white, purple, green, or whatever. It shouldn't go to a minority applicant just because the company needs more minorities.

Another example is that it is ok for certain groups to have their own clubs, scholarships, etc, but it is not ok for white males. Look at Curves gym for women. It is a great idea, and women love working out there. But what do you think would happen if a man tried to open a gym just for men?  The feminist groups would go crazy. Is this equality? 

The bigger issue here is that these discusions are taboo. Nobody wants to talk about these things in an open, honest debate with an exchange of ideas. Some critics are right, racism and sexism still run rampant in the country. But I think we can find a better solution than having the government shift the inequal treatment from one group to another.

FEMA Funding

I have a great idea...let us tie funding for federal emergencies to budget cuts elsewhere. This way, the next time a hurricane ravages the Easern coast, we will take money away from education, national defense, or social security in order to pay for assistance to all of the people and communities that have been hurt by it.

This sounds ridiculous, but it is exactly what top congressional republicans have been advicating, and an issue that almost shut down government YET AGAIN!!

Now for smaller emergencies, they are right, this can be done with minimal impact to the American people. But imagine if 8.0 + earthquake hits off the coast of California, and subsequent Tsunamis hit San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Imagine if the super volcano underneath Yellowstone National Park erupts.  Yes, these are some of the worst-case scenerios, but given the recent geological activity worldwide in the past decade, neither is completely implausable. Either scenerio would cost billions, if not trillions of dollars worth of damage. Where would the federal government be able to cut spending in order to come up with enough money to support a natural disaster of this magnitude? It wouldn't be possible without completely decimating every other program that the government supports, which would further lead to a destruction of the economy.

Either our representatives in congress are not smart enough to plan for the worst case scenario, or they just don't care. My bet is on the latter. If their plan was approved, in case of a natural disaster the president would have to chose between assisting those affect and maintaining the services and programs that a majority of voting Americans have come to depend upon. He would be set up for failure. Then the Republicans can point him out and lay the blame solely at his feet.

We have come to a point where representatives will stop at nothing to see the other side fail, including a failure of the United States itself. How have we come to this point?  Why do we let the crazies from both sides of the aisle control the decisions for the moderate majority? 

We as Americans need to address this fundamental problem with government, and work towards a solution that promotes a healthy, operation government.