Monthly Archives: October 2012
Ukraine just had parliamentary elections on Sunday. Now that the votes are in it appears that President Viktor Yanukovych’s party is going to maintain a majority in parliment and have more of a free hand to do much of whatever it wants.
Primary opposition leader and former PM Yulia Tymoshenko was jailed long by Yanukovych and it’s just a question of what they will get away with now. The opposition parties can ally, but that is likely not going to be enough.
This bothers me. Having spent several weeks in Ukraine earlier this year I can personally say that Ukrainians are collectively some of the nicest and most helpful people in the world. The country is rough around the edges but the people are great. So it bothers me to think that dog Putin will have an easy time strong arming this country(along with the rest of Europe) and all those nice people who want better things and would be a great benefit by proxy to America if they were allowed to authentically govern themselves.
This made me think of things here in America with our election next week.
Our house is increasingly divided. It seems that the longer we’ve had our current President the more that’s been true. No doubt the election and all it’s weight has added to that pressure as we’ve gotten closer to the day.
It’s important to remember(cause some people can’t seem to) that whomever is elected, though they will only receive about half the votes, is still in service and beholden to all Americans. The winner is not given free rein to execute the goals of his constituency at the expense of the others. This is still America and we are all equal under the law, constitution, and rights of man as recognized by this nation.
Though they may have lost their ideas are still to be recognized and given credence and not to be waved off because they didn’t win.
I say this as it applies to all politicians in America, but really I think it is something that needs to be pointed out more to one side than the other.
Ukraine is not weak and neither is America.
It’s not really been a secret that black and white Americans have a little contempt for each other. I wouldn’t say downright hatred, though for some that is certainly the case.
However it’s been interesting to view the past 4 years since we as a nation were supposed to have become “post racial”.
Who got to make that decision by the way? Because we now see it was pure baloney.
The AP “study” that recently came out said 51 percent of Americans have some kind of prejudice against blacks, up from 48 percent since 2008. Of course most polls typically have a +/- range of 3 points so maybe it hasn’t changed at all, but realistically I’d say the number is probably even higher.
Polls/surveys are a tricky thing because you can manipulate not only the data, but also manipulate the way the questions are asked which will impact the way the answers are reported.
Of course reading the comments on the huffpost article makes you think that it’s somehow all whiteys fault. However I’d say on the whole, individually most Americans go through their day to day lives and don’t make trouble about the race of those they interact with. It doesn’t matter and it doesn’t change anything what color your UPS or salesman is.
The fact is that most white Americans are not overtly racist but are rather sick or black culture being trotted out as so legitimate it can’t be criticized when it’s proven to be pretty much the worst option available.
That being said, there’s also a lot of murmuring going on these days about what might happen if Mitt Romney wins the election.
Frankly, I’d like to find out. For one because I see Romney as the better candidate(the adult in the room), but also because I would like to find out if there’s any real bluster behind these breezes. Tweeting about riots is not the same as actually giving enough of a shit to do so.
I think rioting based on a Romney win would make what is a taboo topic suddenly pretty damn important. Important enough to quit avoiding.
America has racial problems, but we’re never given the opportunity to confront those problems because whomever tries is branded a racist and shutdown.
Riots would be a catalyst for real change and it would stem not from some social engineering legislation but would be a true grassroots movement. The Detroit riots of the late 60’s created that cities current state of affairs and many other American cities have had similar experiences.
Full on race riots would force America to no longer use a velvet glove when talking about race but rather a set of brass knuckles instead. No more ‘you can’t say that you hurt my feelings’ BS, but a force to be reckoned with of ‘this is the problem, fix it or fuck off’.
Race riots would certainly divide the country but the Civil war did as well and it’s pretty much safe to say the country came out better for it in the end. I’m not suggesting a civil war, but rather that harsh events lead to serious changes.
Words are nice and impressive, but they don’t get any thing done. Real change has to be performed it can’t merely be insinuated.
I’m starting to get sick and don’t feel like writing today. I’ve asked the substitute to show videos until I come back.
We’ll start with a critical thinking exercise.
I’ve read in a few places that October is breast cancer awareness month and as such the NFL is awash in pink uniforms to promote that. The only place I could find an article is from Hawaiian Libertarian.
The articles I’ve seen and conversations I’ve heard run the gamut, from support to indifference to indignation.
One thing that is commonly heard from the indignation crowd is that the presence of pink uniforms, and women is taking the manliness out of football. They say football is one of the last sanctuaries where men can be men without the overwatchful eye of women, manners, and behavior holding them back.
Here’s what I don’t get. How is watching football manly? If you’re one of the guys on the field participating sure, but sitting on your couch or even in the stadium watching other guys play a game is manly?
Roman gladiators were manly. The spectators, were just spectators. The gladiators killed and risked their lives as their job, the spectators just showed up to watch. Virtue does not rub off or appropriate itself through proximity. You have it or you don’t.
Or is it more because it’s a place where men gather together for similar interest? If that’s the case then star trek and comic book conventions would be equally as manly.
I admit I’m biased. I have’t watched a football game in over 2 years. I’ve been in a fantasy football league the past few years but I find it to be a waste of time and boring.
Sorry guys but I don’t see how sitting around and watching other men qualifies as being a manly activity or gathering.
I was surrounded by dozens of armed men today.
They had all kinds of guns. Pistols, shotguns, “assault rifles”, hunting rifles.
What caused this absurd action, and how did I manage to escape alive?
I was at a gun show. A gun show in a city that is perenially ranked as one of the most dangerous in America. Flint, Michigan.
I was at a gun show surrounded by tables of guns and dozens of people carrying guns on their person and not a single person was shot.
Imagine that. Armed law-abiding citizens gathered with enough weapons and ammo to equip a small army and take over another country and not a single person was hurt or threatened.
There were all kinds of people too. An old white man with a shotgun, a youngish black man with an AR15. Everyone was there men, women, black, white, asian, the smattering of demographics is America.
Not a person was hurt and what’s more amazing is that this scene repeats itself every weekend in innumerable cities across this country.
Let’s say 1 show per weekend per state by 50 weeks and we’ve got 2,500 shows a year by a conservative estimate. Thousands of visitors each and nary an issue, they can’t get on gun-control quick enough. Look’s what happening with all these responsible law-abiding citizens, it’s a travesty and clearly guns are a problem because no one can ever manage a gun with responsibility.
Did you know that women are really strong and independent?
So much so that they need the courts to protect them simply for being women while making no mention of any protection for men.
I’ve been hearing political ads on the radio recently, and one of them is this ad.
I’m not saying anything about the judges, or their rulings, fact is I know nothing about them.
I just find it interesting that women deserve the full protecting interest of the law.
Isn’t justice supposed to be blind? If so then why is there any mention of men or women, black or white? If those circumstances don’t have any role to play in say getting a job, why should they be a key component to practicing law and dishing out justice?
If we’re supposed to be judged based on our abilities, or in the case of a courtroom our innocence, what does the presence of a Y-chromosome have to do with any of that?
Isn’t it a bit biased to suggest that men are a threat to women but not vice-versa?
How can that even be possible when most men are supplicating beta-males with no cojones whom the women have to frequently tell to “man up”.
The problem with feminism is that in the name of equality, they are not simply promoting women, but denegrating the status of men. Not very equal is it?
I don’t remember where it was, but yesterday I read an article somewhere about the economy.
The point was that people aren’t working, but damnit if they don’t have contraceptives and healthcare.
The comments section for some reason went off on gay marriage. The main topic brought up was how do you know where to draw the line with marriage. If gay people get married and negate the purpose of reproduction what would stop someone else from marrying their dog, car, sex toy, or even family members.
This is where we are as a society. That we can’t just simply use common sense, everything has to be a complicated legal mess that plans for every contingency.
Why can’t we just say that any adults who choose to enter into a legal contract are free to do so with any other adults.
You want to marry your dog. Is he a legally recognized adult? No, too bad for you.
How simple was that?
We extend one stipulation. You can’t marry direct family members(though that’s up to the states to decide). That’s the only other stipulation and it doesn’t have to be justified as to why or why not.
Why don’t we, as a nation, quite arguing every MFing individual point or sematic and get back to being productive.