Vote Black, no matter what?

I do not believe that Black voters should vote for someone just because they are Black. The danger with doing this is that it will [and does] encourage those who do not have any interest in benefiting Black people to use figureheads to bait Black voters into voting against their personal/collective best interests. I do not want to see such a thing happen.

Some Black Maryland Democrats are coming out in support of Republican Senate Candidate Michael Steele. This is the latest installment in the ongoing debate over which party best represents Black voters (not people, voters. If you don’t vote, you get ignored).

Republicans, over the last 4 years especially, have been courting Black voters, saying, “what have the Democrats really done for you? Don’t you feel like they take our vote(s) for granted?” These are valid questions that must be asked of every individual voter and every ‘block’ of voters (Latino, female, homosexual, single parents, entrepreneurs, etc.). The answers to these questions and other related ones are important points of introspection for individuals and collective bodies. What is interesting here is that is that these questions are posed by Republicans with the implicit assumption that “if you vote Republican, we won’t take you for granted.” I see little evidence to support such a notion.

Black voters have been relatively consistent supporters of the Democratic voters for the last 50 or so years. Why is that? I’d argue that the phenomenon started with Democratic Party actions such as Franklin Roosevelt and The New Deal, Lyndon Johnson and the Civil Rights Movement, Affirmative Action, and other things.

I think that the debate on who to vote for should be based on an issue-by-issue, candidate-by-candidate, track-record-by-track-record comparison. A person the same race as you, the same gender as you, the same age as you, or the same sexual orientation as you does not mean that the person will best represent you or have your best interest in mind when they represent you as your governmental spokesperson.

Here’s a quote from the end of the article (my emphasis added):
–
“[Prince George's council member David Harrington (D-Cheverly)] Harrington said race is a factor for him. ‘It’s not the factor,’ he said, ‘but it is a factor. There needs to be a diversity of voices in the room.’”
–

I agree that a “diversity of voices” needs to be present in all situations. However, we need to be clear that race is not the only axis that diversity spins on. There are a whole lot of other things that mark diversity:
- Race
- Age
- Gender
- Religion
- Ethnicity
- Country of Origin
- Class
- etc.

When we think of diversity, we need to look beyond physical appearances. We need to be careful about who we trust, and not give people “like us” a free pass. I think Michael Steele is a nice enough guy, but I would not support or vote for him if he was running in my state.

I encourage people to look at candidates as individuals, their track records, and their plans for the future when deciding who to vote for. Take into account more than one issue, be it race, abortion, or what ever, when deciding who should represent you. Don’t vote for someone just because they are Black.

Perhaps a way to judge if someone will represent Black people well could be to get their take on these?

One Love. One II.

Categories
Politics
Black Issues
Voting
Democrat
Republican

Fewer Black Republicans?

First and foremost, I want people to vote. I am less concerned about what party or person that they vote than I am with people voting in the first place.

With that said, the L.A. Times says that Black and Latin people are re-evaluating whether or not they should vote Republican. The only reason that this is a story is because a number Black people voted Republican for the first time in 2004. This was because they were sold on a series of lies, including but not limited to these two:

Faith-Based Initiatives would finance programs by Black churches/in Black neighborhoods
This recently published book by David Kuo, former special assistant to the G. W. Bush from 2001 to 2003, deputy director of the White House office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, talks about how much of a joke that office was, and why he resigned from it.

Republicans don’t like same-sex marriage or abortion either
This is a different kind of lie. Republicans may not actually not like same-sex marriage or abortion. The problem here is that they tried to turn Black voters into single-issue voters. What is a single-issue voter? It’s a person who votes based on one thing and one thing alone. The ’single issues’ in 2004 were abortion and same-sex marriage. Why is that problematic? It’s problematic because those seeking power can use whatever your issue is to get you to vote against your own best interests on other issues. This not only happens on issues like abortion, but it is also a problem for people who’s issue is the so-called war on terror.

In voting, and in life, it is important to understand why we do the things we do. In order to do this, we have to step back and look at all of our motivations, decisions, and actions. The last thing I want to see is people doing things because they were deceived into doing them. I feel that this is what happened in 2004, and I don’t want to see that again.

One Love. One II.

Categories
Voting
Politics
Black Issues
Republican
Abortion
Same-Sex Marriage

What do you do with aborted babies?

A hospital in the UK has recently admitted that they dispose of aborted babies by burning them, similar to the way they dispose of other waste.

There have been mixed reactions to this, and that is evidenced pretty clearly in the comments section of the above article. The hospital decided to do this in order to save money, since this is cheaper than what they normally do with children miscarried before 24 weeks, according to the article.

This is an interesting debate. Is it ‘OK’ to do this? One commenter on the article said the following:
–
If women opt to have abortions, they ought to take responsibility for the disposal of or payment towards the disposal. It’s about time people started taking responsibility for their actions! The NHS should be about providing healthcare, NOT assisting life-style choices!
–

I think that sounds reasonable. Should that be the responsibility of people who have abortions? Would it be wrong for the government to require such payment (effectively an Abortion Tax)?

One Love. One II.

Categories
Abortion

Republicans Ad refers to a Black Woman as a ‘ho’

Wow. There is a Republican radio ad running in a number of congressional districts that refers to Black Women as ‘hos.’ This is in the context of an ad that features a conversation between two Black men. Here is the excerpt from the ad (from the article, with my emphasis added):

–
“If you make a little mistake with one of your ‘hos,’ you’ll want to dispose of that problem tout suite, no questions asked,” one of the men says.
“That’s too cold. I don’t snuff my own seed,” the other replies.
“Maybe you do have a reason to vote Republican,” the first man says.
–

The ad is sponsored America’s PAC, a group with a history of targeting inflamatory, race-baiting, misleading ads at Black and Hispanic voters.

This is yet another example of why we need to pay close attention to the messages that are sent for us to consume. Regardless of where you stand on abortion, this is just crazy. The level of racist indifference toward the usage of this word towards Black women is reprehensible.

Am I over-reacting?

One Love. One II.

Categories:
Politics
Voting
Abortion
Black Issues

The Weekly Dream: Decisions, Decisions

Question of the Week: What determines how you vote?

I have been involved with The SuperSpade from its inception. And for all the political issues and topics we discuss, for all the awareness my brother Garlin brings everyday, one thing has eluded me: What is my “voting process?” With the upcoming elections, I believe this is extremely relevant.

I am all for civic duty, but when I turned 18, I noticed that voter education in this country was weak. First, most Americans do not understand the structure and intricacy of our governmental system. Don’t believe me? Ask anyone on the street whether America is a democracy or a republice and explain the difference. This is problematic for obvious reasons. If we do not know how the system works, then we do not know who does what.

Secondly, the media throws around a hodge-podge of issues and scandals, but there is not a scale or any mechanism I am aware of in order to evaluate and make sense of it all. To me, politics is like a high school popularity contest. This results in decisions being made based on sensationalist issues like abortion or gay marriage, in the wrong (i.e. presidential) race.

I find business far more interesting than politics, because I know that is who runs America (if you don’t believe me, look at the laws, but that is another debate). Furthermore, I hate being knowingly lied to, so politics is not high on my list. If we want to improve voter turnout, we should empower people with the tools and the process to make good political decisions. That way, voting does not just feel like an fruitless exercise. In addition, we must teach people how to leverage their votes and make the system work for them. Voting is just the starting point for civil involvement. Although Garlin may be better equipped to discuss this more thoroughly, I will share a few of my thoughts as to making better political decisions.

One Man, One Vote

First, understand the basics of our government: separations of powers, the Constitution, etc. You do not need to be an attorney, just know who does what. For instance, a lot of people voted for Bush because of his faith based movement or his stance on abortion. What he believes is fine and dandy, but those issues are not within his sphere of influence. Take abortion or gay marriage. Those are not issues for the federal government, those are state issues (according to the Supreme Court). Another example is how we blame Bush for the state of the country. While he is responsible for a good portion of the mess we are in, the real fault lies with our lame duck Congress. Bush’s job is to execute the mandates of the Congress. Congress approved and re-approved the Patriot Act. Congress has allowed the country to be sharply split among partisan lines. It is much easier for you personally to hold your state representatives accountable than to hold Bush directly accountable. But because in the aggregate, we do not understand the system, we are taken in by rhetoric.

Second, understand what issues are relevant to the particular office. This will tell you why you should care about a particular political race. In business, people are evaluated only on those things within their immediate sphere of control. It should be the same in politics. That way, I can hold my congressman or state legislator or mayor responsible for the relevant issues, things he can and should control.

Third, look at the candidates and yourself and where you stand on the pertinent issues. This will take a little sleuthing, but I suggest that you look at a wide variety of informational sources before forming an opinion. Because the truth is often in the middle.

According To Me

What you begin to realize is that your vote alone gives you one thing: The right to complain. True power in politics is attained either through people or profit. Either you have access and influence with a large audience or you got Microsoft money. Our Founding Father’s did this by design, as they were extremely afraid of ignorant factions and tyranny by the majority. Thus, only individuals with access to the most resources could attain the heights of political power. So, to overcome this inherent obstacle, we must pool our interests and resources together (read: lobby, organize).

Closing

This is how the game seems to me, right or wrong. But I am sure if you follow these instructions, at least you have a skeleton to make your vote more of a conscious decision. And once consciousness comes, accountability cannot help but follow.

Happy Voting.

Truth and Peace,
Steven M DeVougas

Categories:
Politics
The Weekly Dream

Groups Mislead Voters by Distorting History

There is another front group that is twisting the words of important historical figures to mislead voters into thinking a certain way. The latest group doing this is Feminists For Life (FFL). Their claim is that Feminist leader Susan B. Anthony and others wer “anti-choice” on the issue of abortion. They do this by taking a series of quotes from Anthony and others out of context to say that they were anti-abortion.

This weekend I told you all about the Black Republican Freedom Fund, and how they are deliberately misleading voters into thinking that Martin Luther King, Jr. would be a Republican in 2006.

The way to protect yourself against stunts like these and others is to not take statements on the political views of historical figures at face value, especially when the source’s credibility is questionable. In general, we need to stop believing everything that we hear.

Has anyone else encountered misleading campaigns such as these?

One Love. One II.

Categories:
Voting
Politics

The Weekly Dream: The Right to Privacy

Whatever you have spoken in the darkness shall be heard and listened to in the light, and what you have whispered in [people's] ears and behind closed doors will be proclaimed upon the housetops.
-Luke 12:3

This semester, I am taking a class called “The Law of Privacy.” It is an interesting class dealing with how far should the government and intrude into the lives and rights of individuals. I was surprised to learn that there are two types of privacy: Informational and decisional privacy. Informational deals with information about you released to the public (e.g. credit bureaus). Decisional privacy deals with those hot button issues like abortion, sexual orientation, etc. As one could imagine, technology plays a central role in privacy law. With the advent of the internet, Blogs, Profile sites, Smartphones, GPS, reality television and the like, it seems that you have to go to the moon to get some privacy.

In this Information Age, we are constantly bombarded with information. And it is a constant race to stay current. However, a large part of this is sifting through the ruff to get to the diamonds. When I turn on my computer, I come across numerous things I do not care about, mainly gossip. I do not care who is dating whom, who is cheating on whom, He said/She said. I have enough problems. However, the gossip and reality shows are a thriving industry. What is the preoccupation with sensationalism? Is it because the lives of these people are boring or are they trying to escape a dry, crusty reality? However, this will not help the situation. The result is that people know a lot of things that do not matter, instead of what they need to know. In addition to the voyeurism forced down our throats by the media, the government, under the auspices of National Security, has made it easy for any one to find out anything about you (read: wiretaps, credit reports, identity theft). Indeed, privacy is a scarce and undervalued commodity.

Why is Privacy Important?

Privacy, by definition, necessitates selective exclusion. In this exclusion, relationships are fostered and intimacy develops because there is a comfort and a safe place. Social theorists have claimed that there is a correlation between privacy and individuality. More privacy fosters more individuality and diversity. Less breeds a bland mainstream. Why? Because in the absence of privacy, there is the threat of disapproval, ostracism and rejection if you do not uphold “acceptable behaviors and values”.

In a family, when the sphere of privacy shrinks to the point where parents and children can no longer occupy the same space, then the children leave home-often to make decisions and mistakes without the criticism and stricture of the family. This can cause tension, but this is when parents should learn to “let go”, respect the privacy of their grown children and trust they will make good decisions.

The greatest thinkers and religious figures treasured being alone with their thoughts and their intimates. Henry David Thoreau wrote “Civil Disobedience” in seclusion. Jesus would often leave the multitudes and His disciples to pray and gain insight. Moses would went up the mountain and came back with the Ten Commandments. The Israelites, alone in the wilderness emerged as a cohesive nation. Privacy in the form of the retreat is at its essence spiritual. When you are alone, you can reflect and truly define yourself. In the presence of others, you can contrast what you are not.

To me, privacy means the absence of distraction. It is placing a restriction on how much outsiders have access to. When there are no distractions, then there is intense focus. In Kung-fu movies, the hero always goes into seclusion to train and then he faces his foe. Why? Because he must conquer himself before he can achieve his mission. Privacy is not an end unto itself, but it is to recharge so that we can come back and function at a higher level. Privacy is essential to the realization of potential.

These days, people willingly surrender their privacy. A constant debate I have is whether websites like the Facebook or MySpace is an invasion of privacy. I feel it is, but others say that it is a consensual invasion. And true, these sites are consensual, but perhaps these individuals do not know any better. Perhaps people do not examine the ramifications of providing an internet all-access pass. Especially since employers have begun to background check these sites to monitor potential hires and employees.

Privacy can be imposed on individuals. For example, we cannot appear in public nude. So where do we draw the line?

Is Anything Sacred?

In this age of “All-access”, nothing is sacred and it is hurting our relationships. Privacy is the highest respect one can be paid in society. It fosters the self and imagination. As Garlin, Dumi and Brandon have artfully expressed, technology is a tool and should be used to amplify good, not stupidity ( i.e. Vh1’s Flavor of Love). It is hard enough to find truth in the world, and the presence of noisome voices do not make it any easier. Let’s set boundaries as to how far we will let people, technology, and the government encroach upon our lives.

In the Bible, it says seek first the Kingdom of God. And the Kingdom of God is within each of us. However, how can we find the Kingdom on the inside with all the noise on the outside?

Make time to reflect, to build intimacy with the Creator and loved ones, with no distractions.

Respect the privacy of others.

Hold fast to the truth, and let go of the ruff.

Truth and Peace,
Steven M. DeVougas

Question of the Week: What are the ramifications of decreased privacy?

My Health, My Decision

I have a layover in Minneapolis, Minnesota for the next hour, and that gives The SuperSpade a chance to see and discuss issues occurring wherever we are.

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty has proposed what he calls a “Health Impact Fee” as part of his upcoming budget proposal. The Minneapolis Star Tribune refers this as effectively a “Cigarette Tax.” These sorts of issues raise interesting questions about the rights and roles of government in health-related personal decision making.Even people who smoke acknowledge that there are negative health risks associated with that. Most people who engage in “high health impact” activities will quickly admit this as well. In neither case, however, do the risks outweigh the benefits to these individuals.

The Libertarian in me says that we should let these people live their lives and “penalize” them through things such as a “High Impact” fee. It says you [should] have the right to do what you wish, no matter what it is or who disagrees with it or who is uncomfortable with it. However, this breaks down for me in the case of smoking, which also adversely effects the environment and the health of those in close proximity.

The Uber-Liberal in me says that we should insure and provide a safety net for all, including the Risk-Lovers. It says that we will take care of you no matter what; Universal Health Care covers the crazy and the sane. The case where this breaks down is something like abortion. I am adamantly Pro-Choice, but I do not think the government should pay for the procedure.

The Fiscal Conservative in me says that the “Health Impact Fee” is right on. If I don’t smoke, why should I pay for someone that does? Efficient economics tells us that the market should price things at what they are worth to the consumer (e.g. Northwest Airlines charging everyone [including people like me who actually NEED the leg room] $15 for Exit Row seats. That almost went horribly wrong when we switched planes!!). This approach says that the blanket approaches of Garlin the Libertarian and Garlin the Liberal are so fair that they are unfair. This falls short in the case where I [willingly or unwillingly] engage in “High Health Impact” behavior(s) and cannot afford coverage.

I’m not crazy or the victim of a split-personality disorder. I am, in a word conflicted. I would like your thoughts on the role of government in personal health decisions. Should it enable everything? Should it do nothing? Somewhere in between? Your comments are appreciated.

The Right to be a Deadbeat

There is an interesting but upsetting debate that has been rekindled in America this week. I will refer to it as “Father’s Rights.” The National Center for Men are arguing that child support laws victimize men in cases of unintended pregnancy. I guess Deadbeat Dadhood just got a new freshman class.As a purely intellectual exercise, the concept of “equal” decision-making power in the event of unintended pregnancy is actually interesting. On the surface, men are 100% powerless in the decision to have a baby once conception has occurred. Let’s compare:

What a woman may choose:
Have the child
Abort the child
Raise the child after birth (alone or with the father)
Seek adoption for the child after birth
Abandon the child after birth

What a man may choose:
Raise the child after birth (with or separate from the mother)
Abandon the child after birth

Looking at sheer numbers, the women definitely have more options.

Often in the case of unintended pregnancy, men start counting nickels as well. They may often fiscally abandon both the child and the mother because they do not want the baby. I guess the argument here is that this is “unfair” since if the mother didn’t want the baby, she could have an abortion and it would be a “done deal.” This is a blatantly irresponsible and immature view that completely disregards the proven and documented adverse health effects of abortions. But aside from that, the reason that child support laws are on the books is to [at least attempt to] lessen the negative financial effects of a failed parental relationship on their child. What that means is that when a parent defaults on child support, they default on the child. THAT’S WHY IT’S CALLED CHILD SUPPORT!!!!

The problem with the arguments of the National Center for Men is that it’s goal is to punish women because they have more choices. This is simply asinine. In a blind and irresponsible reactionary fury to a feeling of powerlessness at the time of being made aware of an unintended pregnancy, these dudes decided to fight for the right to make a their own kid(s) suffer. Wow

Maybe they don’t see it that way. Maybe their motivation is, “I give her child support money and she spends it on everything but our child.” Well, there are two options to avoid the aforementioned scenario:

1. Stay together and [at least attempt to] maintain a functional relationship
In this scenario, the money is both of you all’s anyway, so where it goes is more transparent. In no way am I implying that the only drive to attempt to make a mother-father relationship flourish is money. I actually think quite the opposite, believing that trust and understanding can form foundations that will overcome monetary challenges. I simply present this as an option for those who don’t want their money “wasted.”

2. Think before you smash
The person who made the decision to get on the trifling’ female was…you.

So what is my conclusion? Don’t drink the careless. Let’s not look for excuses to abandon reasonable responsibilities that so many already disregard. We need a re-definition of black fatherhood, or fatherhood period. Nowhere in that definition should there exist a man who is jealous of his woman’s “abundance of options.”

“Men cannot afford to be careless.”
- Vito Corleone

The State of Your Union

Tonight was the continuation of an American tradition in which the elected executive stands before the whole of the remaining two branches of government and delivers their thoughts and visions on and for the Nation. It is a good opportunity to listen to what the president has to say about America: what do do they care about? What do they want to do? What have they done?

G. W. Bush had a few main points tonight, which included:

1. Isolationism = Defeatism
2. Democracy everywhere is the future
3. Building on existing domestic momentum

That is what he said. Here is what it actually means. We will approach this line-by-line, with parallel translation of rhetoric.

G. W. Started out paying respect to Coretta Scott King, who passed on today. That was a good move, but it was also probably the highlight of the night.

“Act in a spirit of goodwill and respect.”
G. W. Used this in reference to the heated, partisan tone of recent Washington debates (Patriot Act Extension, Alito Confirmation Hearings, Domestic Spying Inquiries). What this really means is “Democrats need to stop making noise. Get down or lay down.” It means that conservatives don’t want any disagreement, regardless of its merit (more on this below).

“Isolationism leads to danger and defeat.”
This is how G. W. Began his foreign policy section. This is a challenge to those of us who feel that domestic matters outweigh foreign affairs. Isolationist is conservative code for “having one’s priorities in logical order.” Is it “danger and defeat” if you care more about someone else’s house than your own family’s well-being? Of course not: it’s stupid.

“We seek the end of tyranny in the world…democracies replace resentment with hope…”
This was how G. W. Justified his *Offensive Democracy* foreign policy approach. Research has shown that “fighting them there so they don’t fight us here” holds as much water as a spider web. What does tyranny mean? It can be summed up in two words: unchecked leadership. America was designed to protect against such a thing, but with all three branches compromised, that protection has disappeared. As for democracy replacing resentment, is there resentment in American democracy? That’s another spider web full of Kool-Aid.

Mentioned Zimbabwe among non-democracies
The African continent made an appearance this year. The last time the Earth’s source was mentioned by G. W. was when he lied about Iraq getting weapons of mass destruction from Niger. I don’t think this mention will stir as much reaction.

“Terrorists chose the weapon of fear”
This is the first nominee for Line of the Night. BushCo has pedaled fear and propaganda in order to justify their foolish, selfish policies, including [but not limited to] the Patriot Act and the Domestic Spying program and the so-called “War on Terror.”

“The US will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil”
More code for “isolationism” being bad. See above.

“Clear plan for victory” in Iraq
This is the second nominee for Line of the Night. All I can say about this is this: when the “clear plan” is made “clear” by not “clearly” defining success, then is it really that “clear?”

“Iraq: 3 years to sovereignty…we are winning”
Sovereignty? G. W. Still hasn’t figured out what sovereignty means. What government is sovereign when it is supported, financed, and protected by another government. And “we are winning?” See above for an explanation on why you can’t win when you don’t know what winning means or looks like.

“The road of victory is the road that will take our troops home”
This is a feeble attempt at defining winning. Any idiot knows that when a “war” is “over,” the troops will come home. This is simply an empty, rhetorical, admission of the obvious.

Responsible Criticism vs. Defeatism
G. W. has touched on this before. Responsible criticism might as well mean total, blind agreement. Anything less is defeatism in the eyes of conservatives.

“Keep our word…stand behind the American military”
The “keep our word” part is the same as the “stay the course” B.S. that we’ve been hearing since the election of 2004. It means “I [and my backers] am too damn hard-headed to see my flawed actions and decisions of the past, and I refuse to change my tactics in spite of my mistakes.” It is an unfortunate reality that we meddled in and broke Iraq. Oh well in my opinion. I would much rather see resources expended in the Gulf Coast than the Persian Gulf.

“Raising up a democracy requires the rule of law…”
The timing of this statement is matched only by its irony. We are amid scandal and corruption in Washington, yet the President is calling for “the rule of law” in other nations. Apparently Americans can be above the law. Well, Americans WITH MONEY (read: Republicans) can be above the law.

America wants to be “the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran”
This is laughable considering that we will likely be invading Iran in the near future. Whether they were free or democratic, they would get invaded.

Patriot Act: “same tools used to fight drugs and crime”
This is how G. W. introduced his case for renewal of the controversial Patriot Act. There is plenty on this blog that makes our opposition to this clear. Black people should fear and reject anything similar to the “tools used to fight drugs and crime” that have led to such grave injustices as racial profiling, disproportionate Black male incarceration, and systematic Black disenfranchisement.

Spying: “appropriate members of Congress kept informed”
More attempts to justify “Terrorism Surveillance.” What defines “appropriate?” Why wasn’t the “appropriate,” appointed FISA Court informed?

“Roosevelt, Kennedy rejected isolation and retreat”
Sprinkle of rhetoric here about why “isolationism” is bad. We’ve already covered why that’s just plain dumb.

“I urge the Congress to act responsibly and make the tax cuts permanent.”
This oxymoron is the third nominee for Line of the Night. This means the the legislature should “responsibly” withhold money from important domestic affairs to reward the wealthy. Permanent tax cuts would be as irresponsible as permanent tax increases. Since one cannot predict future occurrences, tax policy should be periodically, organically evaluated.

The Special-Interest problem can be tackled with the Line-Item Veto
Never seen a President that didn’t want a Line-Item Veto, so that’s nothing new. The question is, would he really, really do something about lobbyists if he had one? I doubt it.

“Keeping America competitive requires affordable Health Care…Strengthen Health Spending Accounts…Make coverage portable”
The first and third phrases sound decent enough to me, given that I want the ultimate in affordable, portable coverage: Universal Health Care. The second phrase is one that I have a problem with. This point, nestled between two decent ideas, is part of G. W.’s Ownership Society message. The problem is that 45 million Americans don’t have Health care and cannot afford it, another would not be able to afford or understand HSAs as proposed. The beauty of Universal Health Care is that is based on a simple notion: you need health care, you get it, period. HSAs are no more than funnels leading to the pockets of HMOs and Insurance companies. Do not be fooled.

“America is addicted to oil…Advanced Energy Initiative…Replace 75% of Middle Eastern oil dependence by 2025″
This is actually a good idea. Increase research in ethanol and zero-emission coal power is a good thing. However, I can’t imagine BushCo’s oil buddies letting this kind of thing actually result in lower oil consumption.

“American Competitiveness Initiative”
Again, another good idea in theory. Doubling our commitment to natural sciences, permanent research tax credits, encouraging more math & science in secondary education, all good stuff. I just hope they don’t use No Child Left Behind as the model for implementation.

Work with Black churches to fight AIDS
Black folks came up again at the end. This marks the first time I had ever heard a White Republican cite statistics on AIDS in Black America. While I am happy about that (it is a step in the right direction), I am worried that the Black church path is a flawed one. BushCo has coaxed the Black church into supporting him on issues such as abortion and gay marriage, and he may be at it again. I would not trust these guys, as a fear that they are more concerned with gaining votes that saving Black lives.

There you have it.

Please share your thoughts and reactions to the speech and my reactions.

–
GDGII
www.TheSuperSpade.com

Sent using Windows Mobile 5.0

YOU and the Supreme Court

If you are alive and own a television that has a channel other than BET, you may be aware of the ongoing Senate confirmation hearing of Samuel Alito, who has been nominated by your (not my) president, G.W. Bush to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. This, like ALL other matters of government, has direct implication on my life and yours. In case you may not believe me, let’s discuss why.

Being a Supreme Court is a great job for one main reason: it’s a job that you can’t lose! Once you get it, you’re basically stuck with it until you retire or die. Besides being a parent, I can’t think of another job with that level of security. I say all this to say that the nature of a person placed in such a position is very important. The question is, what is the nature of Judge Alito? I’m sure he’s a nice guy, a pleasure to be around or to have lunch with. What is more important is where he stands on certain judicial issues. I has been beaten to death that he would be sympathetic to a overpowering executive (read: king), and that abortion rights are nonexistent in his opinion.

I am more interested in Alito’s stance on issues of discrimination. I am not confident, given his judicial history, that Judge Alito will view the rights of all citizens equally in the same manner that Justice O’Connor did on many occasions (e.g. The University of Michigan Affirmative Action case). Justice O’Connor was important because her “swing” vote often came down on the side of civil liberties and civil rights. Judge Alito, with his decisions like the one in Williams v. Price. The Congressional Black Caucus, while I don’t agree with the financial practices of their foundation, is right on this one, as noted here.

I have been watching these hearings very closely. You can see them live on C-Span.org. Pay close attention to where Democratic AND Republican Senators stand on this nomination. Pay close attention to whether ANY of the Senators even mention Alito’s past decisions that have had racial implications. If they neglect to address these issues of Alito’s judicial philosophy, are they just as bad as he?

Why Conservatives should SUPPORT Choice

Abortion, and all things related to it, is arguably the most divisive subject of of our time. I personally abhore the way this debate polarizes people. By this I mean, why do you only have 2 options: pro-life or pro-choice?

Let’s dig a little deeper…

In mathematics, there is the concept of equivalence classes, which allows us to treat two different entities as essentially the same. I raise this here because “conservatives” equivalence class pro-choice to being a “baby killer.” It must be great to be conservative because it completely absolves you of that terrible thing that non-conservatives do: think (we’ll talk about that in greater detail later). Pro-choice doesn’t equate to “baby slayer” on my common sense calculator.

Thinking for a second and a half would reveal in one’s mind that pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. It means exactly what it says: support of an individual’s (in this case a woman’s) right to CHOOSE. This means that you do not remove choices from an individual, no matter what those choices may be or how you feel about them. By this method it is quite possible to find the physical act of abortion wrong and still be pro-choice, a way that many people truly feel.

Conservatives, especially fundies, say the abortion is wrong because God says so. I guess The Holy Bible: Fundie Edition doesn’t describe how God gives people free will to make choices. Those choices could be things God may prefer (e.g. Honesty) or may not (e.g. Adultery). So why is it that these people want to take options off the table they don’t like, as if they are the ultimate decision makers? Who granted them such authority?

The basis of conservatism is individual sovereignty. They want “smaller” government. They want to reduce government intervention in your personal life. “You make your own decisions.” Well, I guess modern day conservatism has its limitations. We will stay out of your monetary decisions, but if you choose to have an abortion, you can’t: we made that decision for you. We will make you fend for yourself when it comes to health care, but should a homosexual choose to marry, you can’t: we made that decision for you. If the government making MY choices is not the definition of BIG GOVERNMENT (read: liberal ideology), I don’t know what is.

There is a difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. These things cannot be equivalence classed. I guess it’s difficult to attack more than one position, however, so let’s put them all in the same bucket and kick that bucket over.

So should the liberals and conservatives flip sides? I don’t know. But I do know that by definition, a conservative should support choice.

–
Garlin Gilchrist II
http://www.thesuperspade.com

Sent via Wireless Handheld