Powered By Blogger

Monday, March 21, 2016

Open Letter to Republicans

I was inspired to pull this article out, dust it off and freshen it up by a comment I heard on the Jimmy Dore Show. Let me start by saying I'm a big fan of Jimmy Dore and appreciate his political satire.

The conversation that energized this endeavor went something along these lines, although, I can't say for sure that this is a totally faithful reproduction of the conversation.

Jimmy and his guest were talking about how in a country with only 2 significant political parties, it was to be expected that each party would contain a great deal of diversity and would have to represent dramatically different points of view. Dore's guest acknowledged the truth of this observation, but then added that when he is standing in line to vote for Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, he was very confident that the person standing behind him in line didn't want to lynch Black people, splash their bodies with gas and set them on fire. Such could not be said for the person standing behind you in line to vote Republican.

It was, in my opinion, a brilliant observation. The simple truth of which made me realize that it is time to stop giving safe harbor to those who claim that they are a different breed of Republican. Saying that you favor state's rights or small government is no longer a reasonable excuse for identifying with America's hate party. The Republican party today has been 40 years in the making. It has been fashioned by the worst America had to offer humanity. The coded racist language of the past has now given way to open racism and bigotry. Today's Republican party is like a smoky old bar. You may not smoke a single cigarette, but you're going to coming stinking as if you had. The naive intellectuals, or perhaps, not so naive intellectuals, who pretend that there are 2 distinct Republican parties are practicing the worst form of denial. If you don't want to be labeled a bigot, a troglodyte, a racist, and/or a fascist, it's time to let go and admit that the GOP is no longer your party. It's like saying you belong to the KKK because you enjoy the Saturday afternoon picnics and softball games. Sorry, that foolishness is no longer acceptable.

We are entering a new period of political accountability and those who continue to pledge themselves to America's party of hate and intolerance are going to find themselves in the cross-hairs of national contempt and disdain. There is a day coming when no American Flag lapel pin is going to be big enough to hide behind. You can yell "State Rights" or "Small Government" all you want, but the only terms that are going to stick are going to be bigot, homophobe, fascist, zealot, misogynist, anti-intellectual, anti-science, freak.


In this essay, I would like to suggest a thought experiment. An experiment where there is no empirical data; however, there is data that come from experience, reason and the application of logic. It is an experiment that can be conducted by anyone. It is relatively easy and requires little time. Additionally, it is, perhaps, even more enlightening when performed in small groups. It is an experiment that I believe provides surprising insight into one of the two major political parties in America.

Introduction

According to Wikipedia: A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other designated sector of society.

To begin the experiment, we need to choose from five to ten well-known hate groups or organizations. I have chosen eight. My groups are composed of sympathizers and supporters of various, well-known, hate messages or hate ideologies. I have excluded supporters of extremely controversial social issues (such as abortion and immigration) but you may want to include them in your version of the experiment. I have intentionally selected hate messages, or hate ideologies, with high name recognition and a message or ideology that is almost universally known and understood. That is to say, my list does not contain any obscure groups, although, obscure groups are just as meaningful and there is no reason for them to be excluded.

My Hate List:
  • ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the Ku Klux Klan
  • ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the Neo Nazis or the American Nazi Party
  • ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the skin head movement
  • ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the white supremacist movement
  • ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the anti-gay or anti-LGBT movement
  • ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the Holocaust Denial movement
  • ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the Westboro Baptist Church
  • ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the Aryan Nation

While there is some overlap among some of these groups, all are unique and have messages or ideologies that clearly differentiate them. Members of one group may sympathize with another, however, such sympathy is most likely based on the common denominator of hate. Nonetheless, when you conduct the experiment, you may want to choose groups that you feel to be more independent.

Methods

First, imagine that we have 100 randomly selected members from each of the 8 groups. One-hundred is chosen to make the percentages easier to determine. Although, almost any number would work just fine. The only stipulation is that they be old enough to fully understand what these groups represent. I suggest a minimum age of 21, but you might prefer another age.

Second, we will use the current national election cycle, i.e., 2015-2016. We will assume that they are exposed to the election rhetoric of both the Democratic party and the Republican Party. In essence, we are saying that they are exposed to that which they were actually exposed to; nothing special, nothing out of the ordinary.

Normally, voting demographics are easy to come by, except for perhaps hate groups. Very few polls are conducted to determine how sympathizers and supporters of hate groups vote in an election. The goal of this experiment is to determine for ourselves, based on our knowledge of the message and ideologies of these hate groups, how the hate group sympathizers and supporters would vote.

When I ran the experiment, the outcomes were both ominous and very, very clear. In each and every case, I asked myself the following questions:
  • In general, would hate group voters feel most at home under the Republican tent or the Democratic  tent?
  • During the campaign, did hate group voters feel more aligned with the rhetoric of the Republican candidates or the Democratic candidates?
  •  On specific issues of interest (i.e., hate issues) would voters identify more with the Republican candidates or the Democratic candidates?
  • With which party would hate group voters feel the greatest affinity, the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?
Results

For every group, the 100 members voted overwhelmingly for the Republican Party. In my mind, while trying to be relatively conservative with my guesses, I was unable to imagine fewer than 60% of each hate group voting Republican and, for certain groups (e.g. the KKK, white nationalists and Westboro Baptist Church), I consider 80% to be much more likely.

Discussion

This very simple thought experiment, while not scientific, is very enlightening with regard to the Republican Party. The validity of the test increases with each additional experiment. The test can be carried out for any hate group or collection of hate groups; and while results may vary, I'm fairly certain that the alarming trend will not. The Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_hate_groups) has an enormous, comprehensive list of hate groups. I encourage you to peruse the list and conduct this experiment again, and again and again. I think you will see that the outcome is consistently the same, today's hate groups identify much more closely with Republican Party than the Democratic Party. 

Conclusion

America has one national party that appears to consistently be the party of choice for almost every hate group and hate organization in America. Based on the Wikipedia definition used in the Introduction, the Republican Party can, without exaggeration, be considered a hate group. America can ill afford to have a national hate party. Its defenders will refute this claim, but the Republican Party now represents the dark side of almost every social issue that confronts America. It is now the "big tent" and preferred party for racism, bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, and xenophobia. Just as Republicans demand that “good” Muslims take a stand and break away from the barbaric history of Islam, "Good" Republicans must now take a stand by denouncing and stepping away from the hatred that has become the core of the party. 

Sunday, January 17, 2016

Mike Huckabee -- Madness personified.

17 Jan 2016

If you haven't seen Mike Huckabee's closing comments at the January Republican debate, then I encourage you to watch this 1 min 58 sec video clip. To breifly summarize, the first half of the clip is Huckabee explaining that he was not a career politician. Presumably this is required fare in the current anti-establishment environment. In the second half of the clip he, in essence, says "vote for me because I support using the 10 commandments as a basis for American policy both foreign and domestic." Clearly I'm paraphrasing a bit, which is why I think viewing the video is well worth while.

Let me offer the 10 commandments for your consideration, just in case you have forgotten them, as I had.

The 10 Commandments List in Exodus 20:2-17

  1. “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
  2. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
  3. “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
  4. “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
  5. “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you.
  6. “You shall not murder.
  7. “You shall not commit adultery.
  8. “You shall not steal.
  9. “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
  10. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

The 10 Commandments List in Deuteronomy 5:6-21

  1. “I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
  2. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
  3. “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
  4. “Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.
  5. “Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may be well with you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you.
  6. “You shall not murder.
  7. “You shall not commit adultery.
  8. “You shall not steal.
  9. “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
  10. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife; and you shall not desire your neighbor’s house, his field, his male servant, his female servant, his ox, his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.”
Regrettably I had to present two versions, since both are found in the bible. The commandments with significant differences are highlighted. Which is the REAL word of god, I leave it to you to decide.

The minor inconsistencies aside, which of these 10 commandments would function as a basis for American policy? As I went through them, one by one, giving each careful consideration, I found zero. None of the 10 commandments would serve as a foundation for American policy. That's not a very good batting average, or completion rate or whatever sports metaphor you prefer. If you look at these 10 statements and see them as fully consistent with the US Constitution or in any way relevant to executing the duties of the President, then you are a madman. Although, in this case, a madman that is basically functional for most everyday tasks. In this context "madman" means someone who is so delusional as to be considered to have lost touch with reality with regard to a particular issue.

Also included in the second part of Huckabee's closing statement was the appeal to prayer. Huckabee would have you believe that in difficult times, when level-headedness is at a premium, he will release whatever tenuous grasp on reality he has and ask a make-believe spirit entity to guide his hand as he makes life and death decisions. Such thinking is insane, literally, insane. It would be like asking a wee-gee board whether or not to invade a Middle East Country. A person who appeals to and listens to magical beings should never have access to the power wielded by the President of the United States of America. 

I wish I could say that Huckabee is the lone candidate that walks with one foot on each side of the line that separates reason and sanity from insanity and delusion, however, he is not the only one.

Let me conclude with my list of candidates, who through their own words and actions relative to their beliefs in prayer, magical beings, and the use of the bible as an instrument of democracy, have demonstrated that they are psychologically unfit to hold the office of President of the USA.
  1. Ben Carson
  2. Rick Santorum
  3. Ted Cruz

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Tamir Rice Confirms the US Police State

29 Dec 2015

Almost everyone has heard about this case, although the final judgement regarding Tamir Rice was slipped into the week between Christmas and New Years; and in my opinion, not accidentally.

For years I have written about the slow transformation of America into a police state. While the transformation is probably the inevitable outcome of a failure of democracy, the inevitability was accelerated after Sept. 11, 2001. The case of Tamir Rice reveals the full extent of the transformation and shows how far we have traveled down this deeply disturbing road.

As noted in the hour long dramatic presentation by Cleveland prosecutors, the Grand Jury failed to indict either office involved in the fatal shooting. You can find a detailed description at this site.

The Grand Jury process involved a city or county prosecutor leading an inquiry into whether there is enough evidence to justify charging a person with a particular crime. There is no defense portion to this process. The person "of interest" is not allowed to present any evidence on their behalf. In that sense, a Grand Jury is a bit of a witch hunt in which a prosecutor can introduce any evidence and withhold any evidence they choose. In fact it is so easy to get an indictment from a Grand Jury, it gave rise to one of those humorous, if sad, sayings that "a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich." This hints at the rather unhealthy relationship that exists between prosecutors and a Grand Juries. Through winks and nods prosecutors gets indictments they want and fail to get the ones they don't want. This helps ensure that their win/loss record remains politically acceptable.

In the case of Tamir Rice, the two officers were the ones being considered by the Grand Jury for charges associated with the child's death. If ever there appeared to be a "ham sandwich" just waiting to be indicted it would have been these two officers. The video shown to the public, was more than damning enough to get an indictment. You have two officers racing into the scene, not unlike Starsky and Hutch, almost hitting Tamir with their patrol car. Two seconds later, Tamir was dead. That was the one and only item that needed to be shown to the Grand Jury. With a wink or a nod, an indictment would have been handed down. The Grand Jury would have done what Grand Juries do, they would have indicted the two officers.

Keep in mind that an indictment is not a finding of guilt. It simply says that there is evidence for the matter to go to trail where both the prosecutor and the defense can be heard and a jury then makes the final determination. More or less, what we think of when someone says the name Perry Mason.

Oddly, or perhaps not, in this case, as presented at a press conference by the prosecution on Dec. 28, 2015, the prosecutors office produced an exhaustive hour long defense of the two officers. In fact, if they had not stated that they were the prosecutors, a casual witness would have been justified in assuming that they were the defense attorneys hired by the two officers.

No stone was left unturned in finding and presenting evidence to exonerate the officers. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, I'm saying that this is something that is very, rarely done and only seems to be done with the police are accused of crimes. The final result was a Grand Jury trail that would never be afforded to average citizens. It was a special Grand Jury process that was turned on its head to avoid a trail in the criminal courts, while at the same time offering only uncontested evidence to explain the lack of an indictment. In this case the prosecutor went beyond what was considered the Grand Jury farce in Ferguson, where the prosecutor announced that he had simply presented all evidence to the Grand Jury, instead of just the evidence against Officer Wilson. In Cleveland, the prosecution acted as the defense and presented only exonerating evidence. It appears that every piece of evidence offered to the Grand Jury was accompanied by a lengthy explanation as to way it supported the innocence of the officers.

The Cleveland Grand Jury was a kangaroo court, or more precisely a kangaroo Grand Jury. It is an essential step in the progression towards a police state. The police must have immunity from the law. Without immunity, there can be no guarantee that the police will be willing to enforce the increasingly draconian rules that govern society.

The first and greatest hurdle to a police state has been successfully overcome. The police, the courts and the prisons have become a single entity (the police/judicial/prison-industrial complex) and oversight by citizens is effectively gone. The police can now act without constraints and with almost complete impunity, because the systems intended to limit police abuses have been removed.

It may already be too late, but Law and Order, does not mean what you think it does.