Cheers to John McCain for refusing to budge on a proposed set of ads that would reignite the Reverend Wright controversy.
Although his top advisers and Sarah Palin have been pushing for him to light this fire, McCain has refused to allow the ads to run.
This is the John McCain so many of us loved in 2000 and even at the beginning of this election cycle - a man who welcomed the media, ran an open and transparent campaign, and competed fairly and honestly.
Perhaps if he had maintained such a moral discipline throughout, the poll numbers wouldn't be what they are today with Obama up 9 points according to Bloomberg.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
End the madness
As the election draws ever closer, the candidates are getting more and more aggressive. Actually, aggressive probably isn't the right word. Their behavior could be likened more to desperately starved hyenas approaching a recently deceased gazelle carcass soaked in A1 steak sauce. And the sad part is that people actually eat this shit up.
Looks like the latest catch phrase from the right is "career first, country second," referring to Obama's association with former weatherman Bill Ayers. Are you f@#$ing kidding me? Perhaps it wasn't the best move on Obama's part to launch a state senate campaign in the home of a former terrorist. That said, however, the man, Ayers that is, hasn't been involved in any shady dealings since the 60's. He's an distinguished professor at the University of Illinois and has received numerous recognitions for his contributions to the educational and local community.
But the most important aspect of these attacks to consider is the way they drive political discourse. Every political campaign has its share of crazies, racists and straight up lunatics. That's to be expected, particularly in an election as historic as this. However, the character assassinations put forth by McCain's campaign have taken these voices and brought them to the mainstream, evidenced by participants at McCain's rallies that are willing to say things like ""I can't trust Obama. I have read about him and he's not, he's not uh — he's an Arab. He's not — ". (McCain cuts off the woman).
What does that say about our country? How can democracy work effectively if that kind of unabashed ignorance holds sway in the political arena? Again, I can only blame McCain himself. Sure he cut off the woman (crazy nut ball) and actually defended Obama. But it was his campaign that allowed this kind of commentary to exist. It was his onslaught of attack advertisements and public smears that made it OK for the xenophobic idiots to hijack the limelight from thoughtful conservatives with a real point to make.
Readers might notice at this point that I've focused pretty much entirely on McCain. And yes, perhaps I am a bit liberal, but that's not to say that Obama hasn't upped his attacks. There is no doubt that the fire is coming from both sides. However, I do feel strongly that the attacks coming from the right are harsher and more damaging to character than the attacks from the left which seem to be primarily policy oriented - with exceptions of course.
Anyhow, I can only worry about the weeks to come until Election Day. Will the current political conversations set precedent for future political campaign? Will the Karl Rove politics, characterized by a total lack of respect or any shred of real evidence become the rule of the game? I guess we can only wait and see.
Looks like the latest catch phrase from the right is "career first, country second," referring to Obama's association with former weatherman Bill Ayers. Are you f@#$ing kidding me? Perhaps it wasn't the best move on Obama's part to launch a state senate campaign in the home of a former terrorist. That said, however, the man, Ayers that is, hasn't been involved in any shady dealings since the 60's. He's an distinguished professor at the University of Illinois and has received numerous recognitions for his contributions to the educational and local community.
But the most important aspect of these attacks to consider is the way they drive political discourse. Every political campaign has its share of crazies, racists and straight up lunatics. That's to be expected, particularly in an election as historic as this. However, the character assassinations put forth by McCain's campaign have taken these voices and brought them to the mainstream, evidenced by participants at McCain's rallies that are willing to say things like ""I can't trust Obama. I have read about him and he's not, he's not uh — he's an Arab. He's not — ". (McCain cuts off the woman).
What does that say about our country? How can democracy work effectively if that kind of unabashed ignorance holds sway in the political arena? Again, I can only blame McCain himself. Sure he cut off the woman (crazy nut ball) and actually defended Obama. But it was his campaign that allowed this kind of commentary to exist. It was his onslaught of attack advertisements and public smears that made it OK for the xenophobic idiots to hijack the limelight from thoughtful conservatives with a real point to make.
Readers might notice at this point that I've focused pretty much entirely on McCain. And yes, perhaps I am a bit liberal, but that's not to say that Obama hasn't upped his attacks. There is no doubt that the fire is coming from both sides. However, I do feel strongly that the attacks coming from the right are harsher and more damaging to character than the attacks from the left which seem to be primarily policy oriented - with exceptions of course.
Anyhow, I can only worry about the weeks to come until Election Day. Will the current political conversations set precedent for future political campaign? Will the Karl Rove politics, characterized by a total lack of respect or any shred of real evidence become the rule of the game? I guess we can only wait and see.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
HOLY CRAP! THE WORLD MIGHT END!
OH MY GOD! Iran is going to go APE SHIT and invade Israel. Yeah, it's going to happen. Seriously. That crazy/evil man is going to push the big red invade button and the whole middle east is going to fall into anarchy. Then China will invade Taiwan, Venezuela will take over South America, and Russia will retake the whole soviet block.
Right. More B.S. for the educationally challenged.
Right. More B.S. for the educationally challenged.
Evil Shenanigans
Russia is an Evil Empire. Really guys? Really? Evil? This isn't Lord of the Rings, there isn't some giant black tower with a glowing eye looking out over Moscow. Evil? Really? Grow up.
Fun Fact: $700 billion dollars can solve any problem in the world. Fact.
Solve economic crisis: $700 bil.
Cost to end war in Iraq: $700 bil.
Cost to send a man to Mars: $700 bil.
Cost to end genocide in Darfur: $700 bil.
Cost to cure HIV: $700 bil.
Cost to research and develop a T-1000 unit to go back in time and kill Hitler's mother thus preventing WWII: $700 bil.
Solve economic crisis: $700 bil.
Cost to end war in Iraq: $700 bil.
Cost to send a man to Mars: $700 bil.
Cost to end genocide in Darfur: $700 bil.
Cost to cure HIV: $700 bil.
Cost to research and develop a T-1000 unit to go back in time and kill Hitler's mother thus preventing WWII: $700 bil.
Cheap Gas for everyone!!!
I'm as much a fan of low gas prices as anyone, but really, as Tom Friedman would likely argue, we need jacked up gas prices to create incentives to develop alternate fuel sources.
You're just not getting it McCain. Or your pandering to the double-digit IQ demographic.
You're just not getting it McCain. Or your pandering to the double-digit IQ demographic.
Calling out Obama
Ok, I've gotta call shenanigans on Obama. He said just a few minutes ago that only a few small businesses make more than $250,000 per year, and thus, few businesses would be hurt by his tax plan.
I'll have to get back to you guys with some hard data later, but I feel like this has got to be inaccurate. While $250k might be a lot for a person to make in a year, or a household for that matter, I would guess that a significant amount of small businesses rake in significantly more than that.
$250k is basically five guys pulling in $50k a year - thats not exactly luxurious in today's world.
I'll have to get back to you guys with some hard data later, but I feel like this has got to be inaccurate. While $250k might be a lot for a person to make in a year, or a household for that matter, I would guess that a significant amount of small businesses rake in significantly more than that.
$250k is basically five guys pulling in $50k a year - thats not exactly luxurious in today's world.
Social Security is easy to fix
Really? Do I even need to address this one?
Oh yeah, Social Security, no problem whatsoever. Yeah. We know exactly what we need to do.
Oh yeah, Social Security, no problem whatsoever. Yeah. We know exactly what we need to do.
Monday, September 29, 2008
It's time for a public president
There’s something special about a presidential campaign. The candidates are so human.
It seems that too often, after a former candidate assumes office, he becomes this out-of-touch semi-human figure that stands behind a podium every now and then and shakes someone’s hand every now and then. Sure, we’ll hear about them attending major events, visiting important countries and vetoing important bills, but how many Americans can say on a even just a week to week basis what their leader is up to?
No longer is the President of the United States the leader of the people. That man has been replaced by a distant figure that lurks behind the scenes, poking his head out every now and again to remind us all to vote for him.
Instead, we look to the media for leadership.
Now I’m not trying to bash the media – hell, I’m a member of it. But the media should never be the leader of the people. The media should be a watchdog, to make sure that leader fulfills his responsibilities.
The next president needs to change this dynamic. And it wouldn’t be hard to do. As President Bush has said, being president is “hard.” But would it be out of line to ask our elected leader to talk to the people once a month? A once a year state of the Union address is no longer sufficient in an environment of 24-hour news networks and constantly updating websites (blogs?). How can we be expected to have faith in our leader if the only time we hear him is through media summaries? What if Bush had gone on a news program once a month? Ok. I know he’s an idiot and probably would have faired rather poorly, but even so, what if he had taken an hour each month to sit down with a news reporter? And the thing is, it wouldn’t even have to be news programs. What if he and Laura had sat down on The View? Oprah? Anything. Really.
What if a president sat down and honestly and openly told the people what he was doing, why there’s a problem, what’s difficult about it or anything else? Can you imagine? An honest and open president?
That president would be a leader of the people.
But, alas, this is probably just a pipe dream.
It seems that too often, after a former candidate assumes office, he becomes this out-of-touch semi-human figure that stands behind a podium every now and then and shakes someone’s hand every now and then. Sure, we’ll hear about them attending major events, visiting important countries and vetoing important bills, but how many Americans can say on a even just a week to week basis what their leader is up to?
No longer is the President of the United States the leader of the people. That man has been replaced by a distant figure that lurks behind the scenes, poking his head out every now and again to remind us all to vote for him.
Instead, we look to the media for leadership.
Now I’m not trying to bash the media – hell, I’m a member of it. But the media should never be the leader of the people. The media should be a watchdog, to make sure that leader fulfills his responsibilities.
The next president needs to change this dynamic. And it wouldn’t be hard to do. As President Bush has said, being president is “hard.” But would it be out of line to ask our elected leader to talk to the people once a month? A once a year state of the Union address is no longer sufficient in an environment of 24-hour news networks and constantly updating websites (blogs?). How can we be expected to have faith in our leader if the only time we hear him is through media summaries? What if Bush had gone on a news program once a month? Ok. I know he’s an idiot and probably would have faired rather poorly, but even so, what if he had taken an hour each month to sit down with a news reporter? And the thing is, it wouldn’t even have to be news programs. What if he and Laura had sat down on The View? Oprah? Anything. Really.
What if a president sat down and honestly and openly told the people what he was doing, why there’s a problem, what’s difficult about it or anything else? Can you imagine? An honest and open president?
That president would be a leader of the people.
But, alas, this is probably just a pipe dream.
Friday, September 26, 2008
McCain's got nothin' - go all in!
It seems Obama has called McCain’s bluff.
According to Politico.com, a McCain advisor said that the republican presidential candidate will most likely be attending the debate tonight. Yesterday, when McCain addressed the country and said that he would put his campaign on hold in favor of solving the nation’s economic crisis, I, along with most of America, wondered whether the move had political or moral motives.
I’m thinking political and here’s why.
If McCain honestly thought that he could provide some kind of genuine support in the Senate, he wouldn’t be considering this debate. He would stay in Washington and lead the way on a bipartisan bill that could later act as a cornerstone of his campaign. To be able to say, “When the nation was in trouble, I put politics aside and led the way to reform,” would be invaluable to a candidate who largely comes across not as the ‘maverick’ but as grandpa.
Instead, McCain is now entertaining the idea of attending the debate. Had Obama not pushed for the debate and gone to Washington with McCain, McCain would have come across as the leader to the majority of the public, as he was the first to publicly propose the campaign hold. But now that Obama has said he still wants to verbally spar, McCain has to comply.
If McCain declines to debate and doesn’t personally accomplish something impressive in the capitol building, he will look like a lame duck – particularly if the bailout bill isn’t passed in very short order.
According to Politico.com, a McCain advisor said that the republican presidential candidate will most likely be attending the debate tonight. Yesterday, when McCain addressed the country and said that he would put his campaign on hold in favor of solving the nation’s economic crisis, I, along with most of America, wondered whether the move had political or moral motives.
I’m thinking political and here’s why.
If McCain honestly thought that he could provide some kind of genuine support in the Senate, he wouldn’t be considering this debate. He would stay in Washington and lead the way on a bipartisan bill that could later act as a cornerstone of his campaign. To be able to say, “When the nation was in trouble, I put politics aside and led the way to reform,” would be invaluable to a candidate who largely comes across not as the ‘maverick’ but as grandpa.
Instead, McCain is now entertaining the idea of attending the debate. Had Obama not pushed for the debate and gone to Washington with McCain, McCain would have come across as the leader to the majority of the public, as he was the first to publicly propose the campaign hold. But now that Obama has said he still wants to verbally spar, McCain has to comply.
If McCain declines to debate and doesn’t personally accomplish something impressive in the capitol building, he will look like a lame duck – particularly if the bailout bill isn’t passed in very short order.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Recovering from Palin Fever
Finally, after long last, the news outlets have chilled out on Sarah Palin. Thank God.
But what has this shown us about the vice presidential candidate? I’d be lying if I said I knew, but I feel that we can narrow it down to a few possibilities.
Despite extensive media coverage (obsession?) the governor from Alaska has largely declined any media interviews and has refused to appear on talk shows.
We have a couple ways to look at this.
The first, and perhaps most terrifying, is that Mrs. Palin is simply not versed enough to handle the grilling that would be dished out by experienced journalists. The McCain camp, despite the vp choice, is still running on a platform of experience - whether they advertise it or not. Showing an inept vice presidential candidate to the world would in no way help them out.
The second possibility is that the McCain campaign is milking the media’s curiosity over Palin. Nobody really knows much about her and that’s bringing her attention. And there is nothing great to bring an unknown into celebrity like absurd levels of news coverage. And the more she remains a mystery, the more she’s going to be speculated about, evaluated, and covered by the media outlets.
But what has this shown us about the vice presidential candidate? I’d be lying if I said I knew, but I feel that we can narrow it down to a few possibilities.
Despite extensive media coverage (obsession?) the governor from Alaska has largely declined any media interviews and has refused to appear on talk shows.
We have a couple ways to look at this.
The first, and perhaps most terrifying, is that Mrs. Palin is simply not versed enough to handle the grilling that would be dished out by experienced journalists. The McCain camp, despite the vp choice, is still running on a platform of experience - whether they advertise it or not. Showing an inept vice presidential candidate to the world would in no way help them out.
The second possibility is that the McCain campaign is milking the media’s curiosity over Palin. Nobody really knows much about her and that’s bringing her attention. And there is nothing great to bring an unknown into celebrity like absurd levels of news coverage. And the more she remains a mystery, the more she’s going to be speculated about, evaluated, and covered by the media outlets.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Good Shit
I was about to write an entry about the balance between US citizenship and world citizenship after seeing hundreds of people waving "country first" signs at the RNC. But now, as I write this, MSNBC is rerunning a video shown on the big screen at the convention. Is the video about 9/11? No. McCain's time as a POW? Nope.
It's Ronald Mother-F!@#ing Reagan!
Holy God! Thats the stuff baby! Give papa that sweet red blooded sugar!
How could we forget about a man who has about as much to do with this presidential race as the obese guy who rolls past my house every other day on his adult sized tricycle?!?! Yes, it had been too long since the National Republican party had filled up that syringe and intravenously injected some pure unadulterated Ronald Reagan. Good Lord. At least fat tricycle guy can vote.
But ya know, lets not judge the whole convention on one completely inane video biography about a guy who should be the poster-boy for failed economic policies and international scandal.
Let's see what's next.
Oh snap! It's Fred Thompson!
HOLY CRAP
As if the vintage Reagan porn wasn't enough - and yes, I believe at this point we can consider footage of Ronald Reagan porn for many on this country's right - the Grande Old Party follows it up with a guy so old and out of touch with the country that he's just figured out the Cold War ended.
Could this party get any older? (Physically or mentally?) Seriously. On Wednesday, Newt Gingrich is scheduled to talk about the US' role in the League of Nations and I hear they've already reserved the Knollwood Nursing Home in D.C. for the 2012 convention.
Thats all for now. Feel free to post responses. Seriously.
It's Ronald Mother-F!@#ing Reagan!
Holy God! Thats the stuff baby! Give papa that sweet red blooded sugar!
How could we forget about a man who has about as much to do with this presidential race as the obese guy who rolls past my house every other day on his adult sized tricycle?!?! Yes, it had been too long since the National Republican party had filled up that syringe and intravenously injected some pure unadulterated Ronald Reagan. Good Lord. At least fat tricycle guy can vote.
But ya know, lets not judge the whole convention on one completely inane video biography about a guy who should be the poster-boy for failed economic policies and international scandal.
Let's see what's next.
Oh snap! It's Fred Thompson!
HOLY CRAP
As if the vintage Reagan porn wasn't enough - and yes, I believe at this point we can consider footage of Ronald Reagan porn for many on this country's right - the Grande Old Party follows it up with a guy so old and out of touch with the country that he's just figured out the Cold War ended.
Could this party get any older? (Physically or mentally?) Seriously. On Wednesday, Newt Gingrich is scheduled to talk about the US' role in the League of Nations and I hear they've already reserved the Knollwood Nursing Home in D.C. for the 2012 convention.
Thats all for now. Feel free to post responses. Seriously.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
WARNING:
So I bought a lamp today. Nothing too fancy. Well, it kind of feigns fancy, but really cost me 25 bucks at Wal-Mart. Anyway, as I sat in my desk chair putting it together, I casually glanced at the "Made in China" emblem on the bottom. "What else is new?" I thought. Then, as I went to plug it in, I saw another tag that was a bit more... disconcerting? It reads (I kid you not):
"WARNING: This product may contain chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. Wash hands after use."
(The other side had the same warning in Spanish.)
That's right people. Don't sweat the cigarettes, Chinese lamps are the real killer.
Now, seeing as I have absolutely no understanding of the intricacies of lamp manufacturing, I have really no way of knowing whether this warning is merely a reflection of the increasingly paranoid society we live in where virtually everything causes cancer, or if there is some legitimacy to the claim, in which case I should probably be washing my hands right now.
What I did find interesting, and would like to address, is that the warning only acknowledged that the "State of California" found my lamp to be dangerous. What about the other 49? Are we too wrapped up with whether or not we should teach intelligent design to actually pursue scientific frontiers? Did we do the research and decide that my lamp is in fact not dangerous? My guess is we didn't actually do any research on lamp. Which brings me to my next point.
Why can't we be more like California?
Can anyone think of a time in U.S. history when scientific research had more potential? Be it stem cells or alternate fuel sources, most of the country, no thanks to our current administration, is simply not paying attention.
Seriously, when President Bush threw a hissy fit over stem cell research, California persevered and continued to foster the research.
Currently, there is the seemingly endless debate in congress regarding offshore drilling. Republicans say we need the oil to keep gas prices down until we come up with a permanent energy solution. Democrats say that feeding our "addiction to oil" will only postpone the vital reasearch that needs to happen immediately.
Can you blame the blues?
The way things seem to be going now, anything that might make alternate fuel sources seem less urgent is something that should really be avoided. If all those free market republicans really hold to their beliefs, than they should understand that it just might take five dollar per gallon gasoline to get hydrogen fuel cells out of the lab and onto the street.
That's all for now.
(The other side had the same warning in Spanish.)
That's right people. Don't sweat the cigarettes, Chinese lamps are the real killer.
Now, seeing as I have absolutely no understanding of the intricacies of lamp manufacturing, I have really no way of knowing whether this warning is merely a reflection of the increasingly paranoid society we live in where virtually everything causes cancer, or if there is some legitimacy to the claim, in which case I should probably be washing my hands right now.
What I did find interesting, and would like to address, is that the warning only acknowledged that the "State of California" found my lamp to be dangerous. What about the other 49? Are we too wrapped up with whether or not we should teach intelligent design to actually pursue scientific frontiers? Did we do the research and decide that my lamp is in fact not dangerous? My guess is we didn't actually do any research on lamp. Which brings me to my next point.
Why can't we be more like California?
Can anyone think of a time in U.S. history when scientific research had more potential? Be it stem cells or alternate fuel sources, most of the country, no thanks to our current administration, is simply not paying attention.
Seriously, when President Bush threw a hissy fit over stem cell research, California persevered and continued to foster the research.
Currently, there is the seemingly endless debate in congress regarding offshore drilling. Republicans say we need the oil to keep gas prices down until we come up with a permanent energy solution. Democrats say that feeding our "addiction to oil" will only postpone the vital reasearch that needs to happen immediately.
Can you blame the blues?
The way things seem to be going now, anything that might make alternate fuel sources seem less urgent is something that should really be avoided. If all those free market republicans really hold to their beliefs, than they should understand that it just might take five dollar per gallon gasoline to get hydrogen fuel cells out of the lab and onto the street.
That's all for now.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Lets put our heads in the sand and get pissed!
As the news outlets dance around the DNC like kids in a candy store and Hillary officially endorses Obama with apparent enthusiasm, you really just can't miss stories about angry Clinton supporters.
Huh?
Dear Angry Clinton supporters,
We understand your pain. We know your pissed that Michigan and Florida got nixed in the primary process and we know you were all super pumped about a female democratic nominee. And we know the disappointment you must have felt when your sure thing got eclipsed by a junior senator from Illinois. But seriously, you've had your time to grieve. Get over it/yourselves.
There virtually no legitimate way for a progressive voter to choose McCain over Obama if they had previously backed Clinton.
Do none of you remember the Clinton - Obama debates? It was like watching a lunatic debate himself (or herself). The only moments highlighted in the news were witty little sound bits that, while entertaining, were pretty much irrelevant to any sort of issue-oriented debated.
Be it the economy, the war, gay rights, abortion, or pretty much anything else, Obama and Clinton held pretty much the same views and still do.
Sure it was touching (albeit moderately alarming) to see your unfettered devotion to your candidate during the primaries when you all boldly announced "if Obama gets the nomination, I'll vote for McCain," but really, that whole shindig is over and done with. We let you slide before because we thought you were only halfway serious, but now its time to jump back on the bandwagon and stop whining.
That's all for now.
Huh?
Dear Angry Clinton supporters,
We understand your pain. We know your pissed that Michigan and Florida got nixed in the primary process and we know you were all super pumped about a female democratic nominee. And we know the disappointment you must have felt when your sure thing got eclipsed by a junior senator from Illinois. But seriously, you've had your time to grieve. Get over it/yourselves.
There virtually no legitimate way for a progressive voter to choose McCain over Obama if they had previously backed Clinton.
Do none of you remember the Clinton - Obama debates? It was like watching a lunatic debate himself (or herself). The only moments highlighted in the news were witty little sound bits that, while entertaining, were pretty much irrelevant to any sort of issue-oriented debated.
Be it the economy, the war, gay rights, abortion, or pretty much anything else, Obama and Clinton held pretty much the same views and still do.
Sure it was touching (albeit moderately alarming) to see your unfettered devotion to your candidate during the primaries when you all boldly announced "if Obama gets the nomination, I'll vote for McCain," but really, that whole shindig is over and done with. We let you slide before because we thought you were only halfway serious, but now its time to jump back on the bandwagon and stop whining.
That's all for now.
Kickin it up a notch
Though I doubt that more than a few people have actually looked at this blog, it's getting back in gear for my journalism class. Most of the future entries will focus on the national elections and probably touch on a few other unrelated bits. Enjoy and feel free to tack on responses to any of my posts.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Your heritage makes me sad
Recently, while driving down 27, not far outside of Oxford, I noticed the truck in front of me was sporting a “Kerry lost – get over it” bumper sticker. Also featured in the back window of this rusted out monster was a Confederate flag.
Is anyone else picking up on the irony?
Now, I’ll confess, I haven’t taken a history class for quite some time now, but I did see Gettysburg, and I am pretty sure that those states south of the Ohio River (the Mason-Dixon Line) are still part of the Union. I’m also pretty sure that the Confederacy lost the war. So, Mr. Truck Driver, maybe you should take your own advice.
Get over it.
Of course, the fact that the confederacy lost should be the least of your reasons for not displaying the Navy Jack. These reasons should be similar to those that explain why it’s generally considered socially unacceptable to go out lynching “coloreds” these days.
Mr. Truck Driver would probably say something along the lines of, “That flag doesn’t represent hate – it’s part of my heritage. My great grandpappy died fighting for that flag.”
Well, good for him – your “great grandpappy” was racist.
The Civil War, no matter how you slice it, revolved around the issue of slavery. When Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party – the first major party committed to end the expansion of slavery – took control of the executive branch in 1861, seven states seceded. What did they all have in common? Each one was chock-full of plantations operated by slaves.
So, anyone who says they wave that flag to honor their southern heritage, or that of their ancestors, is either confused, naïve, or an idiot – or, more than likely, a combination of all three.
There are plenty of people in Germany that fought, or are related to those who fought in the German military during World War II. But do you see Hans putting around in his Volkswagen with a swastika in the back window?
Of course not, the swastika is a symbol of hate and most rational people, aside from a few lunatics, do their best to avoid association with it.
So, next time you’re thinking about slapping a Confederate flag on the tail of your car, maybe you should take it all the way. I mean, why stop there? You could hang your Klan hood from the rear view mirror and maybe even sport a chromed out burning cross hood ornament.
But then again, the South lost – so get over it.
Is anyone else picking up on the irony?
Now, I’ll confess, I haven’t taken a history class for quite some time now, but I did see Gettysburg, and I am pretty sure that those states south of the Ohio River (the Mason-Dixon Line) are still part of the Union. I’m also pretty sure that the Confederacy lost the war. So, Mr. Truck Driver, maybe you should take your own advice.
Get over it.
Of course, the fact that the confederacy lost should be the least of your reasons for not displaying the Navy Jack. These reasons should be similar to those that explain why it’s generally considered socially unacceptable to go out lynching “coloreds” these days.
Mr. Truck Driver would probably say something along the lines of, “That flag doesn’t represent hate – it’s part of my heritage. My great grandpappy died fighting for that flag.”
Well, good for him – your “great grandpappy” was racist.
The Civil War, no matter how you slice it, revolved around the issue of slavery. When Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party – the first major party committed to end the expansion of slavery – took control of the executive branch in 1861, seven states seceded. What did they all have in common? Each one was chock-full of plantations operated by slaves.
So, anyone who says they wave that flag to honor their southern heritage, or that of their ancestors, is either confused, naïve, or an idiot – or, more than likely, a combination of all three.
There are plenty of people in Germany that fought, or are related to those who fought in the German military during World War II. But do you see Hans putting around in his Volkswagen with a swastika in the back window?
Of course not, the swastika is a symbol of hate and most rational people, aside from a few lunatics, do their best to avoid association with it.
So, next time you’re thinking about slapping a Confederate flag on the tail of your car, maybe you should take it all the way. I mean, why stop there? You could hang your Klan hood from the rear view mirror and maybe even sport a chromed out burning cross hood ornament.
But then again, the South lost – so get over it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
