So, the end is nigh for the Republican National Convention. Today, they wrapped things up at the historic 40th nomination of the Republican presidential candidate and say goodbye to Tampa, Florida, hilariously nicknamed "The Big Guava." Exactly 2,286 delegates and 2,125 alternate delegates were present at the convention, mostly throwing their support behind the-now official Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. However, it wasn't a Republican convention without some thunder-stealing from the Ron Paul contingent, who voiced their dissatisfaction at the RNC for cancelling Paul's speech. A telling example of their vocal frustration was a sign fight between a Paul supporter and a Romney supporter during the roll call of the States.
But, back to the actual convention. The first day was impulsively thrown awash due to fears of then-Tropical Storm Isaac disrupting the convention and causing the previously mentioned cancellation of Paul's speech. Other speakers were likewise cut from the itinerary, like Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and reality TV star/entrepreneur/Birther Donald Trump.
The rest of the convention followed the structure of encompassing themes, most notably the Day 2 theme of "We Built It." This theme is in direct reference to remarks made by President Barack Obama, which many cite were taken out of context by the GOP. This theme, above others, is especially telling and problematic and unfortunately will be the theme everyone will remember the most once this political circus is over. By using this theme, the GOP are trying to convince everyone that they are the party of builders, builders like Mitt Romney. According to his wife Ann, he built his business, Bain Capital, and built it all by himself. Most of the convention, in fact, focused on Romney's role in Bain Capital and his role in the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games. There was but mere mentions of his tenure as Massachusetts Governor -- which was pretty disastrous.
Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's speech on Day 2, which was the keynote address. To put it bluntly: it had 2016 all over it. According to various news reports (I first heard it at CNN), Christie mentioned the word "I" 37 times and "Mitt Romney" 7 times. Lots of people hailed the speech as being a show-stomper, a spectacle, and pure, vintage Christie. But, there are a lot more critics then admirers. Christie's speech was overblown, pompous, and narcissistic. His speech did not sell Romney even in the slightest and was probably written to advance his own political career and standing within the Republican Party.
The third day was the big day for VP Pick Paul Ryan, who delivered a rousing speech that needed to be sorely fact-checked. I mean, the blatant lies and mistruths Ryan told in his speech were astronomical. Fact-checking websites and sources were going haywire with all the misleading claims Ryan made in one speech. Here are some of the most significant:
-Ryan claimed that Obama is responsible for a GM plant closing in Jainesville, Wisconsin. That plant closed in 2007, when George W. Bush was president.
-Decrying Obama for voting against the Bowles-Simpson commission when Ryan himself voted against it, too.
-Blaming Obama for the downgrading of the United States which was ultimately caused by the Republicans' stonewalling to raise the debt ceiling. Ryan, being a Republican Congressman, is partly to blame.
-Chiding Obama for the MediCare cuts that would add 8 years of solvency to the program when he himself is proposing the same cuts in his plan.
-Calling Obamacare "government-controlled health care."
-Criticizing the President for the stimulus package (which was actually successful) despite the fact that he accepted stimulus money to support his district.
Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice spoke at the convention too on Wednesday night. In fact, she probably gave the best speech of the night since Ryan failed to capture the same excitement as Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin did 4 years ago. However, there were still major problems in her speech. She failed to address the wars the Bush Administration (the one she was a part of) started. And, failed to mention how Obama has ended and is currently ending both of the wars. An interesting thing to note is her message about America being the land of immigrants which was in direct contrast to the remarks made by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer made shortly before.* Rice was successful and many were abuzzing about the possibility of Rice running in 2016 or were mourning the fact that she wasn't the VP pick despite her capabilities.
Finally, tonight marked the close of the convention with Romney formally accepting the nomination for President of the United States. People associated with the Romney family (and the Romney church) gave truly touching anecdotes about how Romney consoled and helped them in their times of need. Olympic athletes came on stage to express how Romney's contributions to the 2002 Olympics were significant moments in their lives. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush gave a speech pleading for educational reform, where parents and students have "a choice." What was most telling about Bush's speech were his tributes to his grandfather, father, and brother, all of which had careers in public service, the latter two being Presidents. Bush said that "I love my brother" and that Obama should stop blaming him for the wrong turn of the economy. Furthermore, Bush said that his brother "kept the country safe." Both of those comments were completely incredulous. The Bush Tax Cuts, which had a big hand in causing America's downturn, still affects the American people even in 2012. Starting two wars also has tremendous cost (duh) which were never put on the books until now. Senator Marco Rubio gave a blistering speech about America being the "land of opportunity," where "dreams are impossible everywhere but America." But, before I get to discuss Romney's speech, I simply must talk about Hollywood actor Clint Eastwood, the mystery speaker. If you didn't catch it, you really should view it. It was spectacularly bad. Eastwood staged a mock interview with Obama, replete with a chair to which Eastwood would face and talk to. To put it simply, it was just weird. And, this is a problem from the Romney campaign. Odds are, more people will talk about Eastwood's bizarre behaviour then they will about Romney's speech.
Now, Romney's speech was replete with misleading claims and half-truths, just like his running mate. Romney didn't show that much exuberance, charisma, or candor to convince the average American person that he's right for the top job. And to emphasize my point, Romney failed to do this because the average American was probably too busy watching the TLC show, "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo." The only policies Romney provided are his 5-point economic plan which would allegedly "create 12 million jobs." However, Romney only gave the bullet points and didn't go into depth as to how exactly he would do that. He said he would make America energy independent again, but how? Presumably by drilling, of course. But, since America has exacerbated their oil wells, they'll probably have to settle for "tough oil" which lies miles below sea surface and was how the BP oil spill was caused. Romney said that he wants to give parents "a choice" for where their children study and learn. What does he mean by "choice," since we know he isn't pro-choice? Essentially, this means dismantling the public education system in America and replacing it with more private schools. Romney said he would protect the sanctity of life and honour the institution of marriage. Both Republican codes for no abortions, not even in the case of rape, incest, or the health of the mother, and no recognition for same-sex marriages. For a complete dissection of Romney's speech, check out ThinkProgress's wonderful live-blog.
The Republican Convention could have had potential in giving Romney that sorely needed boost he's been pining for. They had great opportunities, especially this evening with the personal speeches. But, they lost it completely. The attention is now diverted away from Romney and his humanity to Eastwood and his incoherence. The Republicans are claiming that they are the party that can lead and restore America's greatness again. Well, if they can't even pull together a 4--no--3-day convention, then what chance does America have?
I'll close with a quote from the incomparable Paul Begala: "Seems like Republicans are as good at staging conventions then they are at winning wars."
*Information can be found here.
**In fact, there were many contradictions in the Republican National Convention in regards to rhetoric. Ann Romney stressed that she wanted to talk to the public about "love" whereas Christie stated that "we choose respect over love." Perhaps they did this on purpose to keep in line with the Romney flip-flopping tradition.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Riddell Revealed
As I stated what seems so long ago, new developments of the Clayton Riddell Political Management School were sure to follow. Today, August 28, Carleton University has officially rewritten the contract between the university and Riddell, the founder of the program, so that Riddell doesn't have the final word on the hiring process of educators and curriculum. However, Carleton has stated in the past that Riddell doesn't have the authority to confirm hiring of educators in their press release. But, those statements didn't exactly line up to the actual agreement which, obviously, stated that Riddell does have that privilege.
This change in direction comes after the school was caught under fire by the Canadian Association of University Teachers decrying the deal, labelling it as a "damage to our reputation." Article after article was released in various newspapers following the developments of the contract and the school. I for one was interested in the story as a student at Carleton and as someone who has interest in insulating universities away from private donors.
This announcement comes at the one-year anniversary of the Political Management school at Carleton. The 20-25 students in the program will graduate and attend their convocation ceremony late in the fall. Carleton University has indeed released the revised clause for the public's viewing. This clause revision doesn't really change anything. The committee still gets to oversee the overall "direction" of the school and to see if the funds of the donor are being distributed fairly and evenly. To me, and probably to most people, that still implies that the five-man Tory operative is still powerful and still under the bidding of Riddell.
The statements made by Carleton University President Roseann Runte are dubious and spotty, at best. She claims that there were certain areas in the donor agreement that were "confusing." The donor agreement basically dismantles the power held by the five-person committee (that were mostly composed of Conservative sympathizers) and will give the authority to hiring back to the university.
The details are a bit muddled and I still don't exactly trust Carleton on this. Clayton Riddell and Preston Manning (who is on the committee) still wield the money and influence to determine the path of the the school. The rewritten documents doesn't mention how students are selected which we all know are hand-picked by the program's administration.
There is no way this program can be trusted. Although they promote their program as being "cross-partisan," it would be naive to believe that assertion. This is a wealthy oilman we're talking about who has interests in securing his wealth and furthering his own financial gains at the expense of others. And, this is the former leader of the Canadian Alliance: an absurdly, right-wing party that propagated damaging ideas that infringed on the basic rights of citizens. I'm talking in reference, of course, of gays and lesbians. The Manning Centre for Democracy is not a centre promoting democratic values. That would imply a diversity of opinions shared among students and faculty. What it does accomplish, however, is the advancement of Conservative ideas for a new generation of Canadians so that they can one day seize the government.
Students should be compelled to mobilize and take action over what's going on under their very noses. This is something that affects them since it could be the beginning of private interests seeping in Carleton University and misinforming students on the truth. Carleton has taken a step in the right direction by announcing the limitations to Riddell's announcements even though Carleton is clearly a few steps back.
This change in direction comes after the school was caught under fire by the Canadian Association of University Teachers decrying the deal, labelling it as a "damage to our reputation." Article after article was released in various newspapers following the developments of the contract and the school. I for one was interested in the story as a student at Carleton and as someone who has interest in insulating universities away from private donors.
This announcement comes at the one-year anniversary of the Political Management school at Carleton. The 20-25 students in the program will graduate and attend their convocation ceremony late in the fall. Carleton University has indeed released the revised clause for the public's viewing. This clause revision doesn't really change anything. The committee still gets to oversee the overall "direction" of the school and to see if the funds of the donor are being distributed fairly and evenly. To me, and probably to most people, that still implies that the five-man Tory operative is still powerful and still under the bidding of Riddell.
The statements made by Carleton University President Roseann Runte are dubious and spotty, at best. She claims that there were certain areas in the donor agreement that were "confusing." The donor agreement basically dismantles the power held by the five-person committee (that were mostly composed of Conservative sympathizers) and will give the authority to hiring back to the university.
The details are a bit muddled and I still don't exactly trust Carleton on this. Clayton Riddell and Preston Manning (who is on the committee) still wield the money and influence to determine the path of the the school. The rewritten documents doesn't mention how students are selected which we all know are hand-picked by the program's administration.
There is no way this program can be trusted. Although they promote their program as being "cross-partisan," it would be naive to believe that assertion. This is a wealthy oilman we're talking about who has interests in securing his wealth and furthering his own financial gains at the expense of others. And, this is the former leader of the Canadian Alliance: an absurdly, right-wing party that propagated damaging ideas that infringed on the basic rights of citizens. I'm talking in reference, of course, of gays and lesbians. The Manning Centre for Democracy is not a centre promoting democratic values. That would imply a diversity of opinions shared among students and faculty. What it does accomplish, however, is the advancement of Conservative ideas for a new generation of Canadians so that they can one day seize the government.
Students should be compelled to mobilize and take action over what's going on under their very noses. This is something that affects them since it could be the beginning of private interests seeping in Carleton University and misinforming students on the truth. Carleton has taken a step in the right direction by announcing the limitations to Riddell's announcements even though Carleton is clearly a few steps back.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Destroying Things Is Much Easier Than Making Them
Current affairs magazines are probably the most widely-sought after publications for lengthy political commentary and interesting viewpoints from engaging and familiar columnists. One of the most interesting -- and probably the most palatable -- features of the magazine happens to be the magazine cover. Throughout this election season, there have been great magazine covers depicting the race as a physical aggression between foes. Popular magazines such as The Atlantic and Newsweek have given their own interpretation of the blood-thirsty competition that is the Presidential Election.
Instead of a civil discourse on the political process, we now have The Hunger Games in which opponents foist schemes to take out each other for the ultimate glory -- survival. Speaking of The Atlantic, this week's cover invokes that same idea. Republican Candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama are depicted as boxers, engaged in a heavy bout in the ring. The headline reads, "Obama Vs. Romney: Who Will Be The Greatest?" Like I said, this magazine cover and the article itself propagates this idea of physicality, of hook punches and low-blows exchanged between opponents all for the sake of victory.This boxing idea isn't really new. But, it does a fine job of emphasizing the one-on-one, man-to-man, domineering and masculine aggression that is fuming at the seams. Beneath all the ads and speeches as to why the other candidate is not the right choice for America, there is a genuine mutual dislike for the opponent behind the words. A mutual dislike that might erupt in a bar fight if it were between two average men.
This type of behavior isn't limited to the candidates, though. The "audience" has a stake in this, as well. A very telling example of this would be when Republicans cheered for the death of an otherwise healthy man who simply did not have health care insurance.
This new turn in the political process and how the media covers is only emphasizes the essence of the concept of 'politics.' Politics is messy. Politics is a struggle. And, politics is seldom pleasant.
However, it's crucial to discuss the media's role in all of this. The Atlantic and Newsweek didn't have to depict the two candidates that way. The media doesn't have to sensationalize the race this way. Coupled with the other factors I mentioned such as the candidates and the audience, we face the fundamental problem in media: does the media influence the culture or does the culture influence the media? Another related question would be "how did this turn in politics come about?"
It didn't just come about. It was always there.
Besmirching the name of the opponent is nothing and new. And, the coverage by the media on the bitter rivalry has always been there. For your amusement and for contextualization, I offer a brief history of nasty campaigns throughout the ages! To wit:
-The 1797 election was probably one of the first examples of a bitter campaign between competitors. John Adams was accused of being a hermaphrodite who was going to "marry the American presidency to the British Crown." Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was labelled an atheist and a supporter of incest.
-During the 1892 election, Andrew Jackson was accused of being a murderer by John Quincy Adams.
-The New York Times, who thew their support behind William McKinley, ran an article entitled "Is Bryan Crazy?" using the information of an anonymous source to derail the success of William Jennings Bryan.
-The 1964 election between Republican Barry Goldwater and Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson was infamous for its use of negative ads on television. The most memorable attack ad was from the Johnson campaigned that shows a little girl picking at a daisy, counting, then faced with the ominous countdown of an atomic bomb.
-Both the 1992 and the 2008 elections were riddled with accusations of candidates -- Bill Clinton and John McCain -- with fathering out-of-wedlock children.
-And, speaking of the 2008 election, who can forget about the disgraceful indictments made about Obama?
Anyone of these campaigns could've been depicted as a physical match, either in the stage, arena, or debate hall in the media. Odds are they were. And that's because that's what politics is.
This year, both Newsweek and The Atlantic took the political race, either the Republican primaries or the general election, and turned it into a vicious battle between enemies and translated it onto their covers. In a way, this is perfect.
Instead of a civil discourse on the political process, we now have The Hunger Games in which opponents foist schemes to take out each other for the ultimate glory -- survival. Speaking of The Atlantic, this week's cover invokes that same idea. Republican Candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama are depicted as boxers, engaged in a heavy bout in the ring. The headline reads, "Obama Vs. Romney: Who Will Be The Greatest?" Like I said, this magazine cover and the article itself propagates this idea of physicality, of hook punches and low-blows exchanged between opponents all for the sake of victory.This boxing idea isn't really new. But, it does a fine job of emphasizing the one-on-one, man-to-man, domineering and masculine aggression that is fuming at the seams. Beneath all the ads and speeches as to why the other candidate is not the right choice for America, there is a genuine mutual dislike for the opponent behind the words. A mutual dislike that might erupt in a bar fight if it were between two average men.
This type of behavior isn't limited to the candidates, though. The "audience" has a stake in this, as well. A very telling example of this would be when Republicans cheered for the death of an otherwise healthy man who simply did not have health care insurance.
This new turn in the political process and how the media covers is only emphasizes the essence of the concept of 'politics.' Politics is messy. Politics is a struggle. And, politics is seldom pleasant.
However, it's crucial to discuss the media's role in all of this. The Atlantic and Newsweek didn't have to depict the two candidates that way. The media doesn't have to sensationalize the race this way. Coupled with the other factors I mentioned such as the candidates and the audience, we face the fundamental problem in media: does the media influence the culture or does the culture influence the media? Another related question would be "how did this turn in politics come about?"
It didn't just come about. It was always there.
Besmirching the name of the opponent is nothing and new. And, the coverage by the media on the bitter rivalry has always been there. For your amusement and for contextualization, I offer a brief history of nasty campaigns throughout the ages! To wit:
-The 1797 election was probably one of the first examples of a bitter campaign between competitors. John Adams was accused of being a hermaphrodite who was going to "marry the American presidency to the British Crown." Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was labelled an atheist and a supporter of incest.
-During the 1892 election, Andrew Jackson was accused of being a murderer by John Quincy Adams.
-The New York Times, who thew their support behind William McKinley, ran an article entitled "Is Bryan Crazy?" using the information of an anonymous source to derail the success of William Jennings Bryan.
-The 1964 election between Republican Barry Goldwater and Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson was infamous for its use of negative ads on television. The most memorable attack ad was from the Johnson campaigned that shows a little girl picking at a daisy, counting, then faced with the ominous countdown of an atomic bomb.
-Both the 1992 and the 2008 elections were riddled with accusations of candidates -- Bill Clinton and John McCain -- with fathering out-of-wedlock children.
-And, speaking of the 2008 election, who can forget about the disgraceful indictments made about Obama?
Anyone of these campaigns could've been depicted as a physical match, either in the stage, arena, or debate hall in the media. Odds are they were. And that's because that's what politics is.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
The Chain Game
Last week, Vice President Joe Biden remarked that the GOP will soon usher the American people back in chains during a rally in Virginia. The exact words Biden used to convey this idea to a mostly African-American audience was, "Unchain Wall Street. They're gonna put y'all back in chains." Now, if you haven't see the video, it's available here.
Soon after, former Democratic Governor of Virginia Doug Wilder, who is African-American, said that Biden's comments were offensive since he used the word 'y'all,' commonly used in Ebonics therefore referring to strictly the African-Americans, and by evoking slavery with the use of 'chains.' Republicans have decried Biden for this remark, demanding an apology at this instant. Former Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum hilariously gave his own take on State of the Union with Candy Crowley this past Sunday. Here is an excerpt from the transcript from this week's show in which Santorum breaks down Biden's comments:
First, isn't Santorum the same person who said he didn't want to make black people's lives better? So, Santorum is easily the pot calling the kettle black in this situation. Second, Santorum cited the overall tone of the election campaign this year. While I admit it is pretty nasty, it is nasty on both sides -- not just President Barack Obama's campaign and not just Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney's campaign. A shining example of Romney's equal guilt in souring the campaign would be his completely false attack on Obama claiming he will end the work requirement for welfare. Moreover, Romney has said that Obama's heart is "full of hate." Now, that's as nasty as they come. And lastly, Biden did not play the race card.
Biden here referred to the GOP's plan to "unshackle" the free market and businesses everywhere in America. What Biden was implying was that the exact opposite will happen to ordinary Americans if Romney becomes President: that Americans will be shackled, that they will be restricted, and that they will be in chains.*
The popular Republican talking point on this issue -- or any issue when race becomes involved in the rhetoric of a Democratic politician -- was that if it was a Republican making this issue, the Democrats would be equally as livid and would demand the same apology. But, the thing is, when the Republicans make comments about race, there is a reason to believe that they are, in fact, racist or discriminatory. And that's because actions speak louder than words.
To wit, here are some of the things that Republicans plan to do either vis-a-vis the party's representatives in congress or the platforms of the presidential and vice presidential candidates.
-Suppressing votes by making picture identification mandatory which would affect the African-American population in certain swing states like Florida thereby reducing Obama's chances to win.
- Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan's proposal to gut Food Stamps which assist close to 22% of African-Americans
- Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney's plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act pejoratively called 'Obamacare' which would severely affect the Black community as close to 50% of the uninsured are African-American or Latino.
- Ryan and Romney's plan to end Medicare thereby exacerbating medical costs for Black seniors which, according to an article in The Grio, could be "deadly."**
And this is just the very tip of the iceberg. I could go on and on about how the Republicans' policy negatively affect the African-American community.
So, when Democrats -- who oppose all of these proposals, by the way -- make a comment that people construe as "racial," it's not, in fact, racist because their policy easily undergird their beliefs in equality among all races. But, when Republicans make the same comment, it's easier to believe that they want to oppress minorities and make it harder for them academically and financially. And that is because actions, like policy, speak louder than words.
*To be honest, when I first heard Biden's comments, I thought he was referencing the famous lines written by French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the 18th century: "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Given with the Republican's platform to debilitate the working and middle class by their outrageous proposals to gut Medicare and Medicaid, as well as lower taxes on the wealthiest Americans thereby shifting the costs onto ordinary Americans all while under the guise of preserving "liberty" and "freedom," you couldn't blame me for making this assumption.
**Information to compile this concise list can be found here, here, here, and here.
Soon after, former Democratic Governor of Virginia Doug Wilder, who is African-American, said that Biden's comments were offensive since he used the word 'y'all,' commonly used in Ebonics therefore referring to strictly the African-Americans, and by evoking slavery with the use of 'chains.' Republicans have decried Biden for this remark, demanding an apology at this instant. Former Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum hilariously gave his own take on State of the Union with Candy Crowley this past Sunday. Here is an excerpt from the transcript from this week's show in which Santorum breaks down Biden's comments:
RICK SANTORUM: It's one thing to go out and attack Governor Romney's record. Fair game, go for it. But to go out and do what he's doing as far as dividing this country, and he is. And it's class warfare at its worst, and then you saw Vice President Biden, you know, play the race card in Virginia. This...
[JIM] ACOSTA: Did he play the race card?
SANTORUM: There's no -- y'all? I mean, y'all is y'all. And when you are in a group, I have been in groups like that, and you know, it is very easy when you are in a group of people that, you know, when you are in a south or in up in different areas of the country and different groups of people, and you develop an affinity with the group that you are speaking in front of, that is what president -- Vice President Obama was doing. He was trying to develop that affinity and he did so in a very horrendous way. And he should apologize for it, but it is exactly the tone of this campaign. Governor Romney is like any other candidate, you want to go after my record, you want to go after things I've said and done, fine. That's not what he's -- that's not the complaint of the Romney campaign. The complaint -- the legitimate complaint is that President Obama is dividing this country to try to win this election.I have to take issue with a number of things Santorum is saying here.
First, isn't Santorum the same person who said he didn't want to make black people's lives better? So, Santorum is easily the pot calling the kettle black in this situation. Second, Santorum cited the overall tone of the election campaign this year. While I admit it is pretty nasty, it is nasty on both sides -- not just President Barack Obama's campaign and not just Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney's campaign. A shining example of Romney's equal guilt in souring the campaign would be his completely false attack on Obama claiming he will end the work requirement for welfare. Moreover, Romney has said that Obama's heart is "full of hate." Now, that's as nasty as they come. And lastly, Biden did not play the race card.
Biden here referred to the GOP's plan to "unshackle" the free market and businesses everywhere in America. What Biden was implying was that the exact opposite will happen to ordinary Americans if Romney becomes President: that Americans will be shackled, that they will be restricted, and that they will be in chains.*
The popular Republican talking point on this issue -- or any issue when race becomes involved in the rhetoric of a Democratic politician -- was that if it was a Republican making this issue, the Democrats would be equally as livid and would demand the same apology. But, the thing is, when the Republicans make comments about race, there is a reason to believe that they are, in fact, racist or discriminatory. And that's because actions speak louder than words.
To wit, here are some of the things that Republicans plan to do either vis-a-vis the party's representatives in congress or the platforms of the presidential and vice presidential candidates.
-Suppressing votes by making picture identification mandatory which would affect the African-American population in certain swing states like Florida thereby reducing Obama's chances to win.
- Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan's proposal to gut Food Stamps which assist close to 22% of African-Americans
- Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney's plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act pejoratively called 'Obamacare' which would severely affect the Black community as close to 50% of the uninsured are African-American or Latino.
- Ryan and Romney's plan to end Medicare thereby exacerbating medical costs for Black seniors which, according to an article in The Grio, could be "deadly."**
And this is just the very tip of the iceberg. I could go on and on about how the Republicans' policy negatively affect the African-American community.
So, when Democrats -- who oppose all of these proposals, by the way -- make a comment that people construe as "racial," it's not, in fact, racist because their policy easily undergird their beliefs in equality among all races. But, when Republicans make the same comment, it's easier to believe that they want to oppress minorities and make it harder for them academically and financially. And that is because actions, like policy, speak louder than words.
*To be honest, when I first heard Biden's comments, I thought he was referencing the famous lines written by French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the 18th century: "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Given with the Republican's platform to debilitate the working and middle class by their outrageous proposals to gut Medicare and Medicaid, as well as lower taxes on the wealthiest Americans thereby shifting the costs onto ordinary Americans all while under the guise of preserving "liberty" and "freedom," you couldn't blame me for making this assumption.
**Information to compile this concise list can be found here, here, here, and here.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Akin to Disgust
Republican Representative Todd Akin said some pretty heinous comments over the weekend regarding rape. I mean, they were downright false and insulting to women everywhere. For those of you unaware, here are all the things wrong with Todd Akin's comments:
1. The female body does not secrete a substance or withhold fertilization or somehow stop eggs from producing when faced with rape.
2. Akin said in cases of "legitimate rape." Then, what constitutes as illegitimate rape? When she actually becomes pregnant, according to Akin's pretzel logic? When she is drugged? When she is unconscious? When she is a minor?
3. That abortion should not be granted to rape victims, period. Although, this is pretty much the common sentiment among the GOP, including Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
4. That Akin is a man who thinks he knows better than women as to the decisions she should make when faced with the awful trauma of rape.
I could go on and on about how Akin is just fundamentally wrong.* I could also elucidate on the Republican agenda on abortion and reproductive rights. But, instead, I want to focus on Akin's response to this whole debacle which is his decision to stay in the race for the Senate seat in Missouri against incumbent Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill. She is, in fact, fighting for him to stay despite members of his own party -- like Republican National Committee President Reince Priebus -- to drop out. This is a shrewd move by her, but a logical one. By fighting for Akin to stay in, she ultimately wins. Voters are then confronted by the choice of the incumbent -- who usually has a greater chance of winning anyways -- and a crazy Republican who believes in different forms of rape. McCaskill wins and she continues to help President Barack Obama and the Democrats.
I'm siding with McCaskill, here. He should stay in. When he apologized for his comments, he merely apologized for the words he said not for the position he holds. So, of course, if Akin truly believes in these ideas of "legitimate rape" and the female body's ability to stop fertilization when raped, he should still be in and let voters decide what they want. And, if voters in Missouri decide they want to cast their ballot for Akin over McCaskill, then that would prove two things:
1. That Akin is emblematic of the mainstream Republican party and that there are no more moderate Republicans left in the fold since people are now demanding for the extreme and vitriolic.
And 2. That America is in serious, serious trouble.
*I mean, when conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh sounds more coherent and more logical than you, there's an issue.
*I mean, when conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh sounds more coherent and more logical than you, there's an issue.
Monday, August 20, 2012
'Don't Let Them Tell You It Can't Be Done': Humanizing Jack Layton
On August 22nd, Canadians everywhere will most likely be confronted with the news of the one year anniversary of Jack Layton's death. The out pour of emotion will not be as strong as it was, nor will Canadians of all political stripes converge in the public quorums and spaces in their community to celebrate a man they probably never knew. When happened in the wake of his death was probably a testament to Layton's likeability factor and eagerness on the campaign trail to fix the 'big problems' of government and to fight for the everyday man or woman. These were undoubtedly ideas that resonated with people. Well, enough people to grant Layton and his party, the NDP, Official Opposition status in the Canadian government. Although his political achievements are worthy of observance and appraisal -- most notably, fighting for gay rights, establishing greener infrastructure complete with a sound emphasis on cycling lanes in Toronto, putting homelessness on the map, and passing a motion calling for the withdrawal of Canadian troops in Afghanistan -- his work outside the political realm are just as bold and just as noble.*
But, before I get to that, I'll make one thing clear about Layton, something that I think gets overlooked when discussing his legacy, especially among NDP supporters: Jack Layton was a politician.
What this means is that sometimes he did things that only served his political interests. I'm referring specifically to the time Layton worked with current Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper to take down then-Liberal Prime Minster Paul Martin in 2005. However, to say that Layton effectively caused the Tories to take power in 2006 is a complete mistruth and myopic understanding of the ideas at hand. Of course, he didn't cause it. Canadians had a choice and they "chose" Harper. (Note: 'Chose' is enclosed with quotations because the Conservatives only won approximately 40% of the seats when only close to 67% of Canadians voted.) But, Layton made a strictly political move in that election since taking down the Liberals meant the possibility for more NDP seats -- which then became a reality when the NDP jumped from 18 seats to 29, right below the Bloc Québecois. And, having more seats -- along with his alliance with the PM -- meant that more NDP-supported initiatives, like the National Child Care program and the Kelowna Accord were finally up for discussion.
But, as I pointed out in my last post, the National Child Care program was eliminated by Harper. The Kelowna Accord, which would provide funding to education, youth services, health care, housing, and other initiatives to Aboriginal Communities, was gutted.
Obviously, by siding with the Tories, Layton made a political move to gain more seats so that he and his party could make more of an impact in the House of Commons. Consequently, he would produce more vocal changes for "hard-working Canadian families." Or, so he thought. That said, I have to stress this point, Layton did not get the Tories elected. He simply made a shrewd political choice in order to further his own standing. And, that happens routinely in politics. A shrewd political choice doesn't necessarily sour the entire legacy of a political leader, but it's certainly worthy of discussion and may render that political leader back to "humanly" state after widespread belief of that leader as an infallible Demi-god.
Jack Layton was not a Demi-god. In fact, he was far from it. He was a man with strong ideals and principles with a genuine belief in the goodness of society, and he displayed those beliefs with such exuberance that it was hard not to like him.
One of his greatest accomplishments, I think -- and one that is certainly overlooked when reflecting on his life-- is his work for the eradication of violence against women.
In 1991, Layton with the help of a determined group of men comprised of members like Michael Kaufman and Ron Sluser, helped start the White Ribbon Campaign. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the charitable initiative, the White Ribbon Campaign (WRC) is the most prominent NGO run by men whose aim is to end violence against women all over the world. What started as a makeshift office in Layton's son's bedroom grew into a full-fledged organization making a difference in over 55 countries. Layton and the rest of the WRC were inspired to start the campaign after being confronted by the tragedy of the 1989 Polytechnique Massacre in Montreal where 14 women were killed by a deranged gunman. The gunman, when he entered in the classroom, requested that the women be separated by the men and then let the men go unharmed. The women, of course, who were studying to be engineers, were shot at point-blank. The aftermath prompted discussion after discussion on Canada's gun control laws and mental health assessments. Of course, the notion of what it means to be masculine in Canada came up and instead of cowering away from the public eye, Layton and his colleagues stood up and created the WRC on behalf of all men everywhere to assist and protect women, Canadian and otherwise.
Layton believed in the campaign with such passion and enthusiasm that he put his own house on collateral to finance the charity and move it out of Mike Layton's bedroom.
The WRC is certainly a powerful movement, educating young men and boys on the importance of respecting women and by ending the silence among men on their attitudes towards violence against women. The WRC was a game-changer. It proved that men care about this issue and fight for this issue. That's not to say that the work of other groups formed by women are less important because they are not. In any way. However, it showed that Canadian men -- and men around the world involved with the campaign -- were committed in challenging the preconceived notions of a monolithic definition of masculinity. The WRC is a vibrant example that women's issues are also everyone's issues: family issues, safety issues, and societal issues that everyone should respect.
Sadly, Layton never got a chance to confront Harper about the decline of women's rights in Canada under his tenure as Leader of the Official Opposition. There's reason to believe that Layton would've been aghast at Harper's record as it is the antithesis of everything Layton believes in. In order to truly observe, revere, and celebrate Layton and his legacy, the NDP must remember to keep fighting for Canadian women, either by increasing the funding toward the Status of Women or by making a plan to narrow and eventually eliminate the pay gap between men and women.
I'll conclude with something that Layton himself said about advancing the role of women in Canada from his book Speaking Out Louder: Ideas That Work for Canadians:
*Regarding Layton's achievements, I actually could go on...
**Layton Jack, Speaking Out Louder: Ideas That Work for Canadians, (Toronto: Key Porter Books, 2006).
But, before I get to that, I'll make one thing clear about Layton, something that I think gets overlooked when discussing his legacy, especially among NDP supporters: Jack Layton was a politician.
What this means is that sometimes he did things that only served his political interests. I'm referring specifically to the time Layton worked with current Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper to take down then-Liberal Prime Minster Paul Martin in 2005. However, to say that Layton effectively caused the Tories to take power in 2006 is a complete mistruth and myopic understanding of the ideas at hand. Of course, he didn't cause it. Canadians had a choice and they "chose" Harper. (Note: 'Chose' is enclosed with quotations because the Conservatives only won approximately 40% of the seats when only close to 67% of Canadians voted.) But, Layton made a strictly political move in that election since taking down the Liberals meant the possibility for more NDP seats -- which then became a reality when the NDP jumped from 18 seats to 29, right below the Bloc Québecois. And, having more seats -- along with his alliance with the PM -- meant that more NDP-supported initiatives, like the National Child Care program and the Kelowna Accord were finally up for discussion.
But, as I pointed out in my last post, the National Child Care program was eliminated by Harper. The Kelowna Accord, which would provide funding to education, youth services, health care, housing, and other initiatives to Aboriginal Communities, was gutted.
Obviously, by siding with the Tories, Layton made a political move to gain more seats so that he and his party could make more of an impact in the House of Commons. Consequently, he would produce more vocal changes for "hard-working Canadian families." Or, so he thought. That said, I have to stress this point, Layton did not get the Tories elected. He simply made a shrewd political choice in order to further his own standing. And, that happens routinely in politics. A shrewd political choice doesn't necessarily sour the entire legacy of a political leader, but it's certainly worthy of discussion and may render that political leader back to "humanly" state after widespread belief of that leader as an infallible Demi-god.
Jack Layton was not a Demi-god. In fact, he was far from it. He was a man with strong ideals and principles with a genuine belief in the goodness of society, and he displayed those beliefs with such exuberance that it was hard not to like him.
One of his greatest accomplishments, I think -- and one that is certainly overlooked when reflecting on his life-- is his work for the eradication of violence against women.
In 1991, Layton with the help of a determined group of men comprised of members like Michael Kaufman and Ron Sluser, helped start the White Ribbon Campaign. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the charitable initiative, the White Ribbon Campaign (WRC) is the most prominent NGO run by men whose aim is to end violence against women all over the world. What started as a makeshift office in Layton's son's bedroom grew into a full-fledged organization making a difference in over 55 countries. Layton and the rest of the WRC were inspired to start the campaign after being confronted by the tragedy of the 1989 Polytechnique Massacre in Montreal where 14 women were killed by a deranged gunman. The gunman, when he entered in the classroom, requested that the women be separated by the men and then let the men go unharmed. The women, of course, who were studying to be engineers, were shot at point-blank. The aftermath prompted discussion after discussion on Canada's gun control laws and mental health assessments. Of course, the notion of what it means to be masculine in Canada came up and instead of cowering away from the public eye, Layton and his colleagues stood up and created the WRC on behalf of all men everywhere to assist and protect women, Canadian and otherwise.
Layton believed in the campaign with such passion and enthusiasm that he put his own house on collateral to finance the charity and move it out of Mike Layton's bedroom.
The WRC is certainly a powerful movement, educating young men and boys on the importance of respecting women and by ending the silence among men on their attitudes towards violence against women. The WRC was a game-changer. It proved that men care about this issue and fight for this issue. That's not to say that the work of other groups formed by women are less important because they are not. In any way. However, it showed that Canadian men -- and men around the world involved with the campaign -- were committed in challenging the preconceived notions of a monolithic definition of masculinity. The WRC is a vibrant example that women's issues are also everyone's issues: family issues, safety issues, and societal issues that everyone should respect.
Sadly, Layton never got a chance to confront Harper about the decline of women's rights in Canada under his tenure as Leader of the Official Opposition. There's reason to believe that Layton would've been aghast at Harper's record as it is the antithesis of everything Layton believes in. In order to truly observe, revere, and celebrate Layton and his legacy, the NDP must remember to keep fighting for Canadian women, either by increasing the funding toward the Status of Women or by making a plan to narrow and eventually eliminate the pay gap between men and women.
I'll conclude with something that Layton himself said about advancing the role of women in Canada from his book Speaking Out Louder: Ideas That Work for Canadians:
Instead of just one ministry dedicated to keeping an eye on issues of particular concern for women (which frankly could be rendered powerless), think of the impact women's perspectives would have if they were completely integrated into the decision-making of all institutions, whether the House of Commons, government departments, or major corporations. Imagine what society would look like if the decisions about priority spending and program design, for example, all had to run through the filter of "How will this affect women?" Then the systemic discrimination that women face would begin to get the attention needed for real change to happen.**
*Regarding Layton's achievements, I actually could go on...
**Layton Jack, Speaking Out Louder: Ideas That Work for Canadians, (Toronto: Key Porter Books, 2006).
Sunday, August 19, 2012
We're Not Going to Take It Anymore
The American election has taken a nasty turn, focusing on personal attacks, harsh -- and sometimes inaccurate -- advertisements decrying the other candidate. What was once a campaign of 'Hope' and 'Change' now is something else entirely for President Barack Obama. However, is Obama's new direction necessarily a bad thing?
Since 2000, when Al Gore ran for President, the Democrats have been the soft party, not boasting any of their achievements nor emphasizing the flaws of their opponents, the Republicans. A good example of this was when the Affordable Care Act first got passed in 2010 and there was speculation among liberals as to whether or not the Democrats will boast and pride over this accomplishment. One instance in which liberals did boast was the killing of Osama Bin Laden, to which critics say that Obama "spiked the football." They've also been the party who just passively took false attacks without a second thought (eg. accusing John Kerry of being a war-dodger during the Vietnam War and all of the heinous attacks on Obama accusing him of being, to wit: a Muslim, a terrorist, a socialist, a nazi, a fascist, un-American, un-Christian, and the Anti-Christ).
As previously mentioned, both campaigns have placed the negative attacks at the forefront of the election so far. Recently, an Obama SuperPAC released an ad showing a widowed husband, mourning the loss of his wife, whose illness was exacerbated by lack of health insurance after the husband got laid off from his job. Now, why did he get laid off? Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney and his company Bain Capital took over the business he worked for and forced the company into bankruptcy, with sizeable profits going to Romney's pocket. Critics said that the ad implies that Romney killed the man's wife.
The criticism around this ad is mostly absurd. First, the ad was not released by Obama or his campaign, but a SuperPAC whose money gives those running the PAC agency to say whatever they want. Obama did not say "I am Barack Obama and I approve this message" at the end. Unlike Mitt Romney, whose campaign released an egregious advertisement stating that Obama would end work requirements for welfare and would oppose the "Welfare to Work" program in the United States. This is just plain false. Second, the advertisement isn't on TV and those on Obama's campaign, including Chief Strategist David Axelrod, don't think that the Romney killed the man's wife. And, that's because he didn't. What the ad does show is the kind of vulture capitalism that goes on in America -- that large corporations seize small, faltering businesses all to make a buck at the expense of others. That's it. Lastly -- and this is my biggest criticism -- this ad and other attack ads from the Obama campaign or SuperPACs do not even come close to the criticism hurled at Obama during this campaign, the 2008 campaign, and everything in between. For once, the Democrats are not going to "curl up in the fetus position and take it" anymore, as famously said by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post.
The Democrats are finally playing tit for tat. And, I salute them for it.
Since 2000, when Al Gore ran for President, the Democrats have been the soft party, not boasting any of their achievements nor emphasizing the flaws of their opponents, the Republicans. A good example of this was when the Affordable Care Act first got passed in 2010 and there was speculation among liberals as to whether or not the Democrats will boast and pride over this accomplishment. One instance in which liberals did boast was the killing of Osama Bin Laden, to which critics say that Obama "spiked the football." They've also been the party who just passively took false attacks without a second thought (eg. accusing John Kerry of being a war-dodger during the Vietnam War and all of the heinous attacks on Obama accusing him of being, to wit: a Muslim, a terrorist, a socialist, a nazi, a fascist, un-American, un-Christian, and the Anti-Christ).
As previously mentioned, both campaigns have placed the negative attacks at the forefront of the election so far. Recently, an Obama SuperPAC released an ad showing a widowed husband, mourning the loss of his wife, whose illness was exacerbated by lack of health insurance after the husband got laid off from his job. Now, why did he get laid off? Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney and his company Bain Capital took over the business he worked for and forced the company into bankruptcy, with sizeable profits going to Romney's pocket. Critics said that the ad implies that Romney killed the man's wife.
The criticism around this ad is mostly absurd. First, the ad was not released by Obama or his campaign, but a SuperPAC whose money gives those running the PAC agency to say whatever they want. Obama did not say "I am Barack Obama and I approve this message" at the end. Unlike Mitt Romney, whose campaign released an egregious advertisement stating that Obama would end work requirements for welfare and would oppose the "Welfare to Work" program in the United States. This is just plain false. Second, the advertisement isn't on TV and those on Obama's campaign, including Chief Strategist David Axelrod, don't think that the Romney killed the man's wife. And, that's because he didn't. What the ad does show is the kind of vulture capitalism that goes on in America -- that large corporations seize small, faltering businesses all to make a buck at the expense of others. That's it. Lastly -- and this is my biggest criticism -- this ad and other attack ads from the Obama campaign or SuperPACs do not even come close to the criticism hurled at Obama during this campaign, the 2008 campaign, and everything in between. For once, the Democrats are not going to "curl up in the fetus position and take it" anymore, as famously said by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post.
The Democrats are finally playing tit for tat. And, I salute them for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)