To those who dismissively talk about how no one should die, how all killings are wrong, how we should all just get along, etc., I hate to be so cynical, but the reality of the race problems in this country is the fact that those problems were started by just one of those races. It was not a mutual disagreement, not a civil war, not two countries disputing a border. It was one race which subjugated, and in many cases continues to subjugate, the other.
Its hard to me to reconcile any of these killings. But one type of the killings that have occurred over the last week is generally in retaliation for the other. And you know which is which.
Maybe part of the problem is the fundamental method that police use to stop motorists. Typically, the police want you to stay in your car, after which they approach with some degree of trepidation, and hope that you don’t pull a gun on them.
Why not announce on the PA system in the patrol car, “Please step out of your car with your licence and registration and move to the curb”?
Wouldn’t that serve to eliminate the problem of cops who think they see furtive movements inside the car, causing them to react with force?
Wouldn’t it be better to ask the driver to get out of the car, and if he refuses, to call for backup, before shooting out of fear?
For all the Hillary bashers to continue to promulgate all these unsubstantiated claims about her being bought and paid for, corrupt, a liar, owned by the banks and Monsanto…here are some indisputable facts:
1. She has served very closely with two of the most successful presidents in recent memory. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. She has been instrumental in the success of both of those presidencies.
2. She has vast experience in foreign and domestic policy.
3. She was an extremely popular Senator in NY, having been elected to two terms.
4. As first lady, she was instrumental in advancing the idea of Universal Health Care, which the Repub congress shot down. It was this model that Obama used to get the ACA passed.
5. Anyone who has ever interviewed her says that she is supremely brilliant and knowledgeable about the issues facing the country and the world.
6. And this might be the most important thing: She’s not a left-wing ideologue. Her opinions are more toward the center than many Liberals, like myself, prefer. But it is that tendency toward that middle that makes her electable, especially in this time when so many Repubs will be looking for an alternative to Trump.
7. Finally, she is the most vetted, most scrutinized politician, probably in history. We know virtually everything there is to know about her. Those who have tried to trip her up have failed time and again.
Say all you like about Benghazi, emails, Monsanto and speeches. Those are simply words, all devoid of substance. They are Repub talking points and nothing more. Not a single one has been validated.
Hillary will be good for our country. No president is ever perfect. We can only chose from those who run. Bernie was a good influence on the process, and hopefully many of his ideas will come to fruition, but Hillary is the one with the contacts and experience to get it done.
The question of whether the “media” is, in fact, left-wing leaning is an easy one to answer. That answer is yes. The question as to why is the complex one, but not too complex to understand if one takes a logical approach to it.
First, one must ask if the media is liberally biased because those who work in that industry started out that way, and just coincidentally decided to work in media. Obversely, one might ask if those who work in media started out as either conservatives or so-called independents, and were then persuaded to become liberals as a result of their experiences.
It seems to me that the news media, with such close access to those in government and politics, can only become liberal in their views because they see that to be the most righteous path. They see the back room goings on and sausage-making of governing, and can see, first hand, who is being duplicitous and who it being forthright and honest. They become Liberals because they see truths that we will never see, partly because they are not allowed to disclose all they see, for political reasons.
Now, one might ask, “what about Fox ‘News’”. To those people, I would reply, “what about it?” If you’re using Fox as a counterweight to my argument, then you are disproving the right’s contention that the media is biased to the left, by simple virtue of the fact that Fox exists. My argument is somewhat different, in that I do not elevate Fox to the level of news media. Roger Ailes, Chairman, and CEO of Fox “News” and former consultant for Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Rudy Giuliani, once said of his management style at Fox that he watches it with the sound off. This might be indicative of why Fox is rife with hot blondes in short skirts. The fact that anything which purports to be a news organization is managed and judged more for its appearance than its content is all one needs to know about its veracity and allegiance to a particular political view.
Fox is not and never has been about news. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply not paying attention.
The real media, the men and women who pound the pavement to find out how government really works and whether or not it’s working on our behalf, from Edward R Murrow to Robert Trout, to Walter Cronkite, to Dan Rather, to Chris Matthews to W. Kamau Bell, are Liberals. And we should be proud and gratified that they are.
In the 16th century, many in Europe thought that the earth was flat. Columbus and others proved differently. We’ve grown since then, and learned the truth, haven’t we?
In the 17th century, we didn’t know that gravity existed. Newton proved differently. We’ve grown since then, and learned the truth, haven’t we?
In the 18th century, we believed that we could subjugate the natives who lived here and justifiably kill them by the millions We’ve grown since then, and learned the truth, haven’t we?
In the 19th century, we thought that black people should serve white people, by force if need be, via slavery. After a while, we capitulated to some degree, “allowing” blacks to become 3/5 of a citizen. We’ve grown since then, and learned the truth, haven’t we?
In the early 20th century, we believed that women should be subservient to men, that they weren’t smart enough to vote, go to college, or own property. Later in the century we still treated blacks like third-class citizens, hanging one for whistling at a white woman, keeping them from voting, and referring to them as “niggers”. We beat and discriminated against gay people, just for being gay. We’ve grown since then, and learned the truth, haven’t we?
In the 21st century, we still have people who believe in a book that was ostensibly written nearly 2000 years ago, before any of the above enlightenment occurred, when we still didn’t know where the Sun went at night. When we stoned infidels. When you would kill your wife for infidelity. When eating shellfish or pork was tantamount to murder. When prostitutes were stoned to death. Where stealing or taking the lord’s name in vain was a sin, but raping a woman wasn’t.
We really haven’t learned a fucking thing, have we?
After hearing about the 10,000th person brag that he or she is not a slave to either of the parties and that he or she is “independent”, I can’t help but offer a dime-store definition of the two prevalent political parties.
If you are generally pro-gun control, believe in equality of the races, LGBT rights and that government can help people, you can call yourself whatever you like, but your beliefs align with the left, which is represented by the Democrats. If you vote in favor of your personal interests, you vote for the Democrat.
If you are generally against gun-control, racist (or are constantly denying that you are) and anti-LGBT rights and believe that government is usually a bad thing, then, like it or not, your beliefs align with the right, which is represented by the Republicans. If you vote for your personal interests, you vote for the Republican.
Call yourself whatever you like. But the majority of voters (with some variations) come down on one side or another of the above descriptions. It is your beliefs that align you with one party or another, not whatever self-serving moniker you chose.
Those of us who call ourselves one or the other are not slaves to our political overlords who can’t think for ourselves. We’re just not phonies who feel the need to feebly distinguish ourselves by claiming to be something which has little, if any, real definition but sounds as if we arrived at our opinions through some loftier erudition than did everyone else.
I’ve read about the healing power of Jesus Christ in various areas of the New Testament. In some cases, according to legend, he laid his hand upon the sick person. In some cases he waved his hand over the sick person and in some cases he just spoke some words to the sick person, and they were ostensibly healed.
Now, if you are disposed to believe that these occurrences are true, then I would like you to ponder a few things. Keep in mind that I don’t doubt whether Jesus lived, or whether he had followers or whether he was truly considered by many to be the son of God. I have no information to dispute any of those things and, although the burden of proof is always with the declarer of a supposed fact and not the denier, I’ll leave that debate for another time.
What I want to discuss is the premise that a person, or spirit if you prefer, could have been imbued with the ability to remove a disease from a human being and, if so imbued, why he or it would have been so selective in doing so, especially for that person or spirit who has been labeled the “son of God” and a man of peace, forgiveness and love of all creatures. Why would that person, that spirit, that god, forgo all of the presumably thousands or possibly millions (I’m not sure how many people supposedly lived on earth during so-called “biblical times”) of others who were sick or injured. Since medical science was much less advanced than it is today, I would imagine that a much greater percentage of the population was in need of such healing. But it was only bestowed on those who were fortunate enough and actually came into contact with Jesus and were humble enough to beg for this healing. Why not the rest of humanity who was in such dire need?
Many will answer this question using platitudes and hair-trigger responses which have been concocted and stored in the arsenal used by believers to counter arguments of logic. They will stretch credulity and suspend disbelief in an effort to avoid any doubt or logical dissonance associated with the story of Jesus.
The question at hand is why, given the powers that the new testament assigns to Jesus, would anyone with these powers, whose motivation was presumably as pure as the driven snow, not simply decree that all sickness on earth, now and forever, be stricken and cast into hell? If Jesus truly had the power to heal, why did he limit the use of those powers to the few people who were fortunate to have heard of him and be in his presence?
Isn’t it much the same as the answer for so many of these questions? Doesn’t it make perfect sense that this thoroughly logical and reasonable question will go unanswered for eternity because if Jesus could, in fact heal the sick then it would be logical that he would heal all who were? But then there would be actual evidence, would there not? If every human on earth had suddenly become devoid of illness now and forever there would be a historical record of that occurrence, would there not? Something as profound as the eradication of all disease from humankind is something that theists could point to and say, “see, there’s your proof that Jesus was the son of God”.
And that’s why the story, as told, is so far from being even remotely believable. Yet it is also why, once again, in order to believe it, we must, in that small window in our minds, forgo logic and reason, and just accept that something which can’t possibly be true, is.