It's hard enough to believe that a candidate for President Of the United States can make remarks suggesting that it is somehow alright to perpetrate sexual assault on women on the basis of some form of elitism,either of me over women,or the one percent over the rest of the peons or both.What's even harder to stomach is the number of people on social media that,if they have not bought into the idea of this being"just locker room talk",suggest that it's time for the rest of us to "forgive" Mr.Trump for his indiscretions.Presumably these people,or at least some of them are Evangelicals,citing forgiveness as a Christian value.The problem is that there is a certain model of forgiveness that IS Christian.But I'm not seeing this model here,just something vaguely similar to it.So lets give this some thought.
To Donald Trumps credit,he has stated he is not proud of having made the comments he has.very good,that's a start.It also acknowledges the need for forgiveness in his particular case.moreover,the many comments on social media likewise note that forgiveness is called for,because there is something that needs to be forgiven.The problem is,forgiveness is to be based on repentance.Forgiveness without repentance cheapens the whole concept.
One person commenting on my Facebook page in the past few days made a no doubt well meaning quote from Psalm 51,Davids Psalm of repentance.Therefor,the author of this comment said,we should all forgive Donald Trump.Well,that's a nice sentiment,but I simply note one key difference between King David and Donald Trump.King David was broken over his wrongdoing.And the day I hear anything like that from Donald Trump,i'll believe that he is similarly broken.
In the meantime,and since some choose to bring this issue into the realm of faith,where it does in fact belong,lets consider why Trumps comments are not simply locker room talk,unseemly,but rather harmless.
The problem with talk is that it represents ideas.It expresses a certain mindset.In the case of Mr. Trump,those are ugly and erroneous ideas.The video in question was ugly to hear and can not simply be dismissed,because long after you forget,of wrongly forgive the talk,the idea will still be there,unless there is genuine repentance.Now have we heard that? Think back to the early days of this dog and pony show.It's been one thing after another since Trump's campaign began.This latest talk is just flavor of the week ignorance,and no matter how much one wishes it away,it keeps rearing it's head.
What specifically is wrong with Mr.Trump's "locker room talk",from a faith perspective? First,where do women come from? from the rib of a man,from the DNA of the first created man,a being created in God's image.Woman was not simply a subset of man,but rather,both are subsets of Our Father,who encompasses both.Therefor,to demean women is to demean man as well.But,the biggest problem is that in so doing,Mr.Trump is really presenting an affront to God.And that is something Evangelicals need to come to terms with before election day.
If it seems fit to forgive Mr.Trump for those actions that he says he's not proud of,then do that.But I haven't heard anything that convinces me that he is at all sorry for what he's said.I'm also not convinced that even if a person were truly sorry for such things,that the thought processes that give rise to that sort of speech can be overcome in a matter of weeks,if ever.Speaking from experience,and even with the help of The Holy Spirit,dealing with my own sin is an ongoing process,as it is for every one of us.And I don't presume to know the state of Mr.Trumps soul.But,if he is not ready for The Office Of President,and by virtue of observable behavior he would seem not to be,then he should stand down. That's not going to happen,so it's up to all of the electorate,including Evangelicals to search their souls before casting their votes.So,if you're going to forgive,reread your scripture and make sure it's really warranted.Make certain that offense to God is not an ongoing thing.And remember,even if it's not,accountability might still entail that Mr.Trump not be elected.
blyndpapaya
Monday 17 October 2016
Thursday 13 October 2016
Americas First Scary Clown
So do you really still want to vote for Trump? It's been months now and this whole thing has been nothing more than a freak show that grows worse with each passing moment.Do any of you get this? It's not going to get any better.
So is this all just locker room talk? Well,not in any locker room I've ever been in.It's not even as common on construction sites as it once was.This is not simply harmless talk,not just meaningless trash talk.It's vile and inconsiderate,an insult to any person who claims even the smallest amount of civility.Just a civilized people do not use Mark Furman's infamous "N" word,so should they never refer to a woman,ANY woman as a collection of a few of her body parts,namely those in which the basest of men find immature gratification.This is usually a stage in human development.Then again,many well brought up boys outgrow it.And some "men" never do.
This is not just more whining from the Liberal,PC crowd.Yes,I'm a liberal,and the fact that so many people find Trumps comments offensive,and can explain why they are offensive,so even an eight year old can understand it,is in part proof of the value of Liberalism.The world can be improved with thoughtful debate.We can "get there from here",and we are obligated to do so.
Let me tell you why I'm offended by Mr.Trump.First,and most obviously,his comments are offensive to women,to our wives,nieces,sisters and daughters. Misogyny is nothing new,especially among the knuckle dragging wannabe elites,but it has never been morally right.It never will be.Now,I may be a man,but when you suggest that privilege gives you the right to defile women whom I love and admire,I have an issue with you.Further,His comments are insulting to MEN.Mr.Trump,you portray men,something like one half of your electorate as being sex crazed,vulgar morons dying of testosterone poisoning and feeling perfectly justified in doing so,never having a care for the hurt caused to the other half of humanity.Well,Mr.Trump,let me make this as clear as I can-YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME!
Unfortunately,if my Facebook page is anywhere near average,in terms of posted comments,there is a sizable portion of the American electorate that is more than willing to just brush off your vulgarity,either because partisan politics,especially that brand of political response that has been conditioned since childhood Trumps any moral consideration,or because they are so taken up in hating Clinton,that they will accept any alternative as being better.Really? One thing is for certain,your preaching of hate seems to be working.But you are badly mistaken if you think it's the only alternative.I'm guessing a lot of voters have you figured out.
I for one,am not afraid of Mexicans.I do not fear Muslims because they practice Islam,or Blacks because they are black,and feel they deserve a better life.But let me tell you what really does concern me.Assuming that something like half of voting Americans condone you speech and it's content,either overtly or by moral omission,I am very concerned.Because you see,Mr.Trump that purifying rot doesn't come out of your mouth for no reason.It proceeds from your thoughts.And again,assuming half the people still find you acceptable,that means there are a lot of people in any given neighborhood,on any given street who think similar thoughts.And that makes me very uneasy when it comes to the actual safety of women I love.How dare you imply,under any circumstances that they only exist for the pleasure of yourself and your knuckle dragging comrades.The really disturbing thing-if only ten percent of your supporters are as virulent in their views as you are,there are still a lot more of you and your ilk than there are registered sex offenders.So,I might see the actual legal and moral merit of "Hiliary For Prison" if you also volunteered to be put on a sex registry.Yes,I know,you are not convicted of any sexual offense,but neither is Clinton convicted of any wrong doing.But you have convinced me that your thoughts are dark and depraved,in a seemingly unending manner.
Let's take a look at some of the things you build your politics on in the light brought to bear by your current statements.First,you suggest that Mexicans are rapists and criminals.Your words! Mr.Trump,after last week's revelations,you hold no moral high ground in such a statement,not that you ever did.
You suggest that we should turn away Muslim refugees.They are terrorists and you don't want to encourage Islamic values.Like misogyny,for instance? Well ,there certainly is no need to import that is there? It seems to grow here in abundance,along with hypocrisy.To that end,let me note that I just met a family of Syrian refugees this past week-in church.Turns out they are not Muslims,but persecuted Christians.But thankfully an America under Donald Trump will fully vet immigrants.Better,hopefully when you are deporting them than when they were let in.But I'm betting that the process turns away many of the honest hard working immigrants that any country should be happy to have as citizens.Oh,and did I just say the "T" word? Because terror is exactly what many women experience when your special brand hatred and entitlement are prevalent in society.And,because I love women,feel concern for them,I feel terrorized too.Once again,you seem to have no moral standing.
I really thought seeing a disabled man being mocked by by you told me all I needed to know.Well,it did tell me that I didn't have to step in it to know that it's not mud.But your latest comments are even lower than that.It seems to me that you have no moral center,that you are not grounded in right and wrong except as it involves your entitlement to walk all over the rest of humanity just to justify you own entitlement.You scare me Mr.Trump.Moreover,you are an utter mockery of any sort of political process,and of The Office Of President.America does not need a First Scary Clown,and I'm guessing that even given a lack of ideal alternatives,Americans are beginning to realize that.
blyndpapaya
So is this all just locker room talk? Well,not in any locker room I've ever been in.It's not even as common on construction sites as it once was.This is not simply harmless talk,not just meaningless trash talk.It's vile and inconsiderate,an insult to any person who claims even the smallest amount of civility.Just a civilized people do not use Mark Furman's infamous "N" word,so should they never refer to a woman,ANY woman as a collection of a few of her body parts,namely those in which the basest of men find immature gratification.This is usually a stage in human development.Then again,many well brought up boys outgrow it.And some "men" never do.
This is not just more whining from the Liberal,PC crowd.Yes,I'm a liberal,and the fact that so many people find Trumps comments offensive,and can explain why they are offensive,so even an eight year old can understand it,is in part proof of the value of Liberalism.The world can be improved with thoughtful debate.We can "get there from here",and we are obligated to do so.
Let me tell you why I'm offended by Mr.Trump.First,and most obviously,his comments are offensive to women,to our wives,nieces,sisters and daughters. Misogyny is nothing new,especially among the knuckle dragging wannabe elites,but it has never been morally right.It never will be.Now,I may be a man,but when you suggest that privilege gives you the right to defile women whom I love and admire,I have an issue with you.Further,His comments are insulting to MEN.Mr.Trump,you portray men,something like one half of your electorate as being sex crazed,vulgar morons dying of testosterone poisoning and feeling perfectly justified in doing so,never having a care for the hurt caused to the other half of humanity.Well,Mr.Trump,let me make this as clear as I can-YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME!
Unfortunately,if my Facebook page is anywhere near average,in terms of posted comments,there is a sizable portion of the American electorate that is more than willing to just brush off your vulgarity,either because partisan politics,especially that brand of political response that has been conditioned since childhood Trumps any moral consideration,or because they are so taken up in hating Clinton,that they will accept any alternative as being better.Really? One thing is for certain,your preaching of hate seems to be working.But you are badly mistaken if you think it's the only alternative.I'm guessing a lot of voters have you figured out.
I for one,am not afraid of Mexicans.I do not fear Muslims because they practice Islam,or Blacks because they are black,and feel they deserve a better life.But let me tell you what really does concern me.Assuming that something like half of voting Americans condone you speech and it's content,either overtly or by moral omission,I am very concerned.Because you see,Mr.Trump that purifying rot doesn't come out of your mouth for no reason.It proceeds from your thoughts.And again,assuming half the people still find you acceptable,that means there are a lot of people in any given neighborhood,on any given street who think similar thoughts.And that makes me very uneasy when it comes to the actual safety of women I love.How dare you imply,under any circumstances that they only exist for the pleasure of yourself and your knuckle dragging comrades.The really disturbing thing-if only ten percent of your supporters are as virulent in their views as you are,there are still a lot more of you and your ilk than there are registered sex offenders.So,I might see the actual legal and moral merit of "Hiliary For Prison" if you also volunteered to be put on a sex registry.Yes,I know,you are not convicted of any sexual offense,but neither is Clinton convicted of any wrong doing.But you have convinced me that your thoughts are dark and depraved,in a seemingly unending manner.
Let's take a look at some of the things you build your politics on in the light brought to bear by your current statements.First,you suggest that Mexicans are rapists and criminals.Your words! Mr.Trump,after last week's revelations,you hold no moral high ground in such a statement,not that you ever did.
You suggest that we should turn away Muslim refugees.They are terrorists and you don't want to encourage Islamic values.Like misogyny,for instance? Well ,there certainly is no need to import that is there? It seems to grow here in abundance,along with hypocrisy.To that end,let me note that I just met a family of Syrian refugees this past week-in church.Turns out they are not Muslims,but persecuted Christians.But thankfully an America under Donald Trump will fully vet immigrants.Better,hopefully when you are deporting them than when they were let in.But I'm betting that the process turns away many of the honest hard working immigrants that any country should be happy to have as citizens.Oh,and did I just say the "T" word? Because terror is exactly what many women experience when your special brand hatred and entitlement are prevalent in society.And,because I love women,feel concern for them,I feel terrorized too.Once again,you seem to have no moral standing.
I really thought seeing a disabled man being mocked by by you told me all I needed to know.Well,it did tell me that I didn't have to step in it to know that it's not mud.But your latest comments are even lower than that.It seems to me that you have no moral center,that you are not grounded in right and wrong except as it involves your entitlement to walk all over the rest of humanity just to justify you own entitlement.You scare me Mr.Trump.Moreover,you are an utter mockery of any sort of political process,and of The Office Of President.America does not need a First Scary Clown,and I'm guessing that even given a lack of ideal alternatives,Americans are beginning to realize that.
blyndpapaya
Wednesday 28 September 2016
downloading human responsibility on animals.
The city of Montreal is banning pit bulls.This is not the first time a jurisdiction has done this,but,just as in the past,it's a misdirected effort.It simply misses the point in a way humans are all to prone to do.You see,the responsibility here belongs to humans,not animals that are limited in their ability to think,and respond acceptably to a world centered around humans.In this case,the banning of a specific breed is a knee jerk reaction to the tragic death of a woman by a pit bull earlier this year.In fact,the same could tragedy could have involved any of numerous other breeds,it just happened to have involved a pit bull.Really,that's a lot like saying that because a particular person was murdered by a black person,we should ban black people.Wait a minute,the cynical part of me wonders if that's not already happening.But that's a rambling for another day.
Human prejudice being what it is filters down to the animal world.What a shame.Dogs,when we really think about it are subjects of human stereotyping.Can you really deny that breeds like Golden Retrievers or Dalmatians or Irish Setters or Great Pyrenees are more highly valued than breeds like Pit bulls or Rottweilers? Moreover,the value placed on certain breeds like Pit Bulls seems in some cases to be placed there for the wrong reason.Clearly you can go to certain areas here in Toronto that are frequented by drug dealers who have Pit Bulls or some similar breed.Clearly they are being presented as a means of maintaining a persona which is intimidating.But that is not the dogs fault.And that's the whole point.The problem is irresponsible dog owners and misinformed attitudes.
I happen to love dogs.Some breeds more than others,admittedly.While I've become somewhat adept at figuring out canine non verbal language,I have been bitten by a dog.Once!In my entire life.I was making a delivery to a house at the time,a house that I'd delivered to several times without there ever being a sign of a dog within their fenced yard.There was no beware of dog sign.The breed in Question?An Australian Shepherd,a breed I'm especially fond of.In fact,if you ever advocate eliminating Aussies,you'll have a problem with me,and I can be a Pit Bull.My minor injury was the result of some irresponsible dog owners oversight.Not the fault of the dog.Dogs are territorial,that's in large part the whole point in having one.They tend to protect their own.But discerning friend from foe is something they don't always do perfectly.
Somehow we've gotten the idea that it's okay to download human responsibility on animals.This is not just a problem with dogs.It effects the whole animal world,because we encroach upon their territory thinking that they can simply be eliminated if they become a problem.People leave pet food out,then find themselves trying to find ways to annihilate skunks.Posters for lost pets seem to be especially prevalent in areas most frequented by coyotes,so coyotes get to be the villains.And I wonder,does anyone really think that the bears in our Mountain Parks enjoy being in your selfie? On my last trip by bus to Vancouver I saw eight selfie taking tourists,with accompanying bears along the highway.When the tragedy happens,and it will,it's a death sentence for another bear.
Meanwhile in Montreal,banning Pit Bull just misses the mark completely.The irresponsible training of dogs for nefarious purposes will continue unabated,only perhaps with different breeds.But perhaps not.Those who weaponize their dogs are not usually upstanding citizens,so the ban will not be much of a concern to them.Yet the responsibility in Montreal falls on dogs,not on negligent dog owners.In fact,bad dog owners have been allowed to avoid responsibility.That needs to change.
We need,among other things more stringent controls on dog owners in general.People who raise dogs using abusive techniques need to be banned from owning dogs.So do any other persons who commit criminal activity in which dogs are a part.In fact,if you deal drugs,maintain chop shops or receive,store or sell stolen goods and a dog is found anywhere within sight of your operation,you should forfeit the right to own a dog.Forever.We need fines,in the tens of thousands of dollars for allowing a dog to be out of control.Perhaps severe fines are also in order for those ignoring beware of dog signs.But my whole point is that humans need to be held to account for human negligence.Because it's not the fault of animals.
blyndpapaya
Human prejudice being what it is filters down to the animal world.What a shame.Dogs,when we really think about it are subjects of human stereotyping.Can you really deny that breeds like Golden Retrievers or Dalmatians or Irish Setters or Great Pyrenees are more highly valued than breeds like Pit bulls or Rottweilers? Moreover,the value placed on certain breeds like Pit Bulls seems in some cases to be placed there for the wrong reason.Clearly you can go to certain areas here in Toronto that are frequented by drug dealers who have Pit Bulls or some similar breed.Clearly they are being presented as a means of maintaining a persona which is intimidating.But that is not the dogs fault.And that's the whole point.The problem is irresponsible dog owners and misinformed attitudes.
I happen to love dogs.Some breeds more than others,admittedly.While I've become somewhat adept at figuring out canine non verbal language,I have been bitten by a dog.Once!In my entire life.I was making a delivery to a house at the time,a house that I'd delivered to several times without there ever being a sign of a dog within their fenced yard.There was no beware of dog sign.The breed in Question?An Australian Shepherd,a breed I'm especially fond of.In fact,if you ever advocate eliminating Aussies,you'll have a problem with me,and I can be a Pit Bull.My minor injury was the result of some irresponsible dog owners oversight.Not the fault of the dog.Dogs are territorial,that's in large part the whole point in having one.They tend to protect their own.But discerning friend from foe is something they don't always do perfectly.
Somehow we've gotten the idea that it's okay to download human responsibility on animals.This is not just a problem with dogs.It effects the whole animal world,because we encroach upon their territory thinking that they can simply be eliminated if they become a problem.People leave pet food out,then find themselves trying to find ways to annihilate skunks.Posters for lost pets seem to be especially prevalent in areas most frequented by coyotes,so coyotes get to be the villains.And I wonder,does anyone really think that the bears in our Mountain Parks enjoy being in your selfie? On my last trip by bus to Vancouver I saw eight selfie taking tourists,with accompanying bears along the highway.When the tragedy happens,and it will,it's a death sentence for another bear.
Meanwhile in Montreal,banning Pit Bull just misses the mark completely.The irresponsible training of dogs for nefarious purposes will continue unabated,only perhaps with different breeds.But perhaps not.Those who weaponize their dogs are not usually upstanding citizens,so the ban will not be much of a concern to them.Yet the responsibility in Montreal falls on dogs,not on negligent dog owners.In fact,bad dog owners have been allowed to avoid responsibility.That needs to change.
We need,among other things more stringent controls on dog owners in general.People who raise dogs using abusive techniques need to be banned from owning dogs.So do any other persons who commit criminal activity in which dogs are a part.In fact,if you deal drugs,maintain chop shops or receive,store or sell stolen goods and a dog is found anywhere within sight of your operation,you should forfeit the right to own a dog.Forever.We need fines,in the tens of thousands of dollars for allowing a dog to be out of control.Perhaps severe fines are also in order for those ignoring beware of dog signs.But my whole point is that humans need to be held to account for human negligence.Because it's not the fault of animals.
blyndpapaya
is overweight the new Hispanic?
Donald Trump loves beauty contests.He loves hanging around them.Or so Hiliary Clinton revealed near the end of last Monday's debate.He was asked about things he may have said to a former Miss Universe contestant,like that he may have called her "Miss Piggy" or that "she gained quite a bit of weight and it became a real problem." So far this has been sort of a sideshow being brought to light rather recently,as it has.But the incident needs a bit more consideration.
Ask yourself:Is Donald Trump simply manufacturing enemies? Because to me,he seems to be mass producing them.To that end,are his alleged Miss Piggy comments,along with his referring to Rosie O'Donnell as a "fat pig" further confirmation of his misogyny,ridicule for disabled people,racism(the Miss Universe in question is Hispanic) and just plain disrespect for anyone who does not conform to his ideals?Or is overweight the new Hispanic?
I'll have to admit,at nearly sixty years of age I've put on a few pounds.A close friend of mine calls it "well endowed."I remind her that that is the wrong choice of words,and point out that I'm generously proportioned.When my friend asked me to explain the difference I replied"I'm so generously proportioned that I can't tell if I'm well endowed.But all kidding aside,has Mr. Trump just included me in the category of enemy other? Not that I mind.I'm sure he needs to find reasons to discount 50 something white males as well.After all,it's a long way to get down to that one percent.Moreover,I am a Trump enemy,for many of my own reasons.
I must admit certain prejudices.I along with Mr.Trump enjoy looking at beautiful women,despite being,perhaps,past my prime,and committed.What I do not enjoy,and do not define as beauty is the standard typically held out in The Miss Universe Pageant,and in beauty contests generally: women who are slim,sometime in an unhealthy way,not too intelligent or self assured,and deferential to men.In fact,I like bigger,big boned women.I find feminine confidence and self assurance attractive.More importantly I find beauty contests that don't really measure beauty at all passe and distasteful.
But my question is this:can I now expect to be discriminated against if Donald Trump were elected? well,luckily I live in Canada,so it's not my biggest concern,but what about overweight Americans? Discrimination can range from simple ridicule to actual sanctions being taken against those being discriminated against.Ridicule may be the most benign form of discrimination,but it's hardly harmless.Words of ridicule can scar people for a lifetime.The best that can be said is that they are heartless and thoughtless.Discriminatory actions can limit or curtail the ability of a person,or whole categories of persons to participate fully in society,thus marginalizing them.As this might concern an overweight person,it already has occurred in the form of airlines asking larger persons to pay for an additional seat.So,in a Trump world,would such thing become the norm? Would it cost overweight persons more to purchase life insurance? Health insurance? Would it be acceptable to discriminate in the area of employment?
Here is the real bottom line on all of this.You can't really discriminate specifically.Prejudice is a kind of shotgun activity.If you hate it's because you are hateful.And,if you discriminate against anyone who is significantly unlike you,no matter how carefully you disguise the fact,what you are really doing is holding that persons non existence as an ideal.On this count,"Miss Piggy" has three strikes against her.She's a woman,she's Hispanic and she's deemed to be overweight,whether she is in fact or not.And all of these categories have been devalued by a current Presidential candidate.His rhetoric says so,no matter how hard he tries to spin it.
blyndpapaya
Ask yourself:Is Donald Trump simply manufacturing enemies? Because to me,he seems to be mass producing them.To that end,are his alleged Miss Piggy comments,along with his referring to Rosie O'Donnell as a "fat pig" further confirmation of his misogyny,ridicule for disabled people,racism(the Miss Universe in question is Hispanic) and just plain disrespect for anyone who does not conform to his ideals?Or is overweight the new Hispanic?
I'll have to admit,at nearly sixty years of age I've put on a few pounds.A close friend of mine calls it "well endowed."I remind her that that is the wrong choice of words,and point out that I'm generously proportioned.When my friend asked me to explain the difference I replied"I'm so generously proportioned that I can't tell if I'm well endowed.But all kidding aside,has Mr. Trump just included me in the category of enemy other? Not that I mind.I'm sure he needs to find reasons to discount 50 something white males as well.After all,it's a long way to get down to that one percent.Moreover,I am a Trump enemy,for many of my own reasons.
I must admit certain prejudices.I along with Mr.Trump enjoy looking at beautiful women,despite being,perhaps,past my prime,and committed.What I do not enjoy,and do not define as beauty is the standard typically held out in The Miss Universe Pageant,and in beauty contests generally: women who are slim,sometime in an unhealthy way,not too intelligent or self assured,and deferential to men.In fact,I like bigger,big boned women.I find feminine confidence and self assurance attractive.More importantly I find beauty contests that don't really measure beauty at all passe and distasteful.
But my question is this:can I now expect to be discriminated against if Donald Trump were elected? well,luckily I live in Canada,so it's not my biggest concern,but what about overweight Americans? Discrimination can range from simple ridicule to actual sanctions being taken against those being discriminated against.Ridicule may be the most benign form of discrimination,but it's hardly harmless.Words of ridicule can scar people for a lifetime.The best that can be said is that they are heartless and thoughtless.Discriminatory actions can limit or curtail the ability of a person,or whole categories of persons to participate fully in society,thus marginalizing them.As this might concern an overweight person,it already has occurred in the form of airlines asking larger persons to pay for an additional seat.So,in a Trump world,would such thing become the norm? Would it cost overweight persons more to purchase life insurance? Health insurance? Would it be acceptable to discriminate in the area of employment?
Here is the real bottom line on all of this.You can't really discriminate specifically.Prejudice is a kind of shotgun activity.If you hate it's because you are hateful.And,if you discriminate against anyone who is significantly unlike you,no matter how carefully you disguise the fact,what you are really doing is holding that persons non existence as an ideal.On this count,"Miss Piggy" has three strikes against her.She's a woman,she's Hispanic and she's deemed to be overweight,whether she is in fact or not.And all of these categories have been devalued by a current Presidential candidate.His rhetoric says so,no matter how hard he tries to spin it.
blyndpapaya
Monday 26 September 2016
Donald Trump-time to put on your politicians pants.
Well,it's time for the first Presidential Debate.For Donald Trump it's time to step up and show that you belong.I'm guessing that it's not going to happen.I'm guessing that Clinton wins by default,simply because she is a politician,and has been for decades.She knows how to play the game,and that's what will win the debate,and the Presidency.Unless we see a lot more from the Trump camp than we've seen to this point.
I may be missing the point here,but I've yet to see a single thing from Trump that points the way to any clear policy. I've yet to hear any ideas that are not a reaction to some perceived enemy."Lets Make America Great Again." That is a wide and rather vague slogan,and it will draw in some of those who have complaints about their current existence.It's fine,as slogans go,but what does it really mean? We will only come to know what it means in the fullness of time.Slogans don't mean a lot,in terms of management and legislation.I tend to mistrust slogans that are cast larger than life.
To listen to Trump,the slogan might just as well read"Lets Hate Someone." Making America Great seems to mean turning it into a gated community.Build a wall,and make Mexico pay for it.Keep out Muslims.These are just grossly overstated ideas,all based on the mistrust of others.But what else has Trump really said?
Where are the ideas that can turn into clear cut policy?How does Trump plan to deal with ISIS,for instance?It's debate night,so lets be specific.Because keeping Muslims out is not going to work.So how are you going to encourage liberalization of Radical Islam? What actual steps do you intend to employ to bring a popular enlightenment to the Islamic world? Because I don't see casting Muslims,in general as an enemy other to be very helpful in that regard.I'm guessing that mistrust will be returned many times over.So how about telling me what You're going to do to make America accountable in the world.Specific points.And again,Actual threats need to be addressed.How are you going to do that?Again,Specific points.
How are you going to restore American jobs? How are you going to make the economy viable for everyone? Because the elite ten percent,or one percent,or whatever is no measure of how great America is.It's a measure of how far America has fallen.And by the way,Mr.Trump,why not release your tax returns so that we can all see for certain what percentile you belong in.Otherwise I'm inclined to believe what my eyes tell me and believe that you will represent your own interests.And as a billionaire isn't it in your interests to either ship manufacturing to some choice third world country,or to turn America into a card carrying member of that same third world?
Mr.Trump,it's time to put on your politicians pants and show America that you really belong,that your not just a businessman imitating a leader.Show me that you don't hate the majority of Americans,liberals,women,blacks homosexuals,Hispanics,or,in short any one who is not exactly like you-white,right wing,filthy rich and ideologically intolerant.Tell me you really didn't mean it when you mocked a disabled reporter,and say it like you mean it.And while your up there tonight,why don't you apologize for the comment you made about Hiliary not being able to satisfy her own husband.Because that says a lot about who you are,and what you believe the issues to be.By the way,in that regard,the same might be said about you.But some of us get that that is not the issue.
Tell us,in short what you are going to do to represent the average American,in the average American town.Because all of heard thus far is about who you hate,who you want to exclude from meaningful consideration.Because if you can't tell me how you intend to represent Americans in Washington,then I'll believe that what you are really doing is representing Washington,complete with it's business as usual attitudes,to Americans.All that you've really said so far is "Let Them Eat Cake." You have a ton of actual work to do,and unless you do it flawlessly from here on out,Clinton will win for one clear reason.She is a politician and you're not.
blyndpapaya
I may be missing the point here,but I've yet to see a single thing from Trump that points the way to any clear policy. I've yet to hear any ideas that are not a reaction to some perceived enemy."Lets Make America Great Again." That is a wide and rather vague slogan,and it will draw in some of those who have complaints about their current existence.It's fine,as slogans go,but what does it really mean? We will only come to know what it means in the fullness of time.Slogans don't mean a lot,in terms of management and legislation.I tend to mistrust slogans that are cast larger than life.
To listen to Trump,the slogan might just as well read"Lets Hate Someone." Making America Great seems to mean turning it into a gated community.Build a wall,and make Mexico pay for it.Keep out Muslims.These are just grossly overstated ideas,all based on the mistrust of others.But what else has Trump really said?
Where are the ideas that can turn into clear cut policy?How does Trump plan to deal with ISIS,for instance?It's debate night,so lets be specific.Because keeping Muslims out is not going to work.So how are you going to encourage liberalization of Radical Islam? What actual steps do you intend to employ to bring a popular enlightenment to the Islamic world? Because I don't see casting Muslims,in general as an enemy other to be very helpful in that regard.I'm guessing that mistrust will be returned many times over.So how about telling me what You're going to do to make America accountable in the world.Specific points.And again,Actual threats need to be addressed.How are you going to do that?Again,Specific points.
How are you going to restore American jobs? How are you going to make the economy viable for everyone? Because the elite ten percent,or one percent,or whatever is no measure of how great America is.It's a measure of how far America has fallen.And by the way,Mr.Trump,why not release your tax returns so that we can all see for certain what percentile you belong in.Otherwise I'm inclined to believe what my eyes tell me and believe that you will represent your own interests.And as a billionaire isn't it in your interests to either ship manufacturing to some choice third world country,or to turn America into a card carrying member of that same third world?
Mr.Trump,it's time to put on your politicians pants and show America that you really belong,that your not just a businessman imitating a leader.Show me that you don't hate the majority of Americans,liberals,women,blacks homosexuals,Hispanics,or,in short any one who is not exactly like you-white,right wing,filthy rich and ideologically intolerant.Tell me you really didn't mean it when you mocked a disabled reporter,and say it like you mean it.And while your up there tonight,why don't you apologize for the comment you made about Hiliary not being able to satisfy her own husband.Because that says a lot about who you are,and what you believe the issues to be.By the way,in that regard,the same might be said about you.But some of us get that that is not the issue.
Tell us,in short what you are going to do to represent the average American,in the average American town.Because all of heard thus far is about who you hate,who you want to exclude from meaningful consideration.Because if you can't tell me how you intend to represent Americans in Washington,then I'll believe that what you are really doing is representing Washington,complete with it's business as usual attitudes,to Americans.All that you've really said so far is "Let Them Eat Cake." You have a ton of actual work to do,and unless you do it flawlessly from here on out,Clinton will win for one clear reason.She is a politician and you're not.
blyndpapaya
Thursday 22 September 2016
random acts of racism
There are a lot of big things going on in America in terms of race relations,and it seems that very few of them are good.Even when it is a good news story,there is usually some form of push back on social media,so racism in thought and in practice is hardy dead.
Today another American city is in a state of turmoil,because of the shooting of another black man.It's an all to frequent occurrence in what would seem to be the Neo-Jim Crow Era. Every time such an event takes place,there is the predictable,and to some extent justified anger coming from black Americans.And every time there is monumental push back from the law enforcement agencies involved,and law and order junkies nation wide.While I don't want to slight the obvious problem as being less significant than it is,today I want to take a more micro approach to race relations.I want to look at some seemingly smaller issues.
Some of the specific news articles I've been seeing lately are disturbing.Perhaps it's because a lot of people I've talked to seem to consider them trivial in the grand scheme of things.But they are not really trivial at all.Rather,they are an indication of how all embracing,how penetrating racial discrimination must seem in the eyes of people of color.But the real point here is that they are a call to practice empathy for white Americans.
Consider the case of Butler Traditional High School in Louisville,Kentucky.This school used to have a policy of "no natural hairstyles." In ordinary language that forbid such things as braids,dreadlocks and cornrows,styles favored by and culturally appropriate to African Americans.It's unclear to me what would constitute a "natural hairstyle if the person in question was white,Hispanic or Native American.The reason it's unclear is that there seems to be a particular leaning here,a particular targeting of some trait deemed to be undesirable.Recently the ban has been lifted,but certainly the damage has already been done,the discrimination has already been received.You can't unslap the face.And it's all a controversy that need never have taken place,if the state had only stayed out of an area of personal choice,that needs no such menial and restrictive legislation.
Speaking of hair-hair,for heavens sake-The 11th Circuit Court Of Appeals recently ruled that an employer can require an employee to cut her dreadlocks,and not be guilty of racial discrimination.Race,and racial discrimination,in this case seems to be defined by skin color,not points of identity that are culturally meaningful to many persons of African heritage.How far we've come from the days when color was less the determinate than was a single drop of black blood.And what high minded,holier than thou hypocrisy.
Meanwhile,in Portland Oregon,a local school district is rethinking a recent ban of Rap Music,as well as Religious Music on it's buses.The policy,it seems was geared toward limiting access to violent and profane lyrics.That's all very noble,but such things are hardly exclusive of other forms of music.Consequently,the assault on a predominantly black form of music tends to reinforce already existing stereotypes about violence being more indigenous to African culture than to Portland's dominant culture ,which is overwhelmingly white and significantly Mormon.We can all hope,from this rethinking,that the Portland School District will address the issue of appropriate music content with far less regard to race.By all means,be intolerant of violence and profanity under an all embracing,zero tolerance policy.Also,be inclusive of all music that does not violate such a policy.
Even when the story is a good one,reflective of more progressive attitudes,there is often push back.Yesterday,on my Facebook page someone had posted a picture of a man wearing a turban,in an American Army uniform.The caption indicated the man pictured was a "Muslim",though he appeared to me to be a Sikh.Not that that is ,or should be the basis of differential treatment,but it seems to have some currency today in inciting negative responses to the policy of permitting such attire in the military.Not surprisingly,the picture was accompanied by a lot of comments,mostly negative,some violently so.Never being shy in matters of social justice I fired off my own reply.To paraphrase:This man wishes to serve his country.That is admirable.If he is,in fact a Muslim,he may well be doing so in spite of the disapproval of family members.Some may disown him.Some may even wish to kill him.Still he stands and does the right thing.PLEASE SUPPORT ALL OF OUR SOLDIERS!
Then,of course there is the issue of Colin Kaepernick. The San Francisco Quarterback who refuses to stand for the American National Anthem,in protest of the way America treats people of color.As I've said,I would have chosen to take a stand in a different manner,but I still applaud Colin Kaepernick for being a role model,for taking a stand.But it seems that since it's a black person we are talking about here,the only interpretation of his actions is that he is disrespecting his country.But,it's equally reasonable to think the,in reality that he loves his country,acknowledges it's deficiencies,and is trying to urge America to be the best that it can be.And that seems to be so lacking in American society,either black or white.
There's a reason I'm pointing to these small things.Small,but nevertheless culturally important to many Americans,especially minorities of many different stripes.Racism can penetrate to the least of things,like choice of music or hairstyle.These issues my not appear important,but they illustrate how all pervasive discrimination is.They show the picture of a society where even menial things,and I only mean menial in comparison to bigger,life and death concerns,are subject to racial attitudes that are less that progressive.
So,if there is no respect of culture in small things,is it any surprise that America is so racially fractured? Is it so shocking to find a striking lack of empathy among many Americans? It may not stop the shootings or the degradation of families and communities,but empathy,and a better orientation to race relations begins at home,in you community,with the people that you meet every day.So let's ease up on the small things.
blyndpapaya
Today another American city is in a state of turmoil,because of the shooting of another black man.It's an all to frequent occurrence in what would seem to be the Neo-Jim Crow Era. Every time such an event takes place,there is the predictable,and to some extent justified anger coming from black Americans.And every time there is monumental push back from the law enforcement agencies involved,and law and order junkies nation wide.While I don't want to slight the obvious problem as being less significant than it is,today I want to take a more micro approach to race relations.I want to look at some seemingly smaller issues.
Some of the specific news articles I've been seeing lately are disturbing.Perhaps it's because a lot of people I've talked to seem to consider them trivial in the grand scheme of things.But they are not really trivial at all.Rather,they are an indication of how all embracing,how penetrating racial discrimination must seem in the eyes of people of color.But the real point here is that they are a call to practice empathy for white Americans.
Consider the case of Butler Traditional High School in Louisville,Kentucky.This school used to have a policy of "no natural hairstyles." In ordinary language that forbid such things as braids,dreadlocks and cornrows,styles favored by and culturally appropriate to African Americans.It's unclear to me what would constitute a "natural hairstyle if the person in question was white,Hispanic or Native American.The reason it's unclear is that there seems to be a particular leaning here,a particular targeting of some trait deemed to be undesirable.Recently the ban has been lifted,but certainly the damage has already been done,the discrimination has already been received.You can't unslap the face.And it's all a controversy that need never have taken place,if the state had only stayed out of an area of personal choice,that needs no such menial and restrictive legislation.
Speaking of hair-hair,for heavens sake-The 11th Circuit Court Of Appeals recently ruled that an employer can require an employee to cut her dreadlocks,and not be guilty of racial discrimination.Race,and racial discrimination,in this case seems to be defined by skin color,not points of identity that are culturally meaningful to many persons of African heritage.How far we've come from the days when color was less the determinate than was a single drop of black blood.And what high minded,holier than thou hypocrisy.
Meanwhile,in Portland Oregon,a local school district is rethinking a recent ban of Rap Music,as well as Religious Music on it's buses.The policy,it seems was geared toward limiting access to violent and profane lyrics.That's all very noble,but such things are hardly exclusive of other forms of music.Consequently,the assault on a predominantly black form of music tends to reinforce already existing stereotypes about violence being more indigenous to African culture than to Portland's dominant culture ,which is overwhelmingly white and significantly Mormon.We can all hope,from this rethinking,that the Portland School District will address the issue of appropriate music content with far less regard to race.By all means,be intolerant of violence and profanity under an all embracing,zero tolerance policy.Also,be inclusive of all music that does not violate such a policy.
Even when the story is a good one,reflective of more progressive attitudes,there is often push back.Yesterday,on my Facebook page someone had posted a picture of a man wearing a turban,in an American Army uniform.The caption indicated the man pictured was a "Muslim",though he appeared to me to be a Sikh.Not that that is ,or should be the basis of differential treatment,but it seems to have some currency today in inciting negative responses to the policy of permitting such attire in the military.Not surprisingly,the picture was accompanied by a lot of comments,mostly negative,some violently so.Never being shy in matters of social justice I fired off my own reply.To paraphrase:This man wishes to serve his country.That is admirable.If he is,in fact a Muslim,he may well be doing so in spite of the disapproval of family members.Some may disown him.Some may even wish to kill him.Still he stands and does the right thing.PLEASE SUPPORT ALL OF OUR SOLDIERS!
Then,of course there is the issue of Colin Kaepernick. The San Francisco Quarterback who refuses to stand for the American National Anthem,in protest of the way America treats people of color.As I've said,I would have chosen to take a stand in a different manner,but I still applaud Colin Kaepernick for being a role model,for taking a stand.But it seems that since it's a black person we are talking about here,the only interpretation of his actions is that he is disrespecting his country.But,it's equally reasonable to think the,in reality that he loves his country,acknowledges it's deficiencies,and is trying to urge America to be the best that it can be.And that seems to be so lacking in American society,either black or white.
There's a reason I'm pointing to these small things.Small,but nevertheless culturally important to many Americans,especially minorities of many different stripes.Racism can penetrate to the least of things,like choice of music or hairstyle.These issues my not appear important,but they illustrate how all pervasive discrimination is.They show the picture of a society where even menial things,and I only mean menial in comparison to bigger,life and death concerns,are subject to racial attitudes that are less that progressive.
So,if there is no respect of culture in small things,is it any surprise that America is so racially fractured? Is it so shocking to find a striking lack of empathy among many Americans? It may not stop the shootings or the degradation of families and communities,but empathy,and a better orientation to race relations begins at home,in you community,with the people that you meet every day.So let's ease up on the small things.
blyndpapaya
Tuesday 20 September 2016
A total waste of a good Liberal.
By now,if you read this column on a regular basis,you've no doubt detected a certain political bias.That's perfectly all right with me,it's even intended.So let me thank you for your patronage.
A long time ago you were not really allowed to think for yourself.The masses of us were told by The Church of the day what was orthodox ,and therefor required of every creature that lived within it's long shadow.The Church also held great sway over the otherwise legitimate civil rulers of the day too,such that they were often hamstrung in administering their realms.The only real authority of the day was The Church,and you couldn't challenge them. You see,most laymen could not read,while most clergy could and therefor "Scripture" could not be questioned.It was what The Church said it was.Not to say that religion was all bad,but there was a great monolithic entity,a malevolent deity if you will, deceiving us and inventing it's own reality.All because of the absence of liberals and liberalism.
But then we discovered that the world was not flat because nobody dropped off of it's edge,that it revolved around the sun and that neither priest nor king was infallible,and that men had certain inherent freedoms.This all happened because men invented a thing called the light switch.Well,actually that was a bit later,but,in this sense I'm referring to light as being the ability to reason,challenge and endeavor to improve upon the world as we find it.
Zoe Slusar,the former Vice President of Student Life at Mount Royal University and I disagree. I've never met Zoe,but I'd venture we disagree on a lot of things.Most fundamentally we disagree about what it means to be a liberal,which is what I'm assuming Zoe Slusar calls herself,based on behavior from a video that can be viewed either on Facebook or Youtube.
In the above mentioned video,Ms.Slusar is seen asking,really more like demanding,that a man,Matt Linder remove a cap he is wearing.The cap in question says "Let's Make America Great Again." A Donald Trump Campaign hat.Ms.Slusar insists that the hat is offensive because the only thing "Making America Great Again." can mean is making it all white,with no room for different races or sexual orientations.For her,there can be no other meaning,thus,she feels unsafe and insists that others feel unsafe as well. Mr.Linder must therefor be forced to remove his cap.
I will grant that Donald Trump seems to stand for some outlandish things.In fact,I'd rather vote for a horse than accept what he is bent on trying to sell the American public.Over the past few months I've been one of his harshest critics.A world which offers the potential to make him the most powerful man in the world disturbs me.But there is a missing link here so far as Zoe Slusar is concerned.That would be reason,and it's fundamental to a liberal world view.
Reason is also,or should be what going to university is all about.I'm fairly certain that's escaped Zoe Slusar though,as she reaches for the switch in a misguided effort to extinguish enlightenment.There was a time,not that long ago when a high quality of debate was what moved the political world.What happened? What happened,in part was the emergence of people like Zoe Slugar,and,ironically enough Donald Trump,who seem dedicated far more than anything else to their own dogma and entitlement.
So the rule of the day here seems to be stifling dissent,whether for Trump,or Slusar. If you disagree with someones ideology,shut him up.Don't bother debating him.Force the utter removal of the offending opinion.
Again,and I stress,I find Trumps views intolerant on a number of levels and thus intolerable.But the way to deal with the intolerable is to debate it fully and continually without ceasing,Fight the good fight and realize that that battle goes on and on,requiring the greatest intellectual rectitude possible.People like Bernie Sanders get that.People like Slusar do not.That is simply because they lack the ability or the inclination to debate,seeking instead to outlaw thought that they find disagreeable.Well,that's not how liberalism was intended to work.Intellect and inquiry is central to liberal thought.Trump seems to find that offensive,and that concerns me.But the attitudes of someone like Slusar I find vastly more disturbing.In fact,I wonder if her thoughts proceed directly out of having lived in a repressive culture and being innately conditioned to proceed to the most dramatic and drastic means possible to address grievances and disagreement.Clearly this makes her a waste of a potentially perfectly good liberal.
blyndpapaya
A long time ago you were not really allowed to think for yourself.The masses of us were told by The Church of the day what was orthodox ,and therefor required of every creature that lived within it's long shadow.The Church also held great sway over the otherwise legitimate civil rulers of the day too,such that they were often hamstrung in administering their realms.The only real authority of the day was The Church,and you couldn't challenge them. You see,most laymen could not read,while most clergy could and therefor "Scripture" could not be questioned.It was what The Church said it was.Not to say that religion was all bad,but there was a great monolithic entity,a malevolent deity if you will, deceiving us and inventing it's own reality.All because of the absence of liberals and liberalism.
But then we discovered that the world was not flat because nobody dropped off of it's edge,that it revolved around the sun and that neither priest nor king was infallible,and that men had certain inherent freedoms.This all happened because men invented a thing called the light switch.Well,actually that was a bit later,but,in this sense I'm referring to light as being the ability to reason,challenge and endeavor to improve upon the world as we find it.
Zoe Slusar,the former Vice President of Student Life at Mount Royal University and I disagree. I've never met Zoe,but I'd venture we disagree on a lot of things.Most fundamentally we disagree about what it means to be a liberal,which is what I'm assuming Zoe Slusar calls herself,based on behavior from a video that can be viewed either on Facebook or Youtube.
In the above mentioned video,Ms.Slusar is seen asking,really more like demanding,that a man,Matt Linder remove a cap he is wearing.The cap in question says "Let's Make America Great Again." A Donald Trump Campaign hat.Ms.Slusar insists that the hat is offensive because the only thing "Making America Great Again." can mean is making it all white,with no room for different races or sexual orientations.For her,there can be no other meaning,thus,she feels unsafe and insists that others feel unsafe as well. Mr.Linder must therefor be forced to remove his cap.
I will grant that Donald Trump seems to stand for some outlandish things.In fact,I'd rather vote for a horse than accept what he is bent on trying to sell the American public.Over the past few months I've been one of his harshest critics.A world which offers the potential to make him the most powerful man in the world disturbs me.But there is a missing link here so far as Zoe Slusar is concerned.That would be reason,and it's fundamental to a liberal world view.
Reason is also,or should be what going to university is all about.I'm fairly certain that's escaped Zoe Slusar though,as she reaches for the switch in a misguided effort to extinguish enlightenment.There was a time,not that long ago when a high quality of debate was what moved the political world.What happened? What happened,in part was the emergence of people like Zoe Slugar,and,ironically enough Donald Trump,who seem dedicated far more than anything else to their own dogma and entitlement.
So the rule of the day here seems to be stifling dissent,whether for Trump,or Slusar. If you disagree with someones ideology,shut him up.Don't bother debating him.Force the utter removal of the offending opinion.
Again,and I stress,I find Trumps views intolerant on a number of levels and thus intolerable.But the way to deal with the intolerable is to debate it fully and continually without ceasing,Fight the good fight and realize that that battle goes on and on,requiring the greatest intellectual rectitude possible.People like Bernie Sanders get that.People like Slusar do not.That is simply because they lack the ability or the inclination to debate,seeking instead to outlaw thought that they find disagreeable.Well,that's not how liberalism was intended to work.Intellect and inquiry is central to liberal thought.Trump seems to find that offensive,and that concerns me.But the attitudes of someone like Slusar I find vastly more disturbing.In fact,I wonder if her thoughts proceed directly out of having lived in a repressive culture and being innately conditioned to proceed to the most dramatic and drastic means possible to address grievances and disagreement.Clearly this makes her a waste of a potentially perfectly good liberal.
blyndpapaya
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)