When it comes to Hillary Clinton I have found that there isn't an in between, you're either an avid supporter or you're vehemently against her. With the Republican prospects of Presidential candidates increasingly multiplying by the week, the Democratic hopeful numbers are now up to three. It makes me wonder if the Democratic party is going to give her a shot this go round or if they are in talks with someone else behind the scenes. Either way, the likelihood of Clinton getting the nomination at this point is well within the numbers if more people don't start suiting up.
While I am in the anti-Clinton camp, I wanted to see what others might be thinking who are all-in on her Presidential run, and it has been eye opening. When the opportunity arises, and I find myself being able to ask people why they are in Hillary's camp, I get one of two answers. One being she's a woman, and the other is that Bill will end up back in the White House. Both those answers seem to sprout a grey hair on my head because I fail to understand their reasoning, and when I press further, I am left standing in front of a person who's wheel is turning rapidly trying to find something else to bring up to prove she is the best choice. I am tired of the woman response because that makes half of our country eligible to run for election simply because she possesses lady parts. Secondly, if the idea of Bill being able to have his affairs in the White House appeals to that many people, then why not just rent him a room? The answers I saw online, however, were mildly humorous, but nonetheless still very weak.
If you are ever in need of a good laugh, then read the article written by Chris Tognotti. He gives those supporters in the Hillary camp step by step talking point for rebutting "something ignorant" a person says against Clinton while at a dinner party. Argument number one he helps to address is how Hillary Clinton may "bother" people because she is "ambitious and calculating", because the idea of a strong woman is thought of as a threat in the eyes of many. Let me just interject something here, I have not heard anyone having an issue with Hillary because she is a female. Then he goes on to talk about how to get around questions of her age, how her political career is linked to her marriage, yet he does touch on something of substance, Benghazi. Of course his answer to Benghazi touches on Bush's administration, and glosses over her email scandal. Overall, his article poses weak arguments in opposition to Hillary with equally weak answers.
Let's continue down the path of supporters talking points to demonstrate Hillary's accomplishments making her more than qualified for the office of Presidency by Ryan Denson. One common theme that kept coming up was that she is pro-abortion, and did her best to make abortions more accessible. That the Clinton health care plan is much like what we are seeing under Obamacare. While Secretary of State she was the most traveled, "re-set" Russian relations, and brought a cease fire between Isreal and Hamas. All rounded out to the Clinton Foundation that is just a basket full of flowers, sunshine, and love gooey-goo.
To which I counter with the following. How is it possible to say her time as Secretary of State was anything to be proud of? The Russian's are now flexing their muscles in Crimea and seeing how far they can go without anyone coming in to stop them. The Russians have done nothing but mock the U.S. and call us out globally for becoming a weak pile of mush. Her experience in this position doesn't mean anything if everything she has "accomplished" is now a land mine of disasters. If she really was a strong woman, one who doesn't buckle to the pressure of any man, then why didn't she come out and call the attack on Benghazi what it was. It was an act of terrorism, not retaliation over an anti-Muslim video. She read and followed Obama's talking points on this horrible event and still lives under her statement of "What difference does it make?" If the Republicans shot down her Clinton health care idea, then good for them. Not one person I have met has said how much better care they are getting now under Obamacare, and if you're against Obamacare then you would never be for what she puts forward.
Put aside the fact that she is equipped with lady parts and how cool it would be to have a woman in the Oval Office. Hillary is in an elitist cocoon, charging six figures to those who want them to speak, even CHARITY events. She's attacking those who are wealthy by saying it's time they get their comeuppance, but do you really think she will do anything to disrail her wealth? Will she be the first in line to give away those six figure speaking fees? No, no she will not. Hillary wants you to ignore all of the scandals with her not following government protocol by using private email to conduct government business. She wants you to ignore that she goes against the first pillar of feminism by staying in a seemingly loveless marriage with a man who has repeatedly had affairs, and who is repeatedly absent on her campaign run. At the end of the day, there isn't enough positive talking points, there isn't enough that is naturally good about Hillary to allow her the honor of the office of President.
Sunday, May 31, 2015
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
The Idea of Unfair Advantages
There have been so many ideas coming to light about everyone being on a level playing field that it is so easy to let the blood boil, but remember these knee-jerk reactions are what keep causing people to riot every time there is a police involved shooting. At the same time, it is becoming a pattern of attacks, if you will, on bashing the importance of marriage or mocking the traditional family. Now we're entering the zone of white people being blamed for their skin color, a phenomena called "white privilege". Something that I never thought would happen would be the reprimand of good, loving parents. With what I can only call a progressive blame game, these theories are only causing a wider rift between people when we should be coming together for the common good.
Let's begin Adam Swift; a professor at the University of Warwick in England. He is quoted to have said that if you read to your child, then you are "unfairly disadvantaging" others. To which he has also been quoted to have said that this activity leads to a "social justice problem" because other children who do not have this loving bond with a family member. There was mention from him that the possibility of removing the family would create a level playing field for all. His biography on the university's website does address this, to which he says that he never suggests that parents shouldn't read to their kids, yet to sometimes remember that there are others less fortunate than their child. What strikes me the most is still this idea that he eludes to of "advantage". That it's an advantage for parents to actually care about their responsibility.
Boston University is not immune to their professors spouting some ridiculous rhetoric against white people. Saida Grundy said that white males are a "problem population". She's even gone on Twitter to say that “Every MLK week I commit myself to not spending a dime in white-owned businesses. And every year I find it nearly impossible." How interesting is it that we have this woman who will be teaching young minds to believe in such things. Hardly seems fair to any of her students considering that no one has a choice of what social class they are born into, and they have just as little choice as to their skin color. I would hesitate to take her class as a person of any color. Since we're all concerned as a society now with this idea of "fair," don't you think this woman will be harder on the white students and possibly more lenient on those who are not white? Heaven help any one in her class who is a white male, I cannot see how you make a passing grade.
What I am seeing with these stories being generated with unfair advantages is that it is creating an excuse for people to not achieve. It's creating this generation of people thinking themselves the victim of circumstance. To Professor Adam Swift, I say that you obviously had parents who cared enough about you for you to become an educated man. You're missing the forest for the trees. There isn't a social injustice to parents teaching their children, nor is it one for them to love their children. The social injustice occurs when people have children either too early, with a partner who doesn't want that responsibility, or if that parent is just selfish. There is way too much of a concentration on punishing and shaming those doing right and not enough focus on how to help those doing wrong. I'm sad to say that until these people who still think of skin color as a primary basis on which to judge a person die out, we will not see an end to these race wars. As I stated earlier, no one chooses to be born into the situation and/or body that they are. Everyone has a choice to make early on. You can choose to be whatever and whoever you want, no matter and despite your social status.
I'll leave you with the words of Matthew McConaughey from his speech to college grads this past week:
"DON’T CHOOSE ANYTHING THAT WILL JEOPARDIZE YOUR SOUL. PRIORITIZE WHO YOU ARE, WHO YOU WANT TO BE, AND DON’T SPEND TIME WITH ANYTHING THAT ANTAGONIZES YOUR CHARACTER. DON’T DRINK THE KOOL AID!"
Let's begin Adam Swift; a professor at the University of Warwick in England. He is quoted to have said that if you read to your child, then you are "unfairly disadvantaging" others. To which he has also been quoted to have said that this activity leads to a "social justice problem" because other children who do not have this loving bond with a family member. There was mention from him that the possibility of removing the family would create a level playing field for all. His biography on the university's website does address this, to which he says that he never suggests that parents shouldn't read to their kids, yet to sometimes remember that there are others less fortunate than their child. What strikes me the most is still this idea that he eludes to of "advantage". That it's an advantage for parents to actually care about their responsibility.
Boston University is not immune to their professors spouting some ridiculous rhetoric against white people. Saida Grundy said that white males are a "problem population". She's even gone on Twitter to say that “Every MLK week I commit myself to not spending a dime in white-owned businesses. And every year I find it nearly impossible." How interesting is it that we have this woman who will be teaching young minds to believe in such things. Hardly seems fair to any of her students considering that no one has a choice of what social class they are born into, and they have just as little choice as to their skin color. I would hesitate to take her class as a person of any color. Since we're all concerned as a society now with this idea of "fair," don't you think this woman will be harder on the white students and possibly more lenient on those who are not white? Heaven help any one in her class who is a white male, I cannot see how you make a passing grade.
What I am seeing with these stories being generated with unfair advantages is that it is creating an excuse for people to not achieve. It's creating this generation of people thinking themselves the victim of circumstance. To Professor Adam Swift, I say that you obviously had parents who cared enough about you for you to become an educated man. You're missing the forest for the trees. There isn't a social injustice to parents teaching their children, nor is it one for them to love their children. The social injustice occurs when people have children either too early, with a partner who doesn't want that responsibility, or if that parent is just selfish. There is way too much of a concentration on punishing and shaming those doing right and not enough focus on how to help those doing wrong. I'm sad to say that until these people who still think of skin color as a primary basis on which to judge a person die out, we will not see an end to these race wars. As I stated earlier, no one chooses to be born into the situation and/or body that they are. Everyone has a choice to make early on. You can choose to be whatever and whoever you want, no matter and despite your social status.
I'll leave you with the words of Matthew McConaughey from his speech to college grads this past week:
"DON’T CHOOSE ANYTHING THAT WILL JEOPARDIZE YOUR SOUL. PRIORITIZE WHO YOU ARE, WHO YOU WANT TO BE, AND DON’T SPEND TIME WITH ANYTHING THAT ANTAGONIZES YOUR CHARACTER. DON’T DRINK THE KOOL AID!"
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Why I Am Not, Nor Will I Ever Be, a Liberal
It's Mother's Day weekend, and it is a time I celebrate moms of all walks of life. I celebrate those moms of the human and furry variety. I also celebrate those women who came into my life that left a lasting impression on me who were a mother figure to me in many ways, women who have helped to shape me into the person I am today. I never celebrated those women in the entertainment community, like movies or TV, but I've always been one who glamorizes women in politics, science, teachers, even strong female fictional characters in books. Women need strong women to idolize, to look to someone who may not be praised for looks but their intellect. I loved learning from all of these women who came into my life, especially the ones who are not in my life any more. Every woman I have met along the way played a huge role in determining my political philosophy, and as to why I cannot waive the banner as a liberal.
I remember a friend's sister of mine saying to me, "you're a woman, you should believe and support abortion." As soon as I had "the talk" from my mother, she told me that there were choices I would need to make in that area, but one of them should not be abortion. I was taught that not only is every life precious, but that if I decided to engage in activities that would lead to this creation of life, I would have to live with it because it would be a consequence of my actions. That was a humbling lesson as a teenager. Not only am I against abortions, one of the cornerstones of liberals and feminists alike, but I am vehemently apposed to government funding these procedures.
Oh no, let's talk Affirmative Action. I do believe that back in the times of MLK Jr., this was a crucially important policy. Now as we are about to enter into 2016, there isn't a need for this policy any more. For those who say there is still a need for this, would it be a better compromise to have numbers for candidates instead of names? I believe full hardheartedly that anyone who is given a job and/or any kind of position should get it based solely on their credentials. The story of Vijay Chokal-Ingam was very eye opening and persuasive. I would much rather be picked for a position based on my merit, on my credentials, than for the fact that I will add to the female diversification of a company's portfolio. If there is a man more qualified than me, then they should be selected plain and simple. That just makes me work harder for what I want!
Government involvement. I chuckle every time I hear people upset that the government is invading their privacy with their cell phones and/or by monitoring what movies they watch, but the second where it has to deal with "free" handouts those same people are happy like pigs in mud. The hypocrisy in not wanting this monitoring for security isn't ok, but when they can milk their "fair share" for all it's worth at the expense of someone else is awful. Why the general population wants the government involved in anything is beyond my understanding. The government is that family member telling you what is best for you because you have no clue how to care for yourself. They have no idea how to run this nation yet alone your life. Honestly though, why would you want them involved. This cluster of people who bicker and argue over anything and everything, who cannot even agree on our national security. People who have effectively ruined our county with the massive bail-outs and education system with their mandatory standardizing testing.
If I were to sum up what liberalism is, it would be by saying it is a grouping of people who are going to tell you that you are not ever given a fair chance at a good life and the only way you will have this fairness is by allowing government to regulate everything. Ew. Liberals stand firmly against all that has made our nation successful for years simply because they want power. They want the power to control you and everything you do.
Strong women in my life, and not so strong women in my life, have shown me how to care for myself. That I am alone have the power to accomplish or fail by my own hand. Now, more than ever it appears, it is important for me and others who are against this liberal mentality, to come together and be loud. Be so loud that no one can ignore your voice. It is in this I stand firm. It is because of the women I have encountered in my life at to this juncture that I am proud of my beliefs. I am confident too that one day I will not only be a role model to my son, but to any friends he makes. Celebrate the strong, intelligent women in your life today and teach them not to fall into the liberal trap.
I remember a friend's sister of mine saying to me, "you're a woman, you should believe and support abortion." As soon as I had "the talk" from my mother, she told me that there were choices I would need to make in that area, but one of them should not be abortion. I was taught that not only is every life precious, but that if I decided to engage in activities that would lead to this creation of life, I would have to live with it because it would be a consequence of my actions. That was a humbling lesson as a teenager. Not only am I against abortions, one of the cornerstones of liberals and feminists alike, but I am vehemently apposed to government funding these procedures.
Oh no, let's talk Affirmative Action. I do believe that back in the times of MLK Jr., this was a crucially important policy. Now as we are about to enter into 2016, there isn't a need for this policy any more. For those who say there is still a need for this, would it be a better compromise to have numbers for candidates instead of names? I believe full hardheartedly that anyone who is given a job and/or any kind of position should get it based solely on their credentials. The story of Vijay Chokal-Ingam was very eye opening and persuasive. I would much rather be picked for a position based on my merit, on my credentials, than for the fact that I will add to the female diversification of a company's portfolio. If there is a man more qualified than me, then they should be selected plain and simple. That just makes me work harder for what I want!
Government involvement. I chuckle every time I hear people upset that the government is invading their privacy with their cell phones and/or by monitoring what movies they watch, but the second where it has to deal with "free" handouts those same people are happy like pigs in mud. The hypocrisy in not wanting this monitoring for security isn't ok, but when they can milk their "fair share" for all it's worth at the expense of someone else is awful. Why the general population wants the government involved in anything is beyond my understanding. The government is that family member telling you what is best for you because you have no clue how to care for yourself. They have no idea how to run this nation yet alone your life. Honestly though, why would you want them involved. This cluster of people who bicker and argue over anything and everything, who cannot even agree on our national security. People who have effectively ruined our county with the massive bail-outs and education system with their mandatory standardizing testing.
If I were to sum up what liberalism is, it would be by saying it is a grouping of people who are going to tell you that you are not ever given a fair chance at a good life and the only way you will have this fairness is by allowing government to regulate everything. Ew. Liberals stand firmly against all that has made our nation successful for years simply because they want power. They want the power to control you and everything you do.
Strong women in my life, and not so strong women in my life, have shown me how to care for myself. That I am alone have the power to accomplish or fail by my own hand. Now, more than ever it appears, it is important for me and others who are against this liberal mentality, to come together and be loud. Be so loud that no one can ignore your voice. It is in this I stand firm. It is because of the women I have encountered in my life at to this juncture that I am proud of my beliefs. I am confident too that one day I will not only be a role model to my son, but to any friends he makes. Celebrate the strong, intelligent women in your life today and teach them not to fall into the liberal trap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)