Reverse? You've got to be kidding me.

Racism is evident in America today.  That fact is clear to most rational adults.  What's not clear is why the term racism seems to only be applied when it's against minorities.  Here's the deal.  If you base decisions on whether or not you will help someone, whether or not you will hire someone, anything about a person's actions or potential on race, then you are a racist.  It's not reverse racism, it's not affirmative action and it's definitely not righting the wrongs done to past generations.

Christopher Coates, a Clinton appointee to the Department of Justice, Voter's Rights Division, and most recently was the head of that division testified before the US Civil Rights Commission about how the Voter's Rights Division has turned to institutional racism under the current administration.  Coates had a standard interview question he would ask new potential employees.  "Would you have a problem investigating voter's rights claims filed by a white person against a minority".  Seems like a pretty simple question.  It seems that someone working for the Voter's Rights Division should be willing to enforce laws equally, without prejudice.  What's interesting is that Coates's supervisor instructed him to stop asking that question.

Furthermore, Coates was testifying after resigning his position as the head of the Voter's Rights Division after what he feels is a mis-adjudication of the voter's rights laws.  The Attorney General dismissed a case of voter intimidation against members of the New Black Panther Party who were standing in front of a Philadelphia polling place carrying a nightstick, using racially disparaging comments and intimidating voters.  There are eyewitness accounts of this happening.  There is video evidence of this happening.  What are we supposed to believe when the administration stands behind the NAACP who call the Tea Party an organization that has many racists in their ranks without a shred of evidence supporting it, and then dismisses a case of clear voter intimidation when the evidence is everywhere?

Coates concluded his hearing by asking a simple question.  He asked what if it were two robed Klansmen  carrying a nightstick throwing racial slurs at black voters?  What would the outcry be if the administration had dismissed a case in that situation?  I, however, will end this post with an accusation.  If you have to think of whether or not you would be offended if the tables were turned and you were being discriminated against, then you are a racist.

One Oligarchy Under God

There was once a point in this country's history where the leaders represented their constituents, this is true with the exception of a few times when leaders felt that morals should prevail over constituent votes.  The example of this exception is Daniel Webster who voted to end slavery even though his constituents disagreed.  His decision was based not on political gain or bullying for a party, but because he acted to end something that he knew was wrong.  Daniel Webster gave up a strong shot at the presidency to make that decision.

Today, however, politicians vote through bills that their constituents are against, not because of some great moral belief, but because they want to make their mark in the world.  The vast majority of Americans belief that extending the Bush Tax Cuts is a good thing, and that Obama Care is wrong, yet the political powers in play routinely vote against their constituents' beliefs.  The only conclusion is that they believe that they are better suited to make decisions regarding the direction of this country than their constituents.  Make no mistake, that mindset alone changes our congress from leaders by the people, of the people and from the people to a ruling class.

The moment the ruling class starts to believe that their education, life experience, wealth, family ties etc. makes them able to make decisions with impunity regardless of what the american public believes or wants we live in an Oligarchy.  Don't agree?  Then why is it that in the information age when someone could run for office with little to no money using youtube, facebook and other networking sites the majority of congressmen are worth more than $1 Million?  Why is it when they pass laws like healthcare reform and social security, they don't hold themselves to the same rules they expect average Americans to hold to?  Why is it that when a congressman commits tax fraud there's actual argument on whether or not to hold him accountable?

Still think you're not being ruled?

Read Before You Sign

Remember in school growing up where our teachers would warn us to read a document before we signed it.  "You never know what someone put in there, you could be signing your life away" they would say.  It's a concept we all learned at a young age.  I don't sign a lease, or a contract, or even my bill at a restaurant before reading it; I want to know exactly what I'm signing.  The issue that I have is that our members of congress, whether republican or democrat, have gotten into the habit of signing bills into law without reading them.

Lets think about that concept for a second.  We pay these people to vote on bills and make them law.  The implied task there would be that they read the bills and understand what they are voting on, but they don't.  Laws that have both criminal and financial repercussions for our personal lives.  We as Americans are required to understand these new laws because we will be held accountable to the items in them, but our lawmakers aren't required to read them before voting on them, and signing them into law.  There is something very wrong with that picture.

For my part, a major platform point that I will be looking for in future candidates is a pledge that they will actually read the bills before they vote.  Seems like a simple concept to me, but maybe our leaders are just too busy campaigning, fundraising, and going to dinner with lobbyists to do the job we pay them to do.

American Ignorance

The word ignorance is often misunderstood.  Ignorance means a general lack of understanding, an unawareness. It is not simply having a lapse of knowledge.  I would, however, go further and state that american ignorance is borne out of passively ignoring what is happening around them.  Americans are happy watching "news" about a famous 20 something having a hard time in jail because they can feel sorry for her, but can't name one 20 something american hero who gave their life for their country that asked them to ferret out terrorism in Afghanistan.  They happily watch TV shows where the alcoholic wife beating main actor (the actor, not the character) is paid over $1 Million for every 22 min episode, and they happily go along with the news shows and presidential administration that villainize  an Arizona Sheriff who, by enforcing federal law, is stemming the flow of drugs into Arizona so much that the drug cartels have put a $1 Million bounty on his head.  That point deserves restating.  An elected Arizona County Sheriff is enforcing federal law, that is already on the books, and is doing it in such a way that the Mexican Drug Cartel considers it good for business to offer $1 Million to kill him, a single person.  Make no mistake, they aren't stupid.  They haven't grown that business because they are lucky or because the product sells itself.  They would not offer that type of money because they hate Americans or because they love drugs, both of those may be true, but the only reason to offer that money is because this particular person has become the bane of their existence.  While all this is going on, the federal government, the entity that owns the law that this sheriff is trying to enforce, sues his state and stands by while the ACLU sues him.

How long will Americans remain ignorant?