I really don't want to get into too much politics here. I am not going to use this blog as a soapbox from which to deride any particular presidential candidate or bolster another. So with that disclaimer there, I'd like to point out an AP news story on Sarah Palin. Don't stop reading, I swear this isn't about politics.
The gist of the story is speculation about how well Sarah Palin, being a sitting governor, could possibly be running Alaska since she has only been in Alaska for three of the last 29 days. I won't disagree. The AP raises a good point. Sarah Palin is being paid to be Alaska's top executive and she is instead out on the campaign trail courting another position...and still being paid to be Alaska's governor.
I don't like that. The AP is on the money in asking about this. Of course, Alaska does have a Lt. Governor tht is able to step in and take care of many of the issues that arise while Gov. Palin is on the road, so it isn't like no one is at the helm. But still, she's being paid to do a job that she isn't doing.
I'm left wondering though, why does the Associated Press only chastize Palin? By all means, note and ask questions, criticize if you must, but let's make sure that everyone gets a chance to see if the shoe fits before you only make one person wear it.
You really have to ask why the AP chose to only focus on her, a VP candidate, and not include, I don't know, maybe the presidential candidates? And what the heck, let's be fair and include the other VP candidate as well.
John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden are all sitting US Senators. They are being paid to do a job and to represent their constituents as issues and bills are raised in the Senate. Back in July, USA Today did an article that talked about Obama and McCain's voting records. As of that date, Obama had only shown up 12 days in the senate for the entire year as of the date of the article. McCain trails with only 6 showings. The Washington Post tabulates that Obama and McCain have missed 45.9 and 64.1% of their voting opportunities, respectively. Joe Biden isn't far behind at 30.8% of his votes missed.
That is sickening. Sure, the article says that the Senators have staffers who keep an eye on the legislation coming up for votes and inform the Senators so that they can return for issues where their vote could determine the outcome of legislation. And that is good, but they are still getting paid $169,300 a year to apparently only show up for half their votes. And that record of missed votes is only going to increase as the campaigns continue.
I told you this was not about politics...well, not about the politicians or slamming any one candidate. It isn't. It is about the morality in getting paid to do a job that you aren't doing. I can understand getting paid to do a job while you are running for reelection to that very same position. But to get paid to do a job that you largely neglect because of different or higher aspirations is just plain wrong.
I personally think the candidates, if they truly want to show their convictions to good morals and being responsible to those that elect them ought to step up to the plate and resign their current positions in order to run for other offices.
Bob Dole did just that when he ran for the office of President. Some people called it a "stunt" or a grab at attention. Sure, I guess you could see it that way. Other people see it as being responsible. But either way you see it, his constituents weren't denied a senator who was devoted to representing them and not off working on other pursuits.
Attention grabbing or not, responsible or not, I believe that resigning a current elected position when you decide to run elsewhere is the moral thing to do.
Do you?
Friday, September 26, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Racists, Racists, Everywhere!
I oppose racism. To clarify, I don't believe that any one person is smarter, holier, more favored or anything else because of skin color. I believe that racism is wrong. I have friends and acquaintances of various races and enjoy their company, value their input, and generally like them immensely. Now, with that out of the way, I'd like to make a few observations about racism.
Broadly and generally speaking, I see the battle against racism as having tiered results. The first and most basic was policies and social rules that dictate tolerance towards those of other races or a curbing of racist behavior. Tolerance has lead to a demand for acceptance or a push to eliminate prejudiced thoughts and beliefs. Acceptance has begotten an expectation of sensitivity to racism or, in other words, you are expected to be on the lookout for racism in all its forms, everywhere you go. And anytime that sensitivity is demanded, hypersensitivity isn't far behind.
Hypersensitivity is often used as a humorous device in entertainment. The first example that jumps to mind is in an episode of the sitcom Seinfeld where Kramer refuses to wear a red ribbon during an AIDS walk and everyone mobs him since you can't actually be against AIDS if you don't wear the ribbon. He's on the AIDS walk, yet instead of seeing a man there supporting the cause by walking, they choose to get offended that he won't wear a red ribbon.
The sad fact is that hypersensitivity like that exists in the real world. Don't believe me?
Prime example: The Colusa County display on their seed producing crops (a $30 million/year source of revenue) that was featured at the California State Fair.
The display contained caricatures of the various seeds of Colusa County. Those seeds included tomato, cucumber, pumpkin, and watermelon seeds. The display was drawn by residents of Colusa County's juvenile hall, Fout Springs Boys Correctional Facility.
Along comes Veronica Thrasher and her husband who immediately took offense at the depiction and called it racist. Or, at least the depiction of the watermelon seed. The drawing of a smiling watermelon seed is obviously racist (ignore the fact that watermelon seeds are actually. . .well. . .black). It didn't matter that the drawings were done in a facility where the population is 40% Hispanic and 40% African American. No, Thrasher objected because it was obvious that if the residents of the facility ". . .had the benefit of a black history class" that showed images depicting African Americans "as a happy black slave eating watermelon," Thrasher said, ". . .they might have drawn Waldo Watermelon Seed a little differently."
So let me see if I understand the reasoning here. First of all, because the seed is black in color, any personification of the seed must consequently be categorized as African American. It can't just be a seed that is smiling? And then, even if we accept the first, no black person can ever be depicted as enjoying watermelon because a couple of black slaves over a hundred years ago enjoyed a watermelon?
Black slaves are often depicted as shirtless. Does that mean that every black guy on the skins side of a shirts and skins basketball game is racist? Black slaves are often shown working in agriculture. Does that mean that every farmer who's black or who employ's black workers is now racist? Maybe they wouldn't go shirtless or work the fields if they had seen an image depicting slaves that way because then they would understand that doing so is racist.
That, or maybe some people are looking a bit too hard for racism. In the picture below, do you see anyone being harmed, threatened, or intimidated? Was someone or some group of people demeaned or insulted in this drawing? Do you see any of that?
Racism is one thing. It does exist and is an offensive thing.
But sometimes a seed is just a seed.
References:
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1196475.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,414042,00.html
Broadly and generally speaking, I see the battle against racism as having tiered results. The first and most basic was policies and social rules that dictate tolerance towards those of other races or a curbing of racist behavior. Tolerance has lead to a demand for acceptance or a push to eliminate prejudiced thoughts and beliefs. Acceptance has begotten an expectation of sensitivity to racism or, in other words, you are expected to be on the lookout for racism in all its forms, everywhere you go. And anytime that sensitivity is demanded, hypersensitivity isn't far behind.
Hypersensitivity is often used as a humorous device in entertainment. The first example that jumps to mind is in an episode of the sitcom Seinfeld where Kramer refuses to wear a red ribbon during an AIDS walk and everyone mobs him since you can't actually be against AIDS if you don't wear the ribbon. He's on the AIDS walk, yet instead of seeing a man there supporting the cause by walking, they choose to get offended that he won't wear a red ribbon.
The sad fact is that hypersensitivity like that exists in the real world. Don't believe me?
Prime example: The Colusa County display on their seed producing crops (a $30 million/year source of revenue) that was featured at the California State Fair.
The display contained caricatures of the various seeds of Colusa County. Those seeds included tomato, cucumber, pumpkin, and watermelon seeds. The display was drawn by residents of Colusa County's juvenile hall, Fout Springs Boys Correctional Facility.
Along comes Veronica Thrasher and her husband who immediately took offense at the depiction and called it racist. Or, at least the depiction of the watermelon seed. The drawing of a smiling watermelon seed is obviously racist (ignore the fact that watermelon seeds are actually. . .well. . .black). It didn't matter that the drawings were done in a facility where the population is 40% Hispanic and 40% African American. No, Thrasher objected because it was obvious that if the residents of the facility ". . .had the benefit of a black history class" that showed images depicting African Americans "as a happy black slave eating watermelon," Thrasher said, ". . .they might have drawn Waldo Watermelon Seed a little differently."
So let me see if I understand the reasoning here. First of all, because the seed is black in color, any personification of the seed must consequently be categorized as African American. It can't just be a seed that is smiling? And then, even if we accept the first, no black person can ever be depicted as enjoying watermelon because a couple of black slaves over a hundred years ago enjoyed a watermelon?
Black slaves are often depicted as shirtless. Does that mean that every black guy on the skins side of a shirts and skins basketball game is racist? Black slaves are often shown working in agriculture. Does that mean that every farmer who's black or who employ's black workers is now racist? Maybe they wouldn't go shirtless or work the fields if they had seen an image depicting slaves that way because then they would understand that doing so is racist.
That, or maybe some people are looking a bit too hard for racism. In the picture below, do you see anyone being harmed, threatened, or intimidated? Was someone or some group of people demeaned or insulted in this drawing? Do you see any of that?
Racism is one thing. It does exist and is an offensive thing.
But sometimes a seed is just a seed.
References:
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1196475.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,414042,00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
