This blog is a collection of pieces I've written for classes, other blogs, and current topics to consider in relation to American society. There are many topics covered in this blog and I hope you will learn something new as I have in researching each piece I've written. Some posts will lead you directly to another site where I publish stories, but many of my posts are exclusively found here.
In December 2013, an awesome game of augmented reality released to smart phones and people from all walks of life became agents of Ingress. It is a capture the flag mission (or portal as it is known in the game) where you have to travel to real life locations in order to play. It spanned the globe and my family and I were active agents in the game. All five of us.
We went to large gatherings in large cities and traveled around to assigned spots to take over a "portal," in defense of our team. We traveled in the day, at night, in the middle of the night, to places like Nashville, Birmingham, Chattanooga, and to very unknown towns sprinkled across the Southeast to help a larger group complete a mission. We worked with agents in Florida, Washington, D.C., Texas... and the list goes on. I was running mission control for large scale efforts using my computer and talking to agents from all across the U.S. as I saw real-time capturing of these portals across the pond, and capturing "mind units" to "win" the game for a set time period. I once had to explain to a Sheriff's deputy in Lynchburg, Tennessee what I as doing, and I had no intentions of breaking into any of the businesses in the town square near the Jack Daniel's Distillery. I met people, made friends, and it was awesome until life just got too busy to keep going.
Ingress still exists, and has even recently pushed for a revival in revamping the game for those to keep playing and recruit others. Maybe one day I will go back. Who knows.
This isn't about a game of augmented reality... it's about a lot more.
While playing this game, agents would communicate with each other and say things like "you need to go blow up the [portal]," but that portal could have been the church up the street, a post office 30 miles away, or a historical marker off the back roads in between hither and yon.
After a while I felt the need to express to any listening ears that I was playing a game and had no intentions on physically committing a crime to blow up anything, of any sorts. I was on the phone, and would feel a little worried when I told my husband something along the lines of "hey, I think I'm going to go to Taft and blow up the post office." What I was really doing was changing the augmented reality color from green to blue.
I'm a middle-aged mother of three, and there is no reason for any government agency to worry about me becoming a homegrown terrorist, but the words I used while playing that game could have been taken out of context and for all I know, I'm on a list somewhere...
Then came smart devices that listen to us.
Remember when the Google Home Mini came out and there were incidents of the device actively listening to people? Google even admitted it was eavesdropping on people. There have been far too many incidences when my husband and I were talking to each other about a topic, and then I happen to see an ad for something that related to that conversation within a day on a Chrome browser.
Our home has Amazon's Echo, and Alexa is always listening. It is listening for the activation word, but it is still listening. Our Android phones, which are Google Pixel phones (which rock in their functionality), are listening. Our Google Home and Home Minis are listening. My Nest Cams could be listening (and they could be watching). I do not care. Many do, but we do not.
Post 9/11 Behavior in America
The Patriot Act of 2001 expanded the ability of the government to spy on us. This allowed our government to behave in ways that resulted in our loss of privacy. As a society, and in the post-traumatic social stress we endured after the 9/11 attack, there lacked a huge push-back on this loss of freedom because it was for the good of the nation. As someone that has followed the FBI, and have read reports of plots that were thwarted by America's great agents of the bureau, I can't help but be willing to give up a freedom if that means our American Justice System is able to keep us safer. However, it does not mean it was all legal under the Patriot Act and abuses have taken place.
What we don't see is what has hurt us. We are truly becoming an Orwellian America.
In addition, because we have become so socially integrated into the digital life, we are opening ourselves up to additional abuses. President Trump uses his Twitter account to do... well, a completely unlimited list of things that are far outside the norms set by previous Presidents. Russia used troll farms to disseminate false news stories in an attempt to sway the 2016 Presidential election, and even the 2018 midterms (and there is no end in sight). Facebook is selling our information to companies without our knowledge. We are no longer simply human. We are digital footprints that are sold and targeted to alter our opinions, our consumer habits, and beyond. We may not be able to see the full scope of this until we are decades removed from what is happening to us today, yesterday, and tomorrow.
How do we keep up with what is going on?
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is an organization dedicated to defend "digital privacy, free speech, and innovation."
If you care about your personal data, which I suspect most mature individuals do, you can keep up with what is going on through the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
As Thomas Jefferson said on several occasions, knowledge is power. Keep up with current affairs. Do not keep to one news source to give you the full gamut of information you need to figure out what is really going on.
Cyberthreats are “more diffuse, more sophisticated, and more dangerous” than they’ve ever been
“The better connected your citizenry and infrastructure are to the internet, the more vulnerable you are.”
With close to 30 years experience in some areas, the US intelligence community is the best in the world when it comes to offensive cybersecurity measures
Here's an hour-long video of the panel talking about the topic at hand:
Overall, the next step is simple: Limit your digital presence online.
My husband and I have three children, a 15 year old and twin 10 year old girls. The 15 year old has been through several smart phones, and is part of the Generation Z, which I've equated to Z = Zombie because that's what it is like living with a teen who is constantly putting that phone in his face. However, my girls are different. We decided that they will not have social media accounts. They had a phone they shared for a while since we do not have a land line but they were downloading apps that I did not approve of. They were using music.ly (now it's known as something else) and the videos were so funny! Then I read an article where an adult male basically equated the app to a menu of girls to target for child sex predators. I found a chat app named Discord on a computer and lost my mind when I saw what was going on. That was it. We did a 180, and although we are far from helicopter parents or free-range parents, we are mindful in our parenting. We also practice what we preach.
No social media. I read Twitter, but if I decide to go back on Twitter, it would only be to advance this blog's audience, and nothing more. I have Facebook but only keep four friends (my husband, who doesn't use it anymore, my son, a friend I met online and have known for 15 years and my mother who passed more than four years ago, simply to keep reading her posts). I have LinkedIn for my future career prospects. I believe that if people are truly interested in my life, they can reach me if they want. I have a phone. They can call or text me. I do not need a social media platform to show everyone what I'm eating for dinner, or share pictures of my children. I do not base my worth on how many likes I get, or how many retweets I receive.
Too many of our children want to gain popularity online, believing they are somehow adding to their self-worth. That isn't what is important in life. Look out the window and look inside your heart. Look at the real world.
The digital world is a predatory mine field that has become toxic with hate, venom, and polarization. I refuse to be a part of it.
We all need to be aware of what our digital presences can do to us, our personal identity, our minds, and our hearts.
All of these apps and social platforms should come with a health warning. The same could be said for blogs and news sites.
While taking one of my Sociology classes where we were constantly debating topics of social theories, my professor suggested I read up on "false consciousness," as I was having a really hard time equating voting habits of people in the lower socioeconomic status group.
There is a great video on Khan Academy on Class Consciousness and False Consciousness. It's a little more than 4 minutes long and I believe it gives a brief enough description to understand the concept. It is regularly traced back to Marxism, but once again, for those who do not know much more about Karl Marx than what you may assume to know, remember, I am not promoting Marxism, Socialism, or Communism. Marx had a very clear picture of how capitalism works and if you study his work, you may find that much of his negative assumptions of capitalism have come to fruition. As I contend, American Capitalism has grown too big for its own good.
False Consciousness
False consciousness, as I see it in America, is the act of individuals who are systematically oppressed by the government, actually voting for local and federal officials who will perpetuate the systematic oppression that keeps them from finding upward mobility (any financial gains).
The best and most simple example of this are the people who vote for Republicans while they are dependent upon programs such as SNAP (food stamps). Simply put, President Trump wants to cut SNAP. You can click here to see the Google results for the stories on this topic and can pick your news source, but it is a fact. Whether or not you believe SNAP should even be in existence isn't the point. The people who use SNAP that voted for Trump are an example of the false consciousness theory.
To support this idea, let's look at Pew Research on the topic of Trump's victory in his 2016 Presidential bid:
Trump’s margin among whites without a college degree is the largest among any candidate in exit polls since 1980. Two-thirds (67%) of non-college whites backed Trump, compared with just 28% who supported Clinton, resulting in a 39-point advantage for Trump among this group. In 2012 and 2008, non-college whites also preferred the Republican over the Democratic candidate but by less one-sided margins (61%-36% and 58%-40%, respectively).
Now this isn't the rock-solid proof of my claims, but Trump would have never won the Electoral College if rural America had not overwhelmingly voted Republican in the 2016 election. Keep in mind, these are the people who are historically lower in socioeconomic status, and depend more on government assistance than suburbia.
This is not a push to vote one way or another. It is simply a factor in the way people vote in America and are not fully aware of the principles they are voting for.
Solution?
Encourage others to read about the candidates before they vote. Some people simply vote based on the indoctrinated political views of being raised in their family. Others may take their pastor's word, or a friend. If you are that friend giving advice, make sure you know your values, how they align with the political views of the person on the ballot. Only then can we awaken to the truth.
“Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth.” ― William Faulkner
When you think of deviance, images may immediately color your mind with a psycho serial killer, wasted drug users, or of delinquent adolescents with a back story of a getting in trouble with the law. However, actual deviance is much more simpler than that and includes such a wide array of behavior. For example, I could decide to wear house pants and slippers to go out to a trendy restaurant and that would, by definition, be deviant behavior because I have simply deviated from normal behavior, and it would be frowned upon.
Britannica defines deviance as "violation of social rules and conventions." Essentially, any behavior that deviates from the norm is deviant behavior. Norms can be socially held beliefs or actual laws with legal consequences. We have norms established throughout society on every level, from inside our homes, to our local churches and schools, and on city, state, and federal levels.
Remember, when you are breaking the norm, you are acting in a deviant way.
This does not mean you should be shunned or sent to jail for every deviant act. I would be shunned from that trendy restaurant if I showed up in my house pants and slippers, but if you have ever gone into a Walmart, you would know that outfit of choice would blend right in. I have to wonder to myself if there are any deviant attire choices in the Walmart realm, where sites, and even coloring books are dedicated to "The people of Walmart." I digress...
So, if deviance is going against the norm, then by definition in and of itself, we now live in a society that is littered with politically deviant behavior. Not just littered. It is so prevalent and out in the open, I have to wonder if we as a nation, are setting new norms for behavior. A large part of the country believes departing from the norms of politics is desirable. Sometimes they are needed to embark upon the horizon of change so many of us desire; ones that will lead to draining the proverbial swamp. Other behaviors deviating from socially acceptable behavior for a political figure become a toxic kink in our social contract as actors within our American democracy.
Now, you can sit and read this and think, under your own ideas of right and wrong, as to who would be labeled as a deviant in the political arena. It is not important for me to tell you which people to ascribe to the list of political deviants. That is beside the point, because your beliefs may or may not align with mine and I'm not interested in debating who belongs on Santa's naughty or nice list this year.
What is incredibly important to this discussion is seeing how deviating from the norms in the highest levels of society actually trickles down to everyday interactions between individuals of all ages, especially with regards to children.
The mid-term elections are over... 2020 here we come, but I am leaving Social Media behind!
If there is one thing I absolutely despise about politics, it is the divisive rhetoric that infects the American strata. Every aspect of American life becomes infected with toxic bias, grandstanding, and extremist behavior. It isn't just the left or the right: both are guilty and have their extremists. From the likes of the Proud Boys on the right to the extremist Antifa on the left, there is still a middle ground where an acrid atmosphere lingers and persists.
One reason why I left social media was because of the toxic wasteland it has formed into. Political extremists get under my skin just as much as it would if I were forced to sit next to rattlesnake. Essentially, there is no difference in my mind. Both make a lot of noise and spew venom. Sometimes it comes from people we know just as much as people we don't truly know.
Deviance from normal social interaction is what defines social media.
So, as I have reasoned in my mind is what some parents have seen and what others either are blind to. The level of deviance in society trickling down from political figures have made it into the schools. Couple this with the social media addiction our nation suffers from, and everyone is being subjected to the venom and our minds are rotting. Our children are being influenced in ways we do not condone. One errant individual on social media is more than capable of injecting you or your child with feelings that turn into actions - deviant actions - and that can lead to lack of self-esteem, to mental health issues, and even death. Is there a tally for the number of children who have taken their own lives due to cyber-bullying?Yes, and there are many sites dedicated to this very topic.
True Story...
Pre-teen girl plays Roblox and meets someone (a boy) playing the game and decides to take their chat to a loosely (if at all) monitored messaging forum online. At first, everything is innocent enough as not to raise any warning flags. Then the grooming begins. The girl is chatting with an adult, but the adult is lying about who he is. Then the adult starts talking about knives and how cool they are, while at the same time, the girl's best friend is also engaging with this male individual. Where the story goes is long and complicated, but at the end of the story, the girl who had been told by her parents to watch out for predators (they could be anyone, and people online lie about who they are), was entering into a self-loathing, self-harming cycle of deviant behavior that was fed to her by that "boy" she met on Roblox and even by the "best friend."
Brainwashed by some man on the other side of her computer screen and by her actual school friend at the same time.
When I was a pre-teen, the most saucy thing I came across was Madonna's Papa Don't Preach, and I had a real affinity for Kirk Cameron. I begged for a Nintendo system.
However, today, children of all ages are more aware and have more social pressures than I believe I did in my middle-class suburbia during high school. The stress of high-schoolers is now closer to the stress I felt much later in life.
Society and its norms are changing so rapidly, we simply can't keep up.
Easily said, we are - whether you like it or not - living in the age of Trumpism. Speaking your mind about your personal beliefs, no matter whom it may offend, is becoming the norm. There is still a resistance to this, but we have to face the fact that openly airing your grievances regarding minorities, immigrants, the "others," is becoming a mainstream norm. The pendulum of being politically correct has swung into the acceptance of being politically incorrect, and we are witnessing the after effects of this shift in norms.
It is not sustainable, and history is truly prologue. Take a look back into the Vietnam and Nixon era and you will find (minus social media), the same divisive nature between the left and right. From a deeply entrenched swampy American Capital to activist groups waving their extremist flags, that era was all prologue to what we have today.
The pendulum keeps swinging. Is it only swinging? Or is it also lowering with each pass, threatening to slice open the main artery of American democracy?
Will our norms evolve again to a more civilized state, at least for a little while... before history repeats itself, again?
My only answer is to persist on searching for the truth in what narrative is being sold to the American public. The problem is, as the old colloquialism goes, perception is reality. If you perceive there to be a threat, the threat exists. Does it exist if you ignore the threat, pretend it isn't there, and turn a blind eye to the truth?
One of the things so many of us fail to truly grasp is how capitalism has run amok in America. Corporations tend to value the bottom line, and have forgotten about their human assets: the workers who make the money.
During the Industrial Revolution, workers really felt the corporate greed when automation began replacing humans. Marx and Engels write about this in the Communist Manifesto, which unless you study economics or the humanities, it may read as if I'm displaying support of Communism or Socialism. Let it be known, I do not support either.
However, we see automation taking the place of human workers at an astounding rate. Entire trades and educational backgrounds are slowly being erased from the job market. The subsequent issue is the widening gap between the haves (corporate America) and the have-nots (those who are in the middle and lower socioeconomic classes). The most recent tax reform has added the inequity.
David Floyd on Investopedia.com states the following when trying to explain the tax reform President Trump pushed for passed last December:
"For the wealthy, banks and other corporations, the tax reform package can be considered a lopsided victory given its significant and permanent tax cuts to corporate profits, investment income, estate tax and more."
This is just one more element of the rapidly growing inequities in America. Like President Reagan's trickle-down economics that failed to work before as planned, Trump's big breaks to corporate America has not put any real growth into worker's abilities to advance their financial situations.
For example, when was the last time you got a raise? A real raise that came with a performance review, not one that came with advancement in your company? When I was working as a government contractor, my wage was based on my locality and a pre-determined rate under a government wage agreement. Late last year I got a wage increase of 5 cents an hour. That equates to $104 per year, before taxes.
However, let us not discount the companies that have made real efforts to increase wages across America. For years there has been a push to raise the minimum wage to $10 or $15 an hour for workers. In October, Leah Zitter of Investopedia reported a short list of companies raising wages, and I know there are more out there, but all over the country, people are still being offered wages as low as $7.25 an hour. That is not a livable wage.
I did write a paper about Capitalism in America, where I explain how corporate America has failed us, but there are ways to get back on the path to where there are companies that care about their human assets. Some corporations have begun to do this as mentioned in Leah Zitter's article listed above, but other companies have raised wages while cutting jobs.
Actual responsible capitalism takes into consideration all assets in the company, from the entry-level worker up to the CEO. Each cog in the wheel works in unison to keep the flow of work moving in a forward or upward motion. When the cogs are not taken care of, eventually there is demise and decay.
We can look at Amazon and see that it has grown and expanded beyond what Jeff Bezos ever imagined, but we can't overlook all the reports of unhappy and disgruntled workers in fulfillment centers. People will still buy from Amazon no matter how happy or unhappy their workers are, but there are consumers who will find other ways to get product because they know many of Amazon's workers are unhappy. Add that to the amount of corporate welfare Amazon is receiving after choosing two locations for their HQ2 project, and more and more customers will think twice about their Prime Memberships, or shopping for simple items with a promise of 2-day shipping (which in my experience has become more like 3-5 day shipping).
Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor is an advocate for saving capitalism in America. He's got the right ideas about our American economy, and I encourage you to visit his site and read what he has to say. It is informative, and no matter which political party you follow, it is important to understand the very basics of how we can keep America's Democracy in place, and turn away from the path in which we are currently on: an America ruled by Oligarchy. If that comes to full term, all of us that are not a part of the 1% will lose all hope to find a higher rung on the socioeconomic ladder.
Outside of this blog, I have written anonymously for a few other blogs and websites, but rarely have I put my name on them because when you write about politics, unless it is a paid job, you don't necessarily want your name tied to your political beliefs. Today, I am stepping out from behind the curtain because I believe what I have written are good examples of the work it takes to tackle topics that I wanted to know more about, or was challenged to research.
The posts previous to this are dated at the end of each title, which is the year in which I wrote the piece.
This blog will serve as a way for anyone and everyone to get to know more about me and my abilities. It is also a platform to share what I believe to be informative pieces that serve as a social analysis on an array of topics. Sometimes I am more serious, and other times a bit more straight-forward and candid.
Social media is not big part of my life, and I am not an active participant of social platforms. I will write more about that in the future. The short story is that I believe social media can be toxic to our psyche. We are living in a world where people measure their worth by how many likes and shares they get on social platforms, and I want to divert from that as a mother, setting an example for my children. So, outside of LinkedIn, this is my space to share what I observe, feel, and have researched and/or analyzed. You can also learn more about me and my education in my blog pages, listed in the tabs above.
I am really excited about this blog and tending to the format, new posts, and content while I have time off from my schooling. I have about a month before my last semester and I hope to be able to continue keeping up with the blog when my last semester starts.
If you happen to come across this blog and are in the position to mention a job opportunity (as I am currently seeking a job), where my personal attributes can contribute to your organization, please visit my profile on LinkedIn and contact me.
Public high school students in North Carolina will be taught from a lesson plans and worksheets prepared by a organization closely tied to the billionaire Koch brothers, if the state’s Department of Public Instruction gets its way. According to the Raleigh News and Observer, the Virginia-based Bill of Rights Institute received a “$100,000, sole-source contract with [North Carolina] to help develop materials for teachers to use in a course on founding principles that the state requires students to take.”
... the organization receives funding directly from David Koch and from two Koch family foundations, although, if anything, this description understates the Institute’s ties to the conservative billionaires. Two of the Institutes four board members are employed by Koch entities — one is a senior vice president at Koch Industries and another is director of higher education programs at the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation
If you are interested, you can look at the Founding Principles Course material in pdf format. I've browsed the document, and I believe it is pertinent to share with you how the course aligns with the Koch Brothers' Conservative agenda.
In just those three topics, I see a prevalent plan - the Republican Agenda. Where are the articles on referring to Senators standing up to Wall Street? That's been a pretty hot topic this week, with Senator Elizabeth Warren giving quite a tongue lashing about big banks controlling too much of America. I'm fairly certain we will not see anything of the kind, considering the origin supplying the top news to North Carolina educators.
I could easily surmise from the first two pages of the Founding Principles Course document that this is going to be infected with the Republican Agenda. I could stop there, but the investigation endure.
Page three of the document reviews several incidents where social media users were sentenced to jail time or community service for varying offensive, or potentially threatening comments. Some were benign, while others were reprehensible. The educational goal is to examine and dissect these incidents, and then apply the cases to ten Founding Principles: Individual Rights, Individual Responsibility, Creator-Endowed Inalienable Rights, Equal Protection, Due Process, Federalism, Representative Government, Private Property, Rule of Law, Separation of Powers. The page then ends with a link to a Fox News affiliate article online. I do not expect the need to explain "Creator-Endowed" and the Fox News link - as we are very aware of how these two relate directly to Republican agendas.
Page four refers to "limited government" as a piece of constitutional democracy of the United States. Four pages in, and yet another Republican Agenda.
The Founding Principles Course document material is 391 pages long. In all honesty, there is plenty of non-biased and fact-based educational information regarding government, the way it works, and the actual theories behind the establishment of America. It encourages critical thinking, which is actually something Common Core encourages, too (a curriculum Republicans first stood behind until it was supported by Obama).
However, there are many sections dedicated to issues where Federal vs. States' rights are arguable. For instance, page 170 revolves around Jim Crow laws. This topic points to how state laws were in violation of natural rights, and states could commit acts that were wrongful, calling for the federal government to correct these wrongs. It is also states, "Others disagreed, pointing out that national governments have no better record of protecting rights than states do. The federal government did not effectively protect citizens' rights over centuries of slavery and segregation. If more powers were given to the federal government in the name of protecting rights, what would happen if officials then used that greater power to do bad things over the whole nation?"
I will not use assumption to connect this last statement to a Republican agenda. Take it for what it is. I have my own reasonable conclusion to how this could relate to many topics (immigration, for one), but others may see it differently.
Additional themes like Social Security, gun control, rights to legalize marijuana within individual States, and the Affordable Care Act [Obamacare] (pgs. 174 - 175), and how these topics relate to the Commerce Clause are also up for discussion in the course. While there are several cases related to the Commerce Clause, I find it suspicious in how the above issues are selected for discussion. If you view the readings on these two specific pages, you can effortlessly sniff out right-leaning agenda, but it isn't completely overt. The selection of the topics is more suspicious than the language used to discuss the topics.
Quite Frankly...
I could spend more time on this topic, but I don't get paid for this, as I blog for personal satisfaction, education, and because I like to write (and I am known to be opinionated). From what I have observed, there is Koch directed Republican Agenda within the Founding Principles Course material. It isn't a heavy dose of Republican rhetoric, but it assuredly isn't unbiased educational material.
Public education should remain unbiased, factual, and relevant. Simply put, the Founding Principles Course isn't completely unbiased, and if North Carolina enforces the use of this course material, the Kochs will have succeeded in a slow poisoning of the minds of our future leaders. Thankfully, most high school students will have had enough life experience to perhaps pick up on some of the agenda. That's about the age where I started questioning religion, politics, and the like. I have faith that not all of their minds will be poisoned, but those living in Conservative homes will most certainly have more fuel for their fires.
I say, let's keep Koch out of our schools. North Carolina, I challenge you to find educational material that isn't pushing a political agenda!
This was first published on 12/15/2014 on a blog I wrote for previously (which is no longer being updated).
Long before Elizabeth Warren became a politician, I heard her speak on several political news shows and I instantly fell in love with her. Warren's dedication to equality for the middle class, students, and the financial stability of the country was, and still is, an extremely important part of what she stands for. When she speaks, she has such an extreme dedication to the what she believes, and anyone can see that she is speaking through her education and personal experiences, and from her heart.
For such an intelligent, heartfelt individual, there is a growing amount of hate towards her. I've witnessed it in news articles and comments on my Google+ posts. I am baffled by the right-leaning comments, some of which poke fun at her, calling her vulgar names, and claim she is an idiot, a communist, and so on. All I can conclude from this growing amount of hate is that those who do not know anything about her are the ones that hate her the most. They are uninformed conservatives with no desire to learn anything about her history. All they know is that she is an up and coming Senator, with a bright future (or whatever rhetoric Fox News has told them to believe). Her successes must be intimidating to conservatives, yet they refuse to see or realize how hard she is fighting for the very people chastising her.
This bi-partisan love for Warren disappeared after she was elected to the Senate in 2012. What a shame.
Warren is now the Ted Cruz of the Democrats
I shared an article on G+ referencing the MSNBC.com article Dem House Aide: Sen. Warren is now the Ted Cruz of our party, By Michael LaRosa, 12/12/14, and not only was the point of the article completely missed (since most just read the title of the article, and not the content), but the name calling and hatred became abundant. Let's understand what the article was implying:
Senator Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) rebellious stand against Democratic leadership – including President Obama – on Thursday’s vote to fund the government has incited a palpable sense of anger in some circles of the party.
“She is the Ted Cruz of the Democratic Party,” one senior House Democratic aide complained, comparing Senator Warren to Senator Ted Cruz’s hard line tactics last year when he led a caucus of House Republicans to shut down the government in an effort to defund Obamacare.
“[Sen. Warren is] the purist who may stand on principle, but refuses to be part of the governing majority,” the aide added.
The article isn't saying Warren is like Cruz in what they stand for, it is explicitly referring to Warren as a person standing on principles that will not be negated by her party's pressure to conform.
Warren sticks to her words and promises. That is an admirable and rare trait for a politician. Other Democrats who fear this only weakens the party. The party has been weak for a long time, and perhaps Warren is exactly what Democrats need to grow a damn backbone.
Claims made against Senator Warren
I've seen many references about Warren being a liar, as she is not Native American. In fact, it appears as if this one issue is what many conservative Warren-haters cling to as a sole reason to hate her. What you need to know about this claim can be found through the Washington Post, and is clearly outlined in Everything you need to know about Elizabeth Warren’s claim of Native American heritage, by Josh Hicks, 09/28/2012.
According to the article, Warren "checked the box" claiming Native American heritage, based on family lore. She may have been given opportunities based on affirmative-action and her supposed Native American ancestry.
Does this negate all of Warren's hard work and achievements? Absolutely not. Does this make her a habitual liar? Not at all. If this is what you're holding on to as a way to discount everything Warren has achieved, your case holds no water.Not a single person reading this, nor a single person in the history of politics has been able to avoid something so trivial in their lifetime as this issue. It doesn't make you a bad person, nor does it make you evil. It makes you human. Did she make a mistake and benefit from it? Possibly. Yet she remains an outstanding advocate for the principles she holds so dearly; principles that benefit a majority of Americans, even the ones who claim to hate her. Edit April 2019 to add: I am fully aware of the use of the word "trivial" in the above paragraph. I apologize to each Native American that was offended by this issue with Elizabeth Warren. I've read differing opinions on the topic. Many Native Americans are personally offended by this incident, while others forgive her for assuming something she thought was true. It is necessary for me to recognize how at the time of writing this work, I did not fully understand how this was NOT trivial to others affected by the issue.
Run, Warren, Run!
Many of my readers would love to see Elizabeth Warren in the White House. So here are some links you may find interesting if you'd like to follow her or the push for her to make a 2016 Presidential Bid:
This was first published on 12/13/2014 on a blog I wrote for previously (which is no longer being updated).
CONSPIRACY? Are Bill Gates and George Soros part of an Evil Empire? After sharing a few Koch related articles of mine on Google+, I was challenged by another G+ member in the following ambiguous statement: "Gates and Soros are into GMOs , sterilization in vaccines, depopulation and those deadly organizations." I promptly replied that I would look into it. This article addresses the above comment, along with connecting issues I found.
It wasn't easy to approach these issues, as there is a lot of assumptions I could make from that statement. This piece is quite lengthy. Hopefully I've presented the material in a way that is easy to follow.
Sterilization in Vaccines
There is a lot of misinformation and conspiracy theories regarding vaccines. These aren't crunchy moms in California refusing to give their children a measles vaccine. This specific issue relates to a (conspiracy) theory of vaccines in (mostly) third-world countries where organizations are sterilization the population through vaccinations.
The hormone human chorionic gonadotropin (better known as hCG) is produced during pregnancy. It is made by cells that form the placenta, which nourishes the egg after it has been fertilized and becomes attached to the uterine wall.
At this point, approximately 37 percent of all married women in the nation of India have been sterilized. That is an absolutely astounding number. In fact, it is so astounding that I could hardly believe it when I first saw it.
In fact, the article I just mentioned actually links to a page regarding the sterilization in India, Doctor Used Infected Tools on Indian Women as 10 Dead. At first, this appears as though these conspiracy theorists have something, but when you read through the article, you will find that the doctor was legally performing elective sterilization on women, but he broke the rules in the number of sterilizations performed, and the tools were not sanitized. More from that article:
Sterilizations are voluntary and couples choose between a tubectomy or vasectomy
Women are offered as little as 600 rupees ($10) in compensation for participating in the procedure, which usually takes about 15 minutes and is done under local anesthesia
If they follow the guidelines, then sterilization is a very safe method of contraception and population control
Although there have been issues in the past with India using force for population control, there are now incentives for elective sterilization. There's no denying how over populated India has become, and this is their way of trying to take control of the issue.
There are also additional links from another article, pointing to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as participants of this conspiracy theory. More on that below, but one such claim relates to the Gardasil vaccine.
As a side note, I am a pro-vaccine parent. All of my children have been given vaccines my pediatrician has recommended. I trust my children's doctor, as he is one of the top pediatricians in the state. However, when I was told my 11 year old son could receive the Gardasil vaccine, I said no. The reason is because I have a friend whose daughter has suffered tremendously because of that specific vaccine. I've read accounts of hundreds of girls whose lives have changed drastically and for the worse after receiving this vaccine. I believe Gardasil is bad. I believe it has the right goal, but the side effects of the vaccine are too risky to outweigh the benefits, and the national news media hasn't pushed this information into the public's view. My friend's daughter has been diagnosed with Dysautonomia, resulting from her Gardasil vaccinations. She's in her twenties now, and has already had to have a hysterectomy to help alleviate her painful symptoms.
I am unable to supply objective views on Gardasil because of my own experiences through my network of friends. Could it be a sterilization vaccine? I do not think those are the intentions. It is a vaccine to prevent HPV, a virus that could cause cancer. So, as a result of my extended experiences with Gardasil, I will not promote it in any way, and leave it up to you to do your homework on that item.
Claim: Bill Gates is a part of the sterilizing vaccine theory.
I'm not quite sure how this theory originated, except perhaps through this CNN interview, which appears on the webpage Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: "Vaccines reduce population growth" (which I could NOT find on the CNN channel on YouTube, which leads to me think there could be some editing of what was said, but I am going to take it as it appears). You don't have to watch the video, I have the important dialogue quoted below:
Just a few minutes into the video, Bill Gates speaks the following words:
We could cut the number of children who die every year from about 9 million to half of that if we have success on it. And the benefits are in terms of reducing sickness, reducing the population growth, it really allows society a chance to take care of itself once you've made that intervention.
Reducing population growth. I think anyone who stops right there would think Bill Gates is in fact a part of some sort of conspiracy to sterilize people without consent. It's an easy assumption to make. I certainly thought twice about it.
Gates gave a presentation about global warming and the impact humans have on carbon dioxide (CO2) production to the annual TED conference. TED is a small nonprofit that holds annual events that bring together experts in technology, entertainment and design. At the conference, Gates spoke hopefully about the impact of vaccines in the developing world, suggesting that poor families will not feel compelled to have as many children if more of their children are able to survive to adulthood, a view that many population specialists agree with. This would be beneficial in another way, Gates pointed out, because fewer people would ultimately mean lower CO2 emissions.
So, when Gates said "reducing the population growth,"it was a short term used for the idea that is illustrated in his TED talk. Think about it. If you continue to reproduce because your children have less of a chance of survival, and then you see vaccines help those children live longer lives, perhaps you will not reproduce to a point where overpopulation of dying children is a problem.
Conclusion on the Sterilizing Vaccines
As far as I can tell, this is a conspiracy theory. I can't find substantial proof that any organization is out to sterilize the population without consent. There simply isn't any hard proof from reliable sources to substantiate the claim. With sites I've linked to above, you can make assumptions, and connect dots to make additional assumptions. Yes, there is a chance something is going on that would lead us to conclude a mass directive to reduce the population without our knowing. Is there solid, undeniable proof of this? No. Until a real, unbiased scientific study is presented, there is no definitive proof of these allegations. We can assume we know until the Sun burns out, but until that unbiased truth comes forth, there is nothing we can so but speculate.
Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works to help all people lead healthy, productive lives. In developing countries, it focuses on improving people’s health and giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty. In the United States, it seeks to ensure that all people—especially those with the fewest resources—have access to the opportunities they need to succeed in school and life. Based in Seattle, Washington, the foundation is led by CEO Dr. Susan Desmond-Hellmann and Co-chair William H. Gates Sr., under the direction of Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett.
The title insinuates Gates is connected to GMO foods (unassuming through Monsanto) and is a New World Order (NWO) puppet.
The entire video is focused on vaccinations. There is a moment in the video where Gates refers to small, poor communities being able to grow food. There is absolutely no mention of Monsanto or genetically modified foods in the video. GMO foods are a target for many, many reasons. I'm not going to get into whether or not we should eat GMO foods. I'm torn on the whole thing, myself. However, what needs to be noted here is that if GMO foods are being brought into war-torn countries for poor people to farm, it is because GMO crops have been genetically modified so they can endure a more hostile environment. It is possible that the only crops these areas can grow are those cultivated from GMO seeds. What this boils down to is this: would you rather them go without any food at all, not being able to grow or farm any food because a non-GMO seed will not survive the environment - or - would you rather see them grow GMO food so they simply have something to eat?
I am not promoting GMOs. Like I said above, I am torn on the issue as a whole. I see both sides of the debate and I recognize the benefits and the disadvantages. From everything I've learned about Monsanto, I can personally say I do not like the company. However, my opinion on the company is irrelevant to the purpose of this article, and that is to investigate the claim that Gates and Soros are "into" GMOs, sterilizing vaccines, and depopulation, and reference to Gates and Soros being "deadly organizations."
The only other GMO connection I can find in the associated accusation is related to the Svalbard Global Seed Vault.
No project is more interesting at the moment than a curious project in one of the world’s most remote spots, Svalbard. Bill Gates is investing millions in a seed bank on the Barents Sea near the Arctic Ocean, some 1,100 kilometers from the North Pole. Svalbard is a barren piece of rock claimed by Norway and ceded in 1925 by international treaty (see map). On this God-forsaken island Bill Gates is investing tens of his millions along with the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto Corporation, Syngenta Foundation and the Government of Norway, among others, in what is called the ‘doomsday seed bank.’ Officially the project is named the Svalbard Global Seed Vault on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen, part of the Svalbard island group
I've actually seen several shows from channels like Discovery or the History (or H2) regarding the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. It's actually a very interesting project. Basically, the seed vault exists to keep a collection of seeds that could be used to cultivate future farming efforts if a species of food is destroyed. How the destruction could happen varies to everything from climate and weather to catastrophic events like nuclear war or an asteroid hitting the Earth. This is a logical effort to help the human race survive on crops if the need arises. Once seeds reach a certain age, they must be replenished with a new batch. So the effort is on-going.
Import and storage of GMO seeds according to Norwegian legislation will require advance approval. Certain other criteria will apply to "sealed internal use" for research purposes and indoor storage of GMO, for example with regard to the risk of spreading GMO.
Norwegian genetechnology legislation was formulated before the Svalbard Global Seed Vault (SGSV) was set up, and therefore fails to take into account the vault's special status, or the low risk related to handling seeds in sealed packaging. Until changes can be made to the rules or exemptions can be provided from them, long-term storage of GMO seeds in the SGSV will not be approved.
If it becomes apparent at a later date that modification of the facilities to include GMO seeds can be necessary in order to comply with the purpose of the vault, Norway will revise its policy and rules, and consider ways to upgrade the facility. As part of this process, the Norwegian authorities will attach great importance to the recommendations of the international council being established to advise on policy for the Svalbard Global Seed Vault.
If you read between the lines, it appears as if some GMO seeds are sealed and stored, but not for long periods of time, as not to spread the genetic modifications. I can conclude the only reason why any GMO seeds would be held on a temporary basis is directly related to the ability for GMO seeds to grow in areas where their non-modified counterparts could not grow.
So, let's focus on what we can find about the Gates Foundation regarding questionable behavior.
One questionable topic was reported by Mother Jones, Is the Gates Foundation Still Investing in Private Prisons?. It is a very interesting read, and can lend itself to questioning the dedication to the Foundation's premise. Here's a bit from the article that I found interesting:
The Gates Foundation first caught flack over its financial holdings in 2007, when the Los Angeles Times published a major investigation showing that the trust's investments were actually undermining public health gains it was promoting. A Nigerian boy featured in the story had received Gates-funded polio and measles vaccinations yet suffered from a cough made worse by pollution from an oil refinery owned by the Italian company Eni. The Gates Foundation was one of the company's investors.
The Gates Foundation regularly evaluates its holdings, and changes investments. All of their financials are available to the public. I am certain that not all of their holdings align with the Foundation's purpose. I believe they also know this is a possibility, and that is why they reevaluate their holdings. Is anyone perfect? No. Is the overall reach of the Gates Foundation a positive effort? Yes. I think that is the key in evaluating the Gates Foundation.
There are also related topics I found that could upset some people, parents in particular, and that is how the Gates Foundation relates to Common Core in our schools. You can read more in the article How Bill Gates pulled off the swift Common Core revolution.
Common Core is a highly debated topic. I'm not going to link to any specific sites on this topic, but I will tell you what I've gathered from dialogues I've had with educators regarding Common Core. It is practiced in the school district my children are in, and because of all the media banter on the topic, I wanted to know what the teachers had to say about it.
First, Common Core teaches children to think about one problem in several different ways, all arriving to the same conclusion. In simple terms, they teach children to learn how to think about solving problems and reasoning through various means. It's a headache when I do simple first-grade math with my children. So yes, it can be a headache for them too. It's a new learning tool, and once I "got it" I could roll with it. Every single teacher I've talked to in the school has the same response. They all think Common Core is good, but it needs to be tweaked. These teachers are used to teaching a certain way and each of them have had to learn to teach in a new way. Children that were not started on Common Core have a problem with it. My oldest is one of those children. He has adapted, but the way they teach math is completely different than how I learned it, and it makes it hard for me to help him with his homework (especially since math is not my favorite topic). However, children that started in the system under Common Core have less problems with it, such as my twin girls.
Common Core was an initiate to help develop critical thinking for our children. If we raise critical thinkers that are able to approach issues in new ways, we are fostering the future's ability to further the human race's ability to thrive. Yeah, I know, that's a lot of theory, but I do believe Common Core is an advancement. It's not perfect, but we can't blame the Gates Foundation for trying to improve the educational institutions of this nation.
Is the Gates Foundation truly evil?
I suppose if you dig hard, and dig deep enough, you will find something that isn't wonderful about the Gates Foundation. I have not been able to find enough hard evidence to say they are an evil foundation, are part of the NWO, or seek to create evil in this world. I am sure I could spend another few years of my life to write a book about the Foundation, and perhaps develop some sort of speculative conclusion as to their "true" efforts, but some things are as they appear. The Gates Foundation appears to aspire to make this world a better place to live in. So, that's where I am going to end my Gates digging. My conclusion is that Gates is not evil, and they are not a deadly organization.
"At the epicentre of the current Ebola epidemic is the Kenema Government Hospital in Sierra Leone, which houses a U.S. a (sic) biosecurity level 2 bioweapons research lab with links to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Soros Foundation," reads an excerpt shared on sites like RumorMillsNews.com and BeforeItsNews.com.
There’s no proof of Soros and Gates funding a bioweapons lab in Kenema, one of the largest cities in Sierra Leone with a population of about 150,000. And there’s really no case that a bioweapons lab in Kenema is behind the outbreak.
The Gates Foundation did provide a $1 million Ebola-related grant to support emergency efforts in West Africa by UNICEF
Soros’ Open Society Foundations also said it does not fund any labs, much less a bioweapons lab, in West Africa
One blogger who invoked the Soros/Gates connection ... referenced the website of the "viral fever bioweapons lab inside Kenema Government Hospital," saying it "read like a roll call of New World Order organizations."
Their Conclusion:
Our ruling
Bloggers worried about the New World Order connected the bank accounts of Soros and Gates to a facility responding to the Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone -- a facility they strongly suggest is responsible for the outbreak.
A direct link to the billionaires is unproven. One researcher who received education and research grants from their foundations does not warrant the much-hyped connection.
Moreover, the virus did not start from a research lab in Kenema, giving the bloggers’ incendiary claims even less credibility.
We rate this claim Pants on Fire!
The New World Order Conspiracy Theory
If you click the New World Order link, you will find a Google search result on the topic. Is it a theory, and there are tons upon tons of pages you can click through regarding the topic. I'm not going to touch it at all. It is a conspiracy theory, and you can choose to believe what you want. The Gates video title (previously linked above) insinuates a connection to the NWO, and the video does not support that accusation.
George Soros
I had honestly never heard this man's name before the comments were made on Google+. So, let's start from the beginning for those of you like me (as we've all heard of Bill Gates and I did not need to explain who he is).
GEORGE SOROS has been a prominent international supporter of democratic ideals and causes for more than 30 years. His philanthropic organization, the Open Society Foundations, supports democracy and human rights in over 70 countries. Born in Budapest in 1930, George Soros is Chairman of Soros Fund Management LLC. As one of history’s most successful financiers, his views on investing and economic issues are widely followed. This site is the official resource for information about George Soros.
In the United States, the Open Society Foundations aim to nurture the development of a society that allows all people to participate equitably in political, economic, and cultural life; encourages diverse opinions and critical debate; protects human rights; and promotes broadly shared prosperity and security.
I encourage you to visit the Open Society Foundations website. In all honesty, regardless of Soros being tied directly to Democrats, there is nothing negative about this Foundation. It covers all aspects of equality for humanity, and all over the globe. Every link I clicked, I found more good this Foundation is doing and promoting. I challenge my readers to prove me wrong.
Soros and the Democrats
Heavy Hitters: Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2014 is a great reference for looking at Soros as a major contributor to the Democrats. There's no doubt that George Soros has personally contributed to getting Democrats elected. The site is very interactive, and has many levels of information. What I found is in all the dollars he's spent, and there's a lot of money involved, he never once gave anything to a Political Action Committee (PAC or Super PAC), and it was always to an individual's campaign. All but $250 (that I could find) was given to a Democrat running for office. That remaining $250 (yes, two hundred and fifty dollars) was given to a Republican.
Financier George Soros has become one of the largest supporters of drug reforms ranging from medical marijuana use to the easing of sentencing for drug charges. His foundation has donated about $200 million to drug reforms since 1994, double what most people had estimated until now.
Let's Dig Deeper on Soros
In an effort to find something bad about Soros, I found the page on Wikipedia, George Soros conspiracy theories. I do not like using Wiki as a reference, so I read it over and looked at the references for the page. Here are some things I did find.
Convicted in France of insider trading, Soros specializes in weakening or collapsing the currencies of entire nations for his own selfish interests.
Soros signed a consent decree in United States District Court, in a Securities and Exchange Commission case involving stock manipulation, and was fined $75,000 by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for holding positions “in excess of speculative limits.”
Soros has categorically denied receiving money from drug cartels or any form of criminal activity... some of his financial operations have been based offshore ...The Soros fund is based in the Netherlands Antilles ... CIA factbook describes the region as “a transshipment point for South American drugs bound for the US and Europe; money-laundering center.”
Soros profits from the Kosovo war, which he supported as a preemptive strike against Yugoslavia, because he runs an investment fund that now does business there
Soros’ long-time goal has been to subvert the national anti-drug policy of the U.S. Government, to move away from the use of national and global law enforcement resources against the drug trade. He calls this “harm reduction,” meaning that criminal activity associated with the use of drugs will supposedly be reduced if the government takes over the drug trade and provides drugs and drug paraphernalia, including needles, to addicts.
Considering all of the money that Soros or his organizations have provided to news organizations, it should be no surprise to learn that journalists love him.
The article above is long, and really hits into the drug related activity. This article is ten years old. Since then, states have legalized marijuana for medical and/or recreational purposes. Personally, I have no issue with this. I see marijuana no differently than I see tobacco and alcohol. People are going to use it, regardless of whether or not it is legal. Tax it and use that money for good. I will leave my opinion at that.
However, the article does make a point in showing George Soros is no saint. He obviously has questionable behavior in his past. Those with an excess of funds usually do have skeletons in their closet. I do not find any of this surprising. The Wiki page I referenced above does have some conspiracy theories that are debunked, so I will not address those. The article I outlined above has the most compelling information regarding Soros being a part of some higher agenda. It appears to be more of financial agenda, and a lot of theory on his intentions. He has in fact been caught red handed, and once again, there is no denying that. Does this prove he is a part of a deadly organization? Not definitively. Greed does not equate to death, although his actions could put people at risk. You can read the full article in the link above to decide for yourself.
The Final Verdict
My challenge was to investigate the following: "Gates and Soros are into GMOs , sterilization in vaccines, depopulation and those deadly organizations."
I think I've presented enough information here for you to make your own final verdict. What I've taken away from this is that there is enough conspiracy theories to go from here to the next universe and back, but not enough hard evidence to make me believe those theories.
"Those deadly organizations" was never truly expanded into what exact organizations are included in the statement. I can only assume it was the Gates Foundation and Open Society Foundations. Both Foundations have goodwill at heart. Are they perfect? No. Imperfections can be found in just about everything. Look around you. Even the Red Cross has been accused of being crooked. What ultimately matters is the overall goal of a Foundation. To create goodwill and peace where it lacks. Does it excuse misgivings? No. When you fail, you fail. When you lie, you lie. Can misgivings be forgiven? Certainly. Move forward to foster the advancement of humanity. Do good for the people of the Earth. I've read enough to know that overall, the Gates Foundation and the Open Society Foundations are doing good for the people of the Earth.
So, there you have it. Take it for what it is. I could go deeper, and go further, but I really would like to have a life. I think where conspiracy theories are concerned, you could spend your entire life (and people have) devoted to proving these theories. I shall leave it up to them to make those theories into hardcore facts.
As always, I encourage you all to take action, and for this, if you so feel the need, dig deeper. Provide some kind of proof that Gates and Soros are a part of some New World Order, out to rid the Earth of those not deemed good enough to survive an apocalypse. Until then, you all have at least this much (above) to chew on.
This was first published on 12/11/2014 on a blog I wrote for previously (which is no longer being updated).
I am speechless.
Actually, there are many things I would like to say, but in the spirit of being positive (which is really hard to do right now), let's just throw out some facts regarding today's hot topic" The $1 Trillion spending bill to fund the government through September 2015.
First, listen to Senator Bernie Sanders:
More money for the military, more Wall Street Greed, and the destruction of the Middle Class. This is what awaits President Obama's Veto Pen. The upside, the Veterans will benefit from the bill as they are supported in the bill.
It tells us that big money is more important to the Republican party, than it is to the vast majority of our citizens.
America, you voted for this.
The GOP were tricky enough to slip these provisions in, I believe, knowing how it will create a government shut down. Then they can blame the shut-down on President Obama, as I would expect him to veto the bill immediately.
I'm angry. There's nothing I can do. I voted for non-Republican candidates, and my America is being bullied into poverty, while big money is being coddled like an infant to a mother's breast.
Republicans give and give, and then beg for more money, so they can give and give some more.
This was first published on 12/8/2014 on a blog I wrote for previously (which is no longer being updated).
This political cartoon sums up the past few weeks in America.
There's no way to truly comprehend how justice has been avoided being served to those who've suffered at the hands of police brutality. We should be able to fully trust those in blue, but more and more incidents have come to light over the past months to lead Americans to believe those who serve our communities are exempt from the laws of our Nation. This is America, the home of the free and the brave. Free. That should be an all-inclusive term, but it isn't.
Hands up, "don't shoot!"
"I can't breathe."
It doesn't matter if you are a child with a toy gun, or criminal complying with authorities, your life is at risk - especially if you aren't Caucasian. Law enforcement should not be committing crimes, and certainly, they shouldn't be getting away with it.
"Caught on video." President Obama, if you want to strengthen the relationship between cops and citizens, are wearable cameras and training going to change anything? Eric Garner's death was caught on tape, and Officer Daniel Pantaleo was cleared of his charges.
Perhaps the culture within law enforcement is the real problem here. It isn't every officer, in fact, one officer is known for having never received a complaint:
Elton Simmons is a deputy sheriff in Los Angeles that holds a record number of complaints, as said in the title. How many complaints have been filed against him you might ask? None to be exact. ~ News In General, Dec. 17, 2013
Here's a CBS story about him:
Simmons says "One thing I don't like is to be looked down at, I can't stand it, so I'm not going to look down at you." The report also states that Simmons has diplomacy, and "none of the attitude that sometimes comes with a cop." Elton Simmons is a perfect example how how you can do your job as an office of the law, and not be a jerk. He's simply human, just like those he has to ticket. He knows that, and that is why those ticketed by Simmons have never once complained about him.
It isn't just about race.
The media loves to sensationalize issues, and white-on-black deaths are focused on more often than crimes where white police allow the death of, or kill another white person. A racial divide is created by the media. It isn't just the instances that allow the divide to happen, it is how the media reports crimes. White-on-white crimes aren't picked up by large media groups, but you will certainly find them in your local media outlets. Take a look. It's there.
This doesn't minimalize the real issue at hand.
I've seen it more times than I can count: #BlackLivesMatter. Yes, they do. There's no arguing that. My issue is that not only do black lives matter, but all lives matter.
The culture within law enforcement seems to be one with a God complex. Too many times they are the executioner without the right to a fair trial. This isn't the American judicial system, and then the system fails the survivors of the victims. We see it in the news almost every single say. Media outlets continually focus on white cops killing black males and females, avoiding other accounts where a white officer is to blame for the death of other whites or Hispanics. This lack of reporting exacerbates the idea that only blacks are being targeted by police, when really, unless you are a white male dressed in a business suit, you are profiled and are more likely to suffer police brutality.
My fear is that the more the media focuses on the white-on-black issue, the more a racial divide is created and it will appear to some as if white cops only kill black males. There's certainly a incredible amount of these instances occurring more often. I applaud those who march to establish and support #BlackLivesMatter. It needs to be addressed.
We also need to be marching for #AllLivesMatter. Police brutality needs to come to an end.
The racists are coming out in swarms.
I am ashamed to see news reports about the amount of racism going on during the marches and protests happening all around this country. The Huffington Post, on December 4, 2014, Journey For Justice Faces Racist Opposition reported the following:
About 200 people met the marchers as they reached Rosebud around noon, activists said. A display of fried chicken, a melon and a 40-ounce beer bottle had been placed in the street. A Confederate flag flew. Counter-protestors shouted racial epithets.
Are we living in the 1960's again? What is going on? How can any one person morally justify this kind of reaction to a valid protest?
One the flip side of the coin, I am happy to see Americans of all races join together to march and protest under the #BlackLivesMatter campaign. From The Atlantic's City Lab, we see diversity in the The Unprecedented Scale of the #BlackLivesMatter Protests gallery.
Real change needs to happen.
As I mentioned above, President Obama is calling for more cameras to record the actions of officers of the law. We know video didn't help in the case of Eric Garner's death. Why would America think this will change anything in the long-run. It may hold more officers accountable for their actions, but it doesn't appear to matter when you examine Eric Garner's death.
The question is, how can law enforcement change to serve and protect the citizens, and not just themselves? Does this include more training, psychological tests, examinations of each officer's disposition? I don't have the answer. It may be all of the above. Some how, some way, it needs to change. Police should be trusted, and not hated or feared.
Big Brother is already watching.
Video surveillance has both positive and negative implications. VICE does an excellent job in reporting on the surveillance system in Camden, New Jersey.
This particular feature focuses on the positives and negatives of a city-wide police surveillance system. If you haven't already learned about this HBO series, I highly recommend it. As for the topic at hand, I highly recommend watching this episode if you have access to it. It is eye-opening, and perhaps a version of the system in Camden can be used to curb police brutality, keeping them in check, while keeping people in check as well.
We've already entered into a technological age where we should all expect to be on camera at some point after leaving our homes. When used properly, and for the right reasons, it can be a tool used for positive results. We may be seeing more and more of these systems around the country. If so, I do hope it allows for what we need most: a more peaceful America, and not a more policed America.
