Hatred and Political Hypocrisy

David Duke                                       Louis Farakhan

The majority of us all agree that racial, gender. or religious hatred is wrong, am I right?  The majority of us all agree that bullying and publicly shaming a person who does not share your views is also wrong, am I right?  Then how is it that so many people on both sides of the political spectrum are hypocritical enough to denounce someone on the other side while overlooking the hatred espoused by those on their own political side of the spectrum?  Politicians who attack the openly Anti-Semitic view of those such as Louis Farakhan, had better not associate with or downplay the equally vocal Anti-Semitic actions of those such as David Duke.  

We have seen it again and again over the past decade or so especially.  Say or write the "wrong" thing and you may well become the victim of political bullying and brow-beating by those who openly condemn bullying and publicly shaming a person.  Yet when someone on their side of the political spectrum spouts racist, gender, or religious hatred it is either ignored or downplayed.  That is hypocritical.

Whether they are; a member of the political Left in the US who attacks a politician from the other side as "racist" because that person doesn't agree with them, all while having been openly photographed with Louis Farakhan, Al Sharpton, or some other person pushing a racist, religious, or gender agenda of inequality, or a member of the Right who does the same yet does not attack White Supremacists or Anti-Semitics in their own party are hypocrites.

When it is politically correct to say "Black Lives Matter" but racist to say "All Lives Matter", something is wrong.  And yet as Americans, we have seemingly lost our balls in this regard.  No longer do Americans seem to have the courage to stand-up for what is right and join together against the hatred from both sides.  What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.   We have begun to become a country that is so polarized we barely even listen to the other side, and ignore the actions of those on their own political side whose behavior is as repugnant to American ideals as the very person they have just publicly accused of racism, sexism, or of being a religious bigot.  All while proudly and loudly proclaiming they are holding American ideals high.  

Whether you call it; deceit, duplicity, or dissimulation, it is all hypocrisy.  Right or Left, it doesn't matter, hate speech is hate speech.  Saying; "The Jews don't like Farakhan, so they call me Hitler.  Well, that's a good name.  Hitler was a very great man" is no different than saying; "The Jews are trying to destroy all other cultures...as a survival mechanism...the only Nazi country in the world is Israel".  They are both as bad and both of the men who said those things stand seemingly on the polar opposites of the political spectrum.  Both are full of hate, and both should be excised from the support of politicians because of their openly hateful actions and words.  

No race is "better" than another, no religion is "better" than another, and no gender is "better" than another.  Until we as a Nation remember that again. Or, as a society we quit trying to micromanage the beliefs of its members while neglecting the broader needs of a healthy Nation, we will be lead down the garden path.  

One last thing to think about; it has been shown, to those who care to see, that by hypocritically attacking a political opponent for something while neglecting to do the same for a political ally, you have become the protector of that behavior.  By being silent about the behavior, you are condoning it.

Much like in the recent months Hollywood has been in an uproar about the sexual harassment of actors by men in power.  While more and more women and men begin to step forward and speak of how long they were aware of this behavior, none of them spoke out.  That is until it became politically correct to do so.  Up until then, they admit they "knew" but kept quiet.  By their silence, they consented to allow it to continue.  With all the "hashtag"s in Hollywood regarding this issue, there was a lot of silent consent for many years.

As John Kaas said in his column today in the Chicago Tribune; "What we are witnessing is the Balkanizing of the United States."  Allowing hate and hypocrisy to divide us and weaken us all.  We need to put this shit aside and stand united together as Americans.  Equal and unhyphenated.  Being united doesn't mean we agree on everything, but that we stand together as equals.  Regardless of race, creed, or gender.  Perhaps then we can be the Nation that Dr. Martin Luther King saw in his "Dream".  Perhaps then we will achieve the true American Dream, and be the Nation that we all deserve to live and die in.

Think about it.

Catch you on the road sometime...

Historic Vote Protest Ignored By Media

For what is believed to be the first time in the modern history of the State of Washington, and entire Caucus refused to even vote on a bill in protest.  After nearly two hours of impassioned debate on the bill SB6199, the Republican Caucus stood firmly together and in protest refused to vote in what was already a foregone conclusion of a defeat that would have made passage of SB6199 seem normal and not at all irregular or out of the ordinary.  The bill passed out of the House due to every Democrat voting yes.  Yet the story of the House Republicans refusing to even vote; something of historic significance, was completely ignored by the media here in Washington State.

During the debate, legislators who mentioned this were gavelled down by the Speaker, and not allowed to continue their comments.  As can be seen by following this URL to the TVW broadcast archive of the floor debate. https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2018031006  After a series of amendments by the Republicans were shouted down by voice vote in the House Chamber (beginning at the 14:00 point of the TVW video), it was soon obvious the Democrats were not going to allow anything to block the passing of this bill.  

Why was this bill so extraordinary that it resulted in such an unprecedented action by the Republican Caucus?  Several things in the bill seem rather odd.  Such as giving DSHS to "adopt any rules as it deems necessary to implement the provisions of this act."  Giving DSHS carte blanche to "adopt any rules" that it deems necessary would seem to give DSHS broad power to act independently of the legislature.  It would also set up a "directed employer program".  This program would allow DSHS to contract with an outside third-party entity to act as case managers for the independent providers.  This would be a one-time selection, and then this third-party entity would become the permanent case managing body for the independent providers in Washington.  That body would be a unionized organization requiring its employees, the independent providers, to pay union dues or fees equal to those union dues.  It was strongly held that the SEIU, which is a powerfully influential contributor to the Democratic Party, would be that union.  

The most egregious part of this bill is buried deep within it and would require the Individual Providers (caregivers) to pay union dues or fees equal to those union dues.  That amounts to over $900 per year.  Or roughly one and a half months pay for people, mainly family members caring for relatives, going to union dues with no ability to opt out.  But being forced to pay union dues or fees equal to those union dues.  This bill effectively forces unionization of people caring for their family members or friends.  With little benefit to them for the amount of money they would be having withheld from them.

As a result, the Republicans were left at the end of the debate with little option left except to protest the inevitable passing of this bill by boycotting the vote.  It is believed to be the first time in modern state history that an entire caucus stood together and did not vote on a bill.  Yet the only sort of news report on this was TVW's own Legislative Review program, which showed highly edited bits of the debate. As can be seen by at this URL:  https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2018031001 

It seems strange that the media can widely cover the legislatures gun control measures, or the failure of the Carbon Tax, or even the legislature's actions on Atlantic Salmon.  Yet not even a whisper about the passionate debate and political protest against forced unionization and an entire caucus boycotting a vote against a bill that would cost the state tens of millions of dollars annually in perpetuity.  With the majority caucus ignoring "hundreds" of emails and letters from individual independent providers opposing the bill, and only addressing "form letters" in support it brings to mind a question about the true intent of this bill.  One that brought the gavel quickly down on several legislators who attempted to ask the question, or made the remark; was this some form of payback to the SEIU for its support in Democrat campaigns?  A question that while best left to the media, appears to be one they are unwilling to ask.

Catch you on the road sometime...

Seattle Centric Thinking

Over the last few years, there has come to exist what is being called an urban, or "Seattle Centric" mindset among many in the Democrat party.  Following agendas that on the broad face, and at first glance seem reasonable.  As experience has shown with the heavy push for bio-diesel, once the realities involved come to light, the urban 'progressives' quietly leave the efforts behind in pursuit of the newest "green" effort. 

Such as the current emphasis on electric cars.  One of the current items in this year's supplemental budget is $75,000 for a study on how to facilitate the use of electric cars among low-income people of the state.  With an average sticker price of just over $26,000, the eight least expensive electric cars are still very close to being out of reach for most low-income people to purchase.  One of the possible ways of getting around that is a possible ride-share program similar to Seattle's bicycle ride-share program.  The main difficulties with that solution and ones that will affect most low-income people in the state are the lack of electrical charging infrastructure around the state, and the much greater distances to be traveled to and from work, etc. in rural areas.  But it would probably work great in Seattle and the metro areas.

Over the past several months it would have been amusing to watch if it hadn't had such serious effects across the State of Washington.  Issues such as; private water rights (urban water users receive their water from government sources and pay the government entity for their water, and couldn't seem to grasp that rural water users paid for their own wells and pumps  but were not protected by the same privileges of the urban water users sources), the use of foam fire retardant in rural/agricultural or industrial area areas to fight petroleum-based fires,  and others all fell upon deaf urban ears in the urban, Democrat-controlled legislature.  While I am saying there is a strong Seattle/urban mindset among the Democrats, I am not saying all Democrats are afflicted with this issue.  Many are able to look beyond the city lights when presented with solid evidence and see the value of ideas and concerns from the rural parts of the state.  Whether they will vote against their caucus is an entirely different matter altogether.

One final example of this Seattle Centric mindset is one I discovered this morning.  During her run for a House seat in the 25th Legislative District in 2014, 24 year old  Republican Melanie Stambaugh, was opposed by an incumbent Democrat.  One of the pieces of campaign art produced by the Democrats in opposition to Melanie's age stated that "State Representative is not an entry-level job".  The amusing part, and one that fully demonstrates the Seattle centric mindset can be seen in the image of that campaign art below.  It shows then-candidate Stambaugh with a city skyline in the background.  The problem with the image is the 25th Legislative District includes Puyallup, Fife, Midway, Summit, South Hill, and parts of east Tacoma and Parkland.  However, the skyline used was downtown Seattle, which is several districts away from the 25th.  Seattle was absolutely irrelevant in this campaign, yet the state Democrats who approved the art had no issue using Seattle's skyline to represent the 25th district.  Even the Capitol in Olympia would have had more relevancy than Seattle.  That is, unless your political mindset is that everything of political import is focused on Seattle.  So am I wrong?  What do you think, tell me.  I am looking forward to hearing back from you on this.

Catch you on the road sometime...