Guilt By Association: Why Romney May Wish To Avoid Bloomberg

Among Mitt Romney's rumored choices for running mates, one name stands out above all: Michael Bloomberg. But the old-school Republican could bring something else to the Romney camp that could destroy the campaign entirely, the New York Blizzard of 2010.

December 27th, 2010 has been hailed as the "busiest day for 911 calls since Sept. 11, 2001" in an article published December 29th, 2010 by the New York Daily News. That day was faced with the helplessness of being trapped by seemingly endless drifts of snow, and a city government that seemed unwilling to protect its citizens.

By December 30th,  Mayor Bloomberg finally ventured out to see the aftermath of the four boroughs and how they fared without the support that Manhattan had received. It is speculated that since Manhattan is a major tourist destination, the city went out of it's way to ensure the streets were cleared. New York Public Advocat Bill de Blasio, second-in-line to the Mayor, had sent a letter to the office of Bloomberg demanding an explanation for the late and ineffective response, which remained unanswered. Even after plows finally made it to the outer boroughs on and after December 30th, the streets were not salted, thereby weakening any effect that plowing would have to the 20 inches of snow; a final insult to the lives lost during the storm.

Flash forward two years later, and the man at the helm of this city is now being hailed as a 'safe' choice for Mitt Romney by ESPN columnist L.Z. Granderson. It seems that the memory of the Republican party, once again, is fuzzy and measurable in nano-seconds. This textbook result of ineffectual leadership should be foremost in the mind of Romney, and to head off any bad press at the proverbial pass, he'd ought to look to another running mate. Preferrably a running mate with less blood on their hands.

Bloomberg's track record of attempting a $34-million dollar cut in childcare services and the forced layoff of over 4,600 teachers in the City of New York is -comparatively- light work in the face of the blizzard. This does nothing to give the impression that he is an "old-school" Republican and is more in-step with the modern incarnation of the standard issue Republican: "All for None, and More For Me" being the generalized concept.

Given Bloomberg's history, and the already shaky foundation of Romney's campaign, choosing Bloomberg as a running mate may prove to be the winter of Romney's discontent.

An Open Letter to Stereotype Enthusiasts

To Whom it May Concern,



If you've ever said, "you're not *really* black," then you're part of the
problem. I hope that got your attention, because this is going to be a long
and painful read for some of you. This letter is to inform all concerned
that I am identifying only with the "human" race, as opposed to identifying
as "black" or some other such designation. If you think it's cool to tell
someone they're "not really" a specific race based on their behavior not
sticking to a specific stereotype, then you are an idiot. It is one of the
most appalling yet subtle pretenses we've used to divide ourselves.

Perhaps I'm speaking as the victim? Not exactly. I'm guilty of this
stupidity myself. The difference is I've learned from it, and you to whom
this is addressed have not. A note on the "you're not really
black/white/asian/latino" phenomenon that has permeated our society, I'm
not. No, I am "not really" black. I'm a human being and my character or
behavior is not defined by my color or ethnicity, it's defined by my
fucking behavior; tell me this is not a difficult concept to grasp. The
fact that I've even heard the phrase in its several iterations at this
stage in human history makes me want to vomit.

Then there's the low-calorie version, the "what are you mixed with"
question. I'm mixed with... well I don't know. Carbon? Yes, carbon. Does it
really matter what the hell my ethnic origin is? Are you asking because
it's gonig to change your opinion of me? It probably won't, but many think
it will. You automatically establish a dividing line between yourself and
the person you ask that same vile question in the subject's mind. If
the subject of the question doesn't think anything of it, then perhaps they
should, because your ethnicity does not define your conduct.

Who gives a shit about ethnic pride for that matter? As George Carlin put
it, you've won a "lottery." A completely and utterly arbitrary system of
vetting in which people are born into a nation, into a family of a certain
bloodline, and are then faced with the cultural/economical/social
landscape which they were spat upon. Pride, again in the spirit of Carlin,
is earned. John Locke's Theory of Value and Property, holding any weight,
would put ethnic or national pride at absolutely "nil."

So don't look at it as being politically correct when I urge you to take
any and all of what's stated into account. Take it as encouragement to be a
world citizen, take it as news you can use towards a better cohesiveness.
But whatever you do, at the very least, take your anqituated notions to the
dumpster and be a human being; nothing mundane about that.

Sincerely,
Rey Ignatius Fawkes

Gingrich's Twelve Steps To Rewritten History

Republican Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich has published a "draft" of his soon to be infamous "Presidential Comission on Religious Freedom," set to be finalized as an Executive order by September 27th, 2012. As a reinforcement to the guiding concept of "freedom of religion," it hopes to set in place a committee to oversee that freedom to worship openly is enforced. But does Gingrich realize how deep the Christian leanings of the nation, and the words of his proposal, actually are?
Published to Gingrich's campaign website on December 18th, 2011, the comission outlines twelve steps that, to put it lightly, partially increase the size of government by establishing a "working group" to go forth and ensure that freedom to worship is upheld in all aspects of our society. This is quite ironic, considering the Republican agenda to decrease the size of said government has been made apparent for decades, if only to refocus the size on issues relevant to the Republican Party. A major question is precisely who qualifies to serve on the working group? This, given that it is not outlined in any level of specificity that this writer can ascertain from reading.
A few varying degrees of political double-speak permeate the comission document, notably in the reference to the "Establishment Clause" of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" despite the fact that the ramifications of such a comission may very well require action from Congress. Another, following the Republican trope of interpreting and thereby asserting to know the will of the Founding Fathers, punctuates the document as often as a comma or period would in a letter. This is visible in the "Six Themes Summarize The Founders’ Vision For Church And State" section of the document (Federalist, Nationalist, Democratic, Libertarian, Philosophical and Theological.)
The final highlight goes into a laundry list of "low-points" in American History, characterizing them as issues that could only be resolved through religious morality. This, despite the fact that the true resolutions of issues such as the eugenics movement and slavery had been ousted not by religious intervention or hinging on a change of conscience, but by political means. Most especially slavery, despite the fact that Europeans could not support a country that perpetuated a law they had long since abolished was more of a contributing factor to the abolition of slavery than the fact that Lincoln appealed to the moral "conscience" of Americans. Through interpretation of the Founding Fathers intentions with "cherry-picked" quotes from those same men, there is also a laughable reference to Machiavelli's "The Prince," a book written with the sole intention of satirizing the Medici family's rise to power, however brief in quotation; not unlike using an episode of "All In The Family" to illustrate America in the early 1980s .
Though the intention to ensure religious freedom may be encouraged in the "spirit" of the document, Gingrich's "Presidential Commission on Religious Freedom" seems more bent on ensuring the free practice of the Christian faith, and contradicts itself at every sloppily executed turn. This writer would suggest to any Republican, regardless of faith (or lack thereof) to familiarize themself with this comission before taking one step (or twelve) towards supporting the Gingrich campaign.

(The actual draft is available here: http://www.newt.org/presidential-commission-religious-freedom)