The Race Game: Aristocracy v. Commoners

Alexis de Tocqueville once wrote, "the surface of American society is covered with a layer of democratic paint, but from time to time one can see the old aristocratic colours breaking through." 

The presence of racism hasn't be abated and reconciled. Fore it was told to us that a certain president would change the course of history, to devolve the evolution of centuries of racist and bigotries enacted from the forefathers and theirs before them. Yet, from what it shows, the division of the racist and bigotry of the American way has perpetrated to larger extent. 

I conclude, that this issue stems from a three fold problem: the continuation of a self-inflicted racism, a doctrinal error of failure to establish a productive baseline of equality, and failure to comprehend the past as a cautionary tale.

It was in Plato's Republic that one understood the complexities of the government. Too much of one thing led to oligarchy, or aristocracy, dictatorship, monarchy, or democracy and his counter, the republic. Now while Pluto's basis for the evils and woes of each, democracy held the lowest of the forms of government that succeeded. His analysis rested upon the Athenian democracy model. From Plato to Aquinas, Hegel, Locke, and Tocqueville the errors of to much democracy was perilous. The Framers attempted to craft Plato's famed republic, which took from the best of all the aristocracy, monarchy, and democracy and attempted to quell the beasts of the oligarchy, dictatorship, and democracy demagogue. Now, we see the Europeans as a baseline of equality, yet do you know that France outlawed the burka because it failed to comply with the separation of religion and the secular state? Did you know that it passed with a majority of the French National Assembly? Probably not. And France is to be one of the most well graded for espousing, enacting, and performing equality. 

The United States is in a continual cycle of racism, not because it is one person over another, in a sense that a person is always lower. While this generalization can be made, it can and is at a point false and invalid. In the game of racism, it takes two. One must accept the racism and one must make it. To enact change, it also takes two. One must rise above and one must accept the rise. This change or differential vector that makes racism near null, must be done in two-fold, an error the Republican Party and Democratic Party fail to do: change the mindset of being equal on the outset, that one can rise above their own and push through with their own effort and their own backing; and the government must find a way to prepare the individual for self-extermination of racist beliefs. It isn't just one that can be accomplished. Ferguson, MO teaches us that we have not been teaching and that we have not been providing the correct tools. This does not mean to spend wildly on things that have a zero-metric evaluation, such as more spending on projects and funding that have failed to actually produce the betterment of the person. We must establish a precedent and program that gives each person the value internally and externally that their "rank" is changeable upon their own actions. One must remember that actions of the negative must be met with an equal or greater reaction to either deter or to create a situation in which one believes they must change.

We look at our history and we fail to break the cycle of events. While we have learned, we haven't grasped the greater themes and sometimes, it goes to not just our own history. As a nation, we are one of the youngest and to have made major strides prior to and before our predecessors of Europe are congratulatory. In the nearly 1200 years France has been a nation, they have gone through monarchies, dictators, emperors, and 5 republics. In less than 300 years, the United States has had one government, continually, constantly, and without failing. So what is our cautionary tale? It is to become better than Europe and others in a much quicker time. To my critics who say we haven't progressed quick enough: compare the 1200 years of France to less than 300 of the American society in an objective manner and not a subjective state of self-induced consciousness. 

"Virtue is a state of war, and to live in it we have always to combat with ourselves."                                                                    -- Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Game of Thrones: Senate Edition

The rolling hills of Kentucky is a vast land, with 120 small municipalities tied to the Iron Throne of the Commonwealth. Alas, the Iron Throne was ousted to move closer to the Capitol, District of Columbia. A Governor now sits on the once majestic throne of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

If only politics were such a game of throne, oh wait, it is. Today's match pair the embattled senior Senator to a recently elected Secretary of the Ballot box. (I use these terms to make this dialogue funny, not to make the actual post degraded or less important.)

Each candidate had the floor to debate the core issues of this state/commonwealth, whichever you prefer--albeit the Commonwealth is the correct term. This debate gets a star rating of 0.5/5 for it performance.

Why? Isn't it clear? No? Well shame on you! Because it is quite clear that neither one of the candidates shone bright like a diamond.

Each candidate sucked beyond belief. This wasn't a debate, it was a televised version of who can be more than the other. Both candidates waited for the last moments to actually strike like the Death Star Mk. II in the Battle of Endor. It was beyond silly.

Let's take each candidate briefly:

I'll start with Sir Mitch McConnell R-KY, Senate Minority Leader. [Caveat, if you continually cry that he's old, look at the Democrat Party for an equal if not more longstanding Senator whose older than Merlin.] Here's Mitch's problem:

1. Obama.
2. Obama
3. Obama
4. Grimes
5. Obama
6. Grimes
7. Obama
8. He can't articulate anything of value, except for,
9. Obama
9a. And his policies which have spent a trillion dollars in less than 2 years (which Bush-43 did in over 8 years combined, excluding certain factors.)

Obama is the mainstay of the Party line for all things. Why? Because he's our villain. He's the Jedi to our Sith, just like we're the Jedi to the Democrats Sith. (Or was that reverse in the Sith to our Jedi?) Either way, the drastic and rather ramrod of a platform of excessive spending, cap and trade, taxation without deficit reduction, and a whole host of things have made the Republican Party become anti-Obama because it works, it worked in 2012 and it will most likely work in 2014. The major problem for Republicans the spending without restraint, attempting to buffer a collapsing Medicare and Social Security that will flatline and bust in the mere decade or less. With the Welfare State rising so high, devaluing the true value of the original programs and their whole worth, the United States will end up like Greece: a royal cluster of so much debt that even a conservative austerity measure will bring the country to its knees.

Alison Grimes, Secretary of State- KY, Democratic Candidate for US Senate. Here's Alison's problems:

1. Mitch
2. Mitch
3. Mitch
4. Mitch
5, Mitch
6. Obama
7. Mitch
8. Mitch
9. Obama
9a, the EPA.

Mitch and the Republicans are her enemy, they are the Empire to her Rebellion, her Targaryen to Baratheon/Lannister. Either way, she wants the Republican Party to end up like Ned Stark or the Targaryens. The constant battle of having to show that Republicans are so out of touch with a can of sardines, tires her. It makes her cringe every time she hears that of all of the polls, only the Bluegrass and Courier-Journal have her up by two points and within the margin of error. Her case of defeating the tenured Senator relies on escaping from Obama's policies and running just to edge of the Party that when she wins, she can race right back and do what she thinks (or the Party Leader). Her fear is that we'll end up like Mussolini's Italy, where the darkness of evil runs deep in fascism and racism against the ones who dirty the blood lines. (Ok, even that was difficult to write because frankly, fascism is so far down the spectrum of the Right, even the Fringe doesn't want it.) But nevertheless, the small government, tax limited society, the return of the 50s. the Dark Ages, are all things this candidate feels will occur if the Republicans recapture control.


Here are a few facts, mostly because my fingers are tired of typing:

1. Neither Party had stood for what it believes. The Republicans abandoned the spirit of Lincoln and his practices. The Democrats ran from their hatred of Blacks in turn to pay them to be quiet in the form of Welfare and the Great Society. The Democrats have done little to nothing to protect the minorities. The Republicans have done nothing to protect the middle class. The Democrats have joined with Republicans in polarizing their philosophies.

2. The Commonwealth of Kentucky hasn't voted for a Democrat on the national election since Clinton's first term--which they voted against in his reelection.

3. The Commonwealth is still stuck in the Southern Democrat mentality of things, that until they escape, the votes will always be Republican on the national level and Democrat on the State level.

4. Claiming in one or two ads that you're against the EPA, for Coal Country, and the NRA, doesn't make you better than your candidate.

5. Records of voting must be taken into full account, not based on one particular amendment that you like and they didn't.

6. Don't wait until your final 30-second closing arguments to say your opinions/goals of your term. Do that in the beginning.

7. If you have to take a cheap shot at an accidental video mistake, you deserve a punch to the face for lowering your standards.

8. Your record shows everything, and when you have none to back your claims on, it hurts you.

In conclusion, neither is a best option, but do educate yourself on your candidates and if they have a record, look at it...if not, good luck.

MH17: A State Sponsored Terrorist Attack?

Just around noon today, Malaysian Flight 17 had lost contact with the towers. Moments later, all US news broke in to report that Interfax, a non-governmental news agency based in Russia claimed that Pro-Russian militants and rebels had shot down the flight in an attempt to attack a Ukrainian warplane or barge transporting items to the region.

What does this all mean for the world? With all the passengers and crew--totaling 295 humans, it means that there is a clear problem with the regional stability and the actual conflict that has been fought for months between Russia and Ukraine. The international community, to date, has done excessively little to help or aid in the problem. No UN peacekeepers or peace enforcers--two totally different things--have yet to be sent in. In essence, the world has not acknowledged that any such actions have existed. This is a world issue, with Russia--under the power of Putin, a longstanding KGB officer, it has become a kettle pot of intrigue and devastation as it attempts to rebuild its former bloc states to "protect" itself from the West. (Russia did this in response to the invasions from years past, including the French invasion under Napoleon)

As for America, this poses a unique and horrible outcome. Should this attack be linked to the Pro-Russian rebels and that they were armed with the weaponry built by and funded by the Kremlin, the first hand story of state-sponsored terrorism has been shown. This type of terrorism leads many to believe that through state sponsorship, many action may be carried out with the ability to say, "we had no idea they would do such a thing." Another problem is that reports of the manifest show that 23 Americans were on that flight to Malaysia. Compounded with the notions of terrorism as the Ukrainian Ministry of the Inteiror and Defense Ministry claim, this could pull the United States into a conflict with Russia.

Many will say that this is wrong, citing a casus belli to make or affirm public support for the use of force in the region is not warranted. When this action by the Russian government is far from being just a single reason for just cause.

The Ukrainian government has repeatedly asked for international support for a war that has been in their own backyard. Their European allies have failed them, the US has failed them. The entire world has failed them.

We are at the brink of a regional war that will compound into two regional wars. With the failure of the US Department of Defense and the State Department to actually do something productive in Syria, to the near total loss of Iraq to a Al-Qaeda compatriot called ISIS, who is more radical and irrational than Al-Qaeda, and this global over reach by the Russian government, we cannot keep the peace.

Isolationist views, from the current Administration and from other Senators, would have us not worry, that this will be all fixed when we have no entanglements and no worries about the outside. That refocusing every last resource to doing nothing for the international community would be the best for the country is beyond reprehensible.

I am not saying we should entangle ourselves in the Russian conflict with Ukraine, but if it is a terrorist attack from Pro-Russian  rebels who had authorization from Putin, the deaths of those reported Americans will now be a determining factor.

This could also become a key issue in the November mid-term elections.

The 300 Military Advisors

We all know what happened to the 300 Spartan warriors who gave their life in a valiant, yet quasi-illegal move against the Spartan leaders, to defend their nation off from a massive invasion force of the grand Persian empire.

Today, we are sending just 300 men, military advisors to help a nation, Iraq, retrain and reaffirm that they are incompetent enough to win their own full scale civil war. In many ways, this is quite similar in nature to Darth Sidious/Chancellor Palpatine's massive plot to be the ruler of the galaxy. While we don't have massive naval space ships or laser cannons to demolish each other, it is imperative to note that we cannot do anything of real value to help them.

300 advisors cannot and will not do a damn thing to aid them, even if we agree to do targeted bombing from drone strikes--which was highly controversial when we started to drone strike. Secondly, what can we do?

Here are your options:

A) Nothing at all. This option seems like the most "popular" option because we are war weary and cannot move another muscle to do anything.

B) Avoid the possibility of intervention with standard issue placation of blame for anything that could go wrong. We are the most powerful at doing this option until it becomes so much that we just are blamed into action.

C) Send in "advisors" who will amount to the Spartan 300 and will achieve nothing and allow the government of Iraq fall, which "some allies have called for removal of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki" as USA Today wrote in their piece. Is this viable for an Obama Admin? It's hard to say because we can only do so much before it become too late to do any real action that would prevent another all out war.

D) Follow the ancient Rumsfeld Doctrine and reinsert a proportional amount of troops that is relative to the mission with maximum technology and limited boots on the ground. This doctrine, which was primarily used to invade Iraq in the second conflict that precipitated the original invasion for the 2001 attacks created by the Al Qaeda network. Using this option would actually result in the same current crisis from ISIS and other insurgents 

E) The Powell Doctrine. This option is very powerful, because it expects that your objective is complete and total dominance over your mission, whether it be incursion into a territory or to occupy and control the entire country. While this is a Cold-War tactic and when we used "military v. military" tactics for a 1.5 war concept. Here, the Powell Doctrine could be used to reassert control and would be quick, it would be an investment of possibly a few years because the deployment of the current Iraqi troops would be reassimilated into the training process, the outcome is as unknown as it was when the Rumsfeld Doctrine was utilized, but it could be said that either way, the outcome could be the same. 

While these options aren't the most exhaustive list, and others would or could be an alternative option, these options are probably the most viable options that will be discussed in our current and future cycle of elections. 

Coming Together After Tragedy

The greatest horror isn't what we imagine to be, it is the end of someone’s life that we know. The horror that we must live without them in today’s society, alone. We cannot fathom the idea of our loved one, our friend, a person we knew who has such a bold and thriving life, just disappear.

This past week, that occurred.

A fellow Kentuckian, Dino Dizdarević, was suddenly and quickly taken from this world in a senseless way. His death, untimely as it is, reminds all members of the gay community, and even the heterosexual community, the fears and hatred of all kinds still exist.

I had the great pleasure of knowing Dino from our time at the Commonwealth program called Governor’s Scholars Program, a five-week intensive program designed to bring together the greatest minds and diverse people from this Commonwealth and to teach them. Dino was a fellow GSP member of the 2006 class at Centre College.

His death, and the many before it with the many—unfortunately—more to come, only reminds us too well that we are not safe in society.

Yes, we can identify those that would do such a thing and we can also label them a specific kind, and sometimes, we accidentally put good people in that label. No, I’m not saying that we can’t despise their hatred of us, but what I am saying that sometimes, we can look too narrowly.

Death is a terrible thing, especially when we don’t see it coming and when we never expect it. But what does it highlight for us as a community? We know and see the vitriol of hatred that spews from radical right-wing and some more right of center members, but no matter what the issue, we as a community must come together.

We also need to remind ourselves that we can take precautions to protect ourselves and loved ones. We just need to remember that we can make a difference, we can be more than what a small, fringe population believes. And yes, it is a small fringe group that hates and demoralizes us, but as is with history, things fade in to the back. Yet, at what cost.

My friend’s death brought me to a place that I haven’t felt in a very long time, and it scares me. It scared my parents to see me like that. But the one thing that I can take away from this tragedy is that our fight is far from over and it is not a lose-lose scenario. We can make a difference, and we will.

Dino’s death taught me to live life, no matter the cost, because that’s what he did. He lived and even though it was short, he lived those years with purpose, as should we.

Remember, watch your surroundings, trust your instincts, tell someone—even if it’s a text or a quick phone call—of where you’re going and when to expect you again, and always look out for others, even if you don’t know them.

Evil is the product of the ability of humans to make abstract that which is concrete. – Jean-Paul Sartre

Evil exists, but we can extinguish it. We can take every death and make them proud of the accomplishments we make.

State of the Republican Party

Origins: Whig, Free Soil Party
Date: 1854-
Status: Unknown

"There’s no one reason we lost. Our message was weak; our ground game was insufficient; we weren’t inclusive; we were behind in both data and digital; and our primary and debate process needed improvement."

-- National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus

The Grand Old Party, is, and possibly will be, in tumult, until the realignment of the Party policies are done.

To date, the Party has lost major hold on the American voters, whom seem to have shed some of the old views of the country ideals. The GOP, unfortunately, is failing to remind itself on major issues that it could be more proactive and relent on some.

The Party, is failing in its current stance. Why? Because it is losing its current power structures. And that is good.

Yes, you heard me, I am happy the current leadership is slowly crumbling. It isn't too hard to see that very different leaders are emerging and they see it as an opportunity to make the party better. And fortunately, I see that change occurring in many of my contemporaries. The Party, is, and was, hijacked by a group of neo-conservatives, who are far too reactionary to see that their policies are only burning the Party to the ground.

As a man who has studied political science and lived through some very unique arguments as a Republican/Conservative prior to coming out, I held my own with my more liberal friends and colleagues. Yet, there is something to be said. The Party has made relatively only a few shifts in the history of the Party, that once founded itself upon individualism and giving the people the capabilities to succeed.

The Party needs to change and amend some of its high valued stances and some of which are very hard to discuss. The majority of the issues are social and some fiscal issues, but without a unique perspective and a way to understand how to make these changes work, the Party will continue to fall slowly into the fire that consumed its hijacking from the Far Right-Wing of the Republican base.

I am a man. I am gay. I am a Conservative. And the Party needs to address the issues that will not only secure the voters in the long term, but ensure the Party's continual existence and to readdress its original values and to stand firm and be the beacon that made me agree with the Republican Party.

While it is possible that my party could fail, I am ready, and willing to launch a revised form of our party if it implodes--as many of my liberal colleagues have insisted that it would occur soon (some indicated that its implosion and ultimate fall was a few years ago) and that, I being a gay man, could not follow the Republican Party solely on that issue. To that, I say you have ultimately failed to see the reality of individualism and have tried to pioneer a collectivist vision that rests on an idealistic viewpoint that you can make others do what you want.

My final conclusion on the Party is that it is drawing to a fork in the road, one in which it needs to be prepared to make a choice to fail or succeed. And even with success, it will also need to make changes for the better and for the people, it was so desperately created for back in 1854. And should it fail, I shall call upon all of my friends and colleagues who believe in the Conservative views and help rebuild our Party into a New Conservative Party.