40. Who are you calling racist?

“The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm, he took a long time talking but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing. But he had come to me for help. What he didn’t know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him.”

The above statement by Shirley Sherrod, which was taken wildly out of context by right-wingers on biggovernment.com and on our beloved Fox News, has been called “blatantly racist.” Racist? Given the context of the statement and the fact that this occurred 28 years ago, I suppose if one tried hard enough he or she may be able to find racism here. As for the adjective “blatant” I can only assume that either the people who are throwing it out have no understanding of its meaning or – which sadly is the more likely case – they know that if they inflate the racism using such “fancy” words, more people will be angered and offended by it. People are also saying that the statement is filled with hate… let’s talk about hate for a second.

In the 1960s talk about civil rights and desegregation reached a peak. Violence spread across the south as conservatives sought to protect their good ol’ conservative values and the segregated system that held the minority groups down. On July 2, 1964 following Lyndon B. Johnson’s signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, many southern conservatives protested the legality of such an act and even the morality of it. Their displeasure with Johnson is even part of what led to conservatives in the south to begin calling themselves “Republicans” instead of “Southern Democrats.” I note, however, that although there was a name change, the social views of the southerners remained the same. In 1968, another civil rights bill was passed making housing discrimination based on race illegal.

In Georgia, the fight to prevent integration lasted well into the 70s and “equal treatment”, depending on who you ask, did not begin happening until the 80s. The story Sherrod was telling took place in 1982, and people are calling her racist for suggesting that she did not give help to the very fullest of her ability to a white man, even though – in the end – she did help him save his farm? I’m a white person, and to me it still looks like the racism is coming from the white side. Fox and friends are pulling a “how dare you!?” because she wasn’t giving full service to a white during a time when black Americans were just beginning to experience what more fair treatment felt like. After hundreds of years of oppression, this woman is racist because – even though she did save the man’s farm – she did not do so to the absolute best of her ability. If these idiots had taken the time to see the full video, they would also see that she continued on to tell of what she learned from all of this: to put race aside. She said that although race will always exist, it should not matter.

While listening to this debate and seeing conservatives such as O’Reilly, Hannity, Beck and others condemn this woman for “hate-filled” remarks of “blatant” racism, I couldn’t help but think that these same people had no such reaction to Nikky Haley and Barack Obama being called “rag heads” because Haley is Indian and Obama has a Muslim middle name. Jake Knots, the republican state senator who made the statement said it was a joke as if that somehow makes it okay (kind of like Palin saying it was okay to call someone a “retard” as long as such a statement is made in a satirical setting). By that argument, the only thing Shirley Sherrod needs to do is to say “It was all a joke” and they should immediately begin laughing it off with her. By that argument, anyone can say any hateful thing to anyone as long as they say it was a joke when they are criticized for it.

Conservatives these days are taking hate to a new level and when they aren’t using their faith to justify such acts, they start crying “well they did it/said it too!” Isn’t that the type of thing parents teach their five-year-olds not to do? I’m happy that the vast majority of the people I know and closely associate with don’t have such views. Between the anti-gay, anti-Muslim, anti-foreign, anti-“different” sentiments, statements and laws, and an undivided stance from the republican side to prevent access to healthcare for all Americans and to prevent the extension of jobless benefits to hard-working people during a recession while calling Obama Hitler for allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire, the conservatives not only lost me, they elicited my full opposition and disapproval.

39.

Despite popular belief, there are many more ways to reduce the deficit other than cutting taxes for the wealthy, eliminating any form of welfare, cutting education spending, treating large corporations more like people than the people who elected you, and using $2000 of your party's money at some shady bondage club! Yeah, I said it! As evil as it may be, technology, or rather the use of technology, may actually - in addition to being better for the world in general - save us money. Now, I realize that for some readers I have already crossed the line and entered into the realm of "beyond offensive" but just hear me out.

The Congressional Budget Office just recently announced that the proposed "climate bill" would reduce the national deficit by $19 billion dollars (that's $19,000,000,000)! It may be that what the CBO says is only true and nonpartisan when certain members of our legislative body deem it so, but let's use that long lost skill of imagination and common sense and examine the oh-so-unlikely possibility that they may know what they're talking about.

Those who oppose the bill do so because "we aren't ready" and because they don't want to increase the deficit. Now that it has surfaced that this bill not only won't increase the deficit, but will actually decrease it, that eliminates the main problem. Despite this, I know that before voting time, during the drawn out filibustering process that will likely reduce the bill to something that gives people in Suffolk County Massachusetts an extra cent for recycled aluminum cans, every single person opposed to the bill will without flinching say that they are opposed to the bill because it will increase our "crippling deficit." Yep, they will straight up lie about it. And to make matters worse, half of their constituents will believe them because their beloved senator or representative would never ever tell a lie!

As far as the "we aren't ready" part of the argument, we'll never ever be "ready" for anything different by their arguments. Using a super secret decoder ring I found in a box of Cracker Jacks, I have discovered that "we aren't ready" actually means "I fear I may not get re-elected. A tragedy that would spoil my long-lived period of personal political gain without interest in the well being of the people I represent. I also fear that the oil companies that, more or less, bought my seven homes and pay for my campaigns may be upset by such an action." It is also likely that the religion of those opposed would disapprove of such a narrow-minded vote because, obviously, the fact that there is oil (placed there by divine powers) means that we are morally obligated to drill it.

If we leave out all of the political and monetary issues related to the debate, we are left with the benefits any such bill would bring to the environment. If anyone tries to argue that reducing emissions of poisonous gasses into our atmosphere is a bad thing, then they should try running their car in a closed garage; I'm sure that would change their mind. Now, I'm in no way wishing harm upon anyone, but those same noxious fumes that a car emits in a closed garage are emitted in the open air. Coal, oil and - to some extent - natural gas power plants all produce these gasses that result from combustion. In places like Los Angeles, the dense smog is evidence of such gases and chemicals in the air, but even when they can't be seen they are still there. The amount of these gases in our environment will continue to increase as long as we are allowing them to spew into the air and even if we stop, what we have already put there will not just go away. Is it not possible that it may be less costly to prevent further damage than to repair it later? And that is assuming we will even be able to repair it. Wake up people! Your re-election is not the most important thing to the world. One day you'll be dead and gone and everyone else will be left to clean up your mess.

38.

For years I was happy with the fact that I was not a very political person. As time goes on, however, I realize that it is almost my obligation to be informed and to make opinions on the information I have. It may be true that the squeaky wheel gets the oil, but it isn't the one that needs it. It seems that nowadays adults - "mature" adults - are better at fake-crying than babies are. And they cry for no other reason than to defend their bigoted views and have them cemented into the fabric of society through law.

If one looks up the word "liberal" in the dictionary, he will find - among many others - the following results: 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs. 2. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant. 3. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

If one looks up the word "conservative" in the same dictionary, he will find the following: 1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. 2. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness. 3. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

Now, I understand that some people are scared of new things and scared of change in general, but when it comes to the advancement and - in a sense - the survival of our nation, I have no sympathy for them. Change is a part of life and no matter how much someone hangs onto the past, they will never get back to it.

On the "tolerance" issue, it is disgusting how people thing it is justified to limit the rights of others just because they are different or have different beliefs. It has happened for a long time, with natives, blacks, women, the handicapped... When will people look to their neighbors who preach "peace on earth, god loves us all, and anyone who isn't a white, protestant christian, heterosexual who wears a tie to work is going to burn in hell for eternity" and not be afraid to tell them how disgusting of a human being they are? I have no problem with it. When attacked they will claim "it's a free country" or "I have the freedom of speech." If that's the case, then what is it that gives them that right but doesn't to all of the people whose rights they are trying to take away? The problem is that too many people remain neutral and that too many liberals are passive and think it is better to just stay out of the debate. We have come to a point where we can no longer afford to do that. We can no longer be afraid to call out someone else's faults and erroneous views, if those faults and views will hurt others. I'm done being passive. If people want to hold the world back, let them try, but I'm going to keep moving forward.

37.

2009 has passed and with it all of the bad memories may fade away while the good ones hide somewhere in the back of our minds. This year is off to a very cold start, but by no means an unhappy one. In previous years I may have contemplated far in advance what I'm going to do this year and the next, but this time I have no idea what I'm going to do or what's going to happen. The only thing I know is where I am, who I am, and that everything will be alright in the end.