Who decides what's "Hate Speech"?

Recently, Humbolt State University professor, Monica Stephens developed a Geography of Hate map of the United States. By monitoring tweets that include the words that include homophobic, racist, and disability, Ms. Stephens says she can tell us where the most hateful places in America exists. Uh huh. Allegedly, the areas designated in red and the most hateful places, the blue the least hateful. Notice how the heartland and south are just a sea of vitriol according to Professor Stephen's investigation. Yet the east and west coasts are much more enlightened. You know, the liberal bastions.

I can't help but notice that Ms. Stephen's definition of hate is specifically targeted and somewhat limited. For instance, while she considers gay bashing tweets to be hateful, she provides no similar option for tweets that mention the word "Bible thumpers". Of course, she rightfully included racial tweets but does not allow for the phrase "Teabaggers". Both hateful against Christians and those who proclaim Conservative values. Her exercise was not intended to identify all hate speech, just hate speech one might use against specific categories of people. Therefore, she alone identifies what constitutes hate speech and who the victims of hate speech are. Ms. Stephens mapping of hate made no effort to mention anti-religious tweets nor those who regularly offend those who proclaim right wing principles. It would appear the absence of such groups is by design. And apparently, if you are among either of those groups, your sensitivities are irrelevant. In fact, you can't be a victim of hate. She has not only minimized you, she wont even recognize you. Perhaps that's the real hate speech at work here - words that don't even qualify.

How to win the Obamacare war.

                                                                

This past week, the GOP controlled House of Representatives voted to keep funding the federal government, minus Obamacare. While efforts are underway to convince the Democrat held Senate do likewise, it will fail. Even if some miracle occurred and the Senate mustered 51 votes to go along with the House vote - the President would use his veto power - as the Senate wouldn't produce a high enough veto proof number. End of discussion. Sure, the House could fail to raise the debt limit and even a Senate filibuster may happen. But in the end, Republicans will get the blame for shutting down the government even though they would insist on continued funding for such necessities as Social Security, Medicare and the military, to name a few. Sometimes facts don't matter as much as rhetoric. Sad? Yes. But also true. Our line against Obamacare must be drawn, but not here and not now.

Elections have consequences. We've all heard that ol' chestnut before. But it's worth repeating because it's true. At this point in time, there is nothing Republicans can do to slow down much less impede, dismantle or outright halt Obamacare. To think otherwise is pure self indulged folly. Our focus and energies must be redirected where they can do the most good and have the most results. And that is the midterm elections of 2014 and the General elections of 2016. Yes, I know. That's a long time to wait. But I believe time is actually on our side.

Obamacare becomes less and less popular with most Americans as time goes by. The latest polls show dissatisfaction in the program at or nearing 60%. When the unions are complaining about a Democratic President and his policies, you know they've really got problems. This past week, corporations such as IBM and Walgreens have announced they will no longer be directly providing their employees with coverage and instead will dump them into the Obamacare health exchanges. Other companies have previously announced similar intentions. So much for 'keeping the health care plan you already have' as El Presidente' promised back in 2009. Within the next year, the list of companies both large and small who will follow similar paths will continue to grow. At some point, the avalanche of companies ditching their employees plans in favor of the exchanges will hit critical mass - just as the Obamaites wanted. But what they may not have foreseen, was the uproar this will cause at the polls. The public knows that the Democrats will never undo Obamacare - only the Republicans are capable of producing that result. It must be the main focus of our platform in the next election cycle. If you want this massive intrusion into your life and business gone, you have to vote it gone. In 2010 we saw a 65 seat swing in the House to the GOP. A lot of that was due to the opposition of Obamacare. With a more energized Republican base, we may have actually gotten rid of the King himself in 2012. But that's another argument for another time. With our energies refocused to individual races next year, we could swing enough Senate votes to make the 2016 Presidential race irrelevant when it comes to revoking Obamacare. At the very least, it will set the table for a 2016 GOP Presidential victory and with it, the power to get rid of this monstrosity.

Listen, I know it's tempting to flex our Conservative muscle in a feel good move such as the one Senator Ted Cruz and others are promoting. But it is doomed to fail. And in the end, we gain nothing. Let the Democrats have this one. They own Obamacare. It's theirs. All we need to do is to keep reminding voters of that fact. We have to fight the battles we can win so that ultimately the war is won. It does us no good to wage war upon ourselves when the battle must be brought to the shores of our opposition instead. From this point forward, we must keep reminding the American voter, which party brought this plague upon their houses. And which party is committed to seeing it dismantled.

Syria. Obama's mouth puts our ass in danger.

Red lines ain't what they used to be. Back in the day, when you drew a red line, it meant something. Nowadays, you have to go running behind Congress's skirt after making that ultimatum. Obama draws the red line then embarrasses himself when the heat in the kitchen gets too hot. Makes you wonder if he ever really wanted to take any action against Assad. I could argue that he doesn't have the authority to launch an attack - as there is no discernible "imminent danger" from Syria. But that aside, the President seem to be waffling on what he really wants to do.
What happens if the Senate and House don't approve his planned action in Syria? What does he do if the Senate votes to authorize but the House votes no? (Which is what I believe will happen) Does one legislative house give him the authority or does he require both? Well, if both houses are required for the passage of bills, etc. it stands to reason that both would be required when seeking authorization for military actions. It's even possible neither the house or Senate will give him a thumbs up. Should Obama decline to take military action based upon a legislative vote, he will look weak. Not the image we want presented to such bad guys as Iran and North Korea, let alone the Russians and Chinese. He has painted himself into a corner and now wants Congress to bail him out. Perhaps he should have kept his mouth shut from the beginning and not drawn brightly colored lines.

Assad is a nasty guy for sure. His regime is every bit as bad as Saddam's was. Both gassed their own people for starters. But like many Americans, I don't believe there is much of anything positive that can be achieved by attacking Syria.  If we attack with just enough power to weaken Assad, the rebels may use that to their advantage and make inroads in toppling the government. But Obama says that wouldn't be his goal. Rather he just wants to punish Assad by bombing his Air Force's runways, planes and military assets. And what if Assad is toppled? Who or what replaces him? Some of the rebels have strong ties to militant Muslim extremist groups. Are these the people we want in charge of Syria's chemical weapons? Bombing a Muslim country - any Muslim country, is not going to endear them to us. What if Syria uses their chemical weapons again after we attack? Do we bomb em' some more? How much more?

I'm sympathetic to the plight of innocent civilians. They don't deserve this. But why does it have to be us to take action? Why not let the countries in that regions use their own military to keep Assad in line? America only has one true friend in the Middle East. Israel. Jordan gets the silver metal for second place. After that, it's just a matter of how less than the next country they hate us. Does anyone really think the Saudis like us? Really like us? They, like the Turks and Pakistanis are just looking out for their best interests. Perhaps it's time that we do the same. But Obama has put all of us in a unique situation. The risk is now having America look weak and confused. I fear we may have to cover the President's ass and launch some sort of limited attack just so we don't look so ineffective and stupid. No, I'm not happy with that decision. I hate it. But Barack's mouth got our ass in trouble. This is what happens when you elect a Community organizer to the Presidency. Twice.