Less than a week ago, I wrote about how Carl Paladino, the co-chair of the New York operation of Hillary Clinton's election opponent, made racist, sexist and transphobic comments about President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama.
So! In the days since that post, Paladino has addressed the criticisms that he has received in the wake of his vile comments. As he is, at heart, a decent human being and not at all a hateful individual, Paladino apologized, phoned the President and First Lady directly and vowed that he would work to combat such hateful rhetoric in the future. Now see the following article to confirm this:
Ignore most of the previous paragraph. While Paladino addressed the comments, he said he "meant to email his remarks to friends."; there was nothing to indicate that he believed his comments were wrong - just an "admission" that they had been emailed to the wrong recipient and that he would not fulfil any demands that he resign from his local school board.
Again, atrocious behavior like Paladino's must not be normalized. Bigots should be challenged at every turn, not allowed to function in society as though they are normal, non-bigoted human beings.
Showing posts with label Michelle Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michelle Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, 28 December 2016
Friday, 23 December 2016
No, this isn't acceptable
The individual who co-chaired the New York campaign of Hillary Clinton's main election opponent is receiving heavy criticism for horrendous remarks he made about President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama:
No, this isn't acceptable. Again, thanks to the victory in the election by Clinton's opponent, bigots like this Carl Paladino loser (and he is a loser - he was obliterated in the 2010 New York gubernational election) now feel empowered to make all sorts of hateful comments. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, to whom Paladino lost, condemned the comments as "racist" and "ugly" but Paladino has so far dismissed any criticism, stating "tough luck" to anyone who objects.
The comments from Paladino were racist, sexist and transphobic. This sort of behavior needs to be condemned swiftly whenever it occurs - it must not be normalized. Granted, the First Amendment protects individuals from being arrested when spouting such language but private citizens do not have to tolerate bigotry one iota - it is not censorship to shut down hatred.
No, this isn't acceptable. Again, thanks to the victory in the election by Clinton's opponent, bigots like this Carl Paladino loser (and he is a loser - he was obliterated in the 2010 New York gubernational election) now feel empowered to make all sorts of hateful comments. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, to whom Paladino lost, condemned the comments as "racist" and "ugly" but Paladino has so far dismissed any criticism, stating "tough luck" to anyone who objects.
The comments from Paladino were racist, sexist and transphobic. This sort of behavior needs to be condemned swiftly whenever it occurs - it must not be normalized. Granted, the First Amendment protects individuals from being arrested when spouting such language but private citizens do not have to tolerate bigotry one iota - it is not censorship to shut down hatred.
Friday, 26 October 2012
Voting early
President Barack Obama recently became the first president to cast an early vote in a presidential election, with First Lady Michelle Obama already having voted a couple of weeks ago. I consider the Obamas' move to vote early a good thing, not just because I support them but also because voting early fits in with what I wrote a few months ago on voting times.
I am pleased that most of the attempts to restrict early voting in the 2012 presidential election have failed. Allowing people to vote early has several benefits: for one thing, it reduces the crowds on the main election day; if strict voting times are enforced then fewer people will risk being turned away if they had already voted days or weeks before.
Early voting gives people who would otherwise be unavailable on election day the ability to vote: some people with disabilities may not be able to leave their homes because of their conditions but they are afforded the chance to vote anyway. It ensures a vote for people who are busy with work on election day or would prefer to spend the time engaging in last-minute get-out-the-vote campaigning. Members of the armed forces and people who have to travel on the day also get to vote without having to worry about not being able to. It's also simply convenient for people who consider it important to vote but don't want to spend all day in a line waiting. Everybody benefits from early voting, regardless of political party.
Oregon does all of its elections via the mail-in vote, eliminating - or at least reducing - the need for polling booths, and is the first state to do so; for 2012 it has been voting since the 19th of this month. Under Oregon's system most of its electorate will have already voted by election day. Other states do allow for the mail-in vote but not to the extent Oregon does.
Critics cite the reliability of the postal service being a major problem with the mail-in vote. I should note, however, that a mail-in vote and an early vote should not be conflated: in-person early voting exists and there are states that allow it; President Obama made his vote this way. Oregon also has ballot return boxes for people to manually place their votes in: you fill in the form at home and drop it in the box.
I completely endorse the president casting an early vote, both to support him and to help raise the awareness of early voting and its importance. The ability to early vote is something to be embraced and expanded, not shunned and restricted. More states and even countries should adopt the early and mail-in/drop off voting.
I am pleased that most of the attempts to restrict early voting in the 2012 presidential election have failed. Allowing people to vote early has several benefits: for one thing, it reduces the crowds on the main election day; if strict voting times are enforced then fewer people will risk being turned away if they had already voted days or weeks before.
Early voting gives people who would otherwise be unavailable on election day the ability to vote: some people with disabilities may not be able to leave their homes because of their conditions but they are afforded the chance to vote anyway. It ensures a vote for people who are busy with work on election day or would prefer to spend the time engaging in last-minute get-out-the-vote campaigning. Members of the armed forces and people who have to travel on the day also get to vote without having to worry about not being able to. It's also simply convenient for people who consider it important to vote but don't want to spend all day in a line waiting. Everybody benefits from early voting, regardless of political party.
Oregon does all of its elections via the mail-in vote, eliminating - or at least reducing - the need for polling booths, and is the first state to do so; for 2012 it has been voting since the 19th of this month. Under Oregon's system most of its electorate will have already voted by election day. Other states do allow for the mail-in vote but not to the extent Oregon does.
Critics cite the reliability of the postal service being a major problem with the mail-in vote. I should note, however, that a mail-in vote and an early vote should not be conflated: in-person early voting exists and there are states that allow it; President Obama made his vote this way. Oregon also has ballot return boxes for people to manually place their votes in: you fill in the form at home and drop it in the box.
I completely endorse the president casting an early vote, both to support him and to help raise the awareness of early voting and its importance. The ability to early vote is something to be embraced and expanded, not shunned and restricted. More states and even countries should adopt the early and mail-in/drop off voting.
Wednesday, 10 October 2012
Sheer disrespect
Discussions about politics often become heated. This is to be expected, but normally the conversations are respectful and there are no hard feelings by the end. This year, politics are extremely hot given the major election that has been taking place for the last ten months; even so, people should try their best to keep a cool head on and avoid insulting each other and their respective preferred candidates.
Which is why it appalls me to read hateful comments on Internet articles about President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama. There is a huge difference between disagreement and sheer disrespect/irrational loathing of a political figure. I am an Obama supporter, but I will listen to and sometimes even agree with reasoned argument and criticism; however, I will always dismiss offensive and hateful comments about him.
Over the past week alone I have read comments that contain insulting variations on his name and frequently call him a traitor, un-American, or that he outright "hates America". A number of comments say that Obama should be arrested, imprisoned, and some have even said he should be executed! The fact that Obama has not done anything to justify any of those things notwithstanding, I find the name-calling and potential violence these people spout to be blatantly disrespectful to someone who is the President of the United States and considered the most powerful man in the world. I could not imagine this sort of language ever being allowed to flourish under George W. Bush, and during his presidency I would have disagreed with anyone who suggested that he should have been executed (I haven't changed from this opinion).
It's at the point now where most comment sections I read on articles about American politics have immediately devolved into a thread devoted to hating the president and anyone who supports him - and these include British news sites. When someone writes "liberals are a cancer" or "death to Obama supporters" it makes me angry, but at the same time it upsets me that there are ordinary people who believe that stamping on their political opponents is the way to win elections and "take the country back" - that is what happens in dictatorships, not democracies.
To be fair, I have seen hateful comments directed at Obama's main challenger, Mitt Romney, although they are less vitriolic and I've yet to read anyone say that Romney should be executed or that his supporters are un-American and should be killed. On several occasions I have observed people who do not plan to vote for Obama argue against and scold people using hateful or violent commentary against him.
In the case of the First Lady, I almost always dismiss any criticism of her because I believe that she has not done anything to warrant it, she does not create policy or change any laws, and because she has not commented negatively about her husband's political opponents. I disliked criticism of Laura Bush, too - for the same reasons as Michelle Obama; both are decent women.
I worry that, regardless of who wins, the rhetoric will continue after the election has concluded. People need to stop the insults and pure hatred and go back to getting along and compromising (and by "compromising", I mean that everyone makes the effort to get along/work with others, not one side gives in to the other). As I said earlier, keeping a cool head is the way to go.
Which is why it appalls me to read hateful comments on Internet articles about President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama. There is a huge difference between disagreement and sheer disrespect/irrational loathing of a political figure. I am an Obama supporter, but I will listen to and sometimes even agree with reasoned argument and criticism; however, I will always dismiss offensive and hateful comments about him.
Over the past week alone I have read comments that contain insulting variations on his name and frequently call him a traitor, un-American, or that he outright "hates America". A number of comments say that Obama should be arrested, imprisoned, and some have even said he should be executed! The fact that Obama has not done anything to justify any of those things notwithstanding, I find the name-calling and potential violence these people spout to be blatantly disrespectful to someone who is the President of the United States and considered the most powerful man in the world. I could not imagine this sort of language ever being allowed to flourish under George W. Bush, and during his presidency I would have disagreed with anyone who suggested that he should have been executed (I haven't changed from this opinion).
It's at the point now where most comment sections I read on articles about American politics have immediately devolved into a thread devoted to hating the president and anyone who supports him - and these include British news sites. When someone writes "liberals are a cancer" or "death to Obama supporters" it makes me angry, but at the same time it upsets me that there are ordinary people who believe that stamping on their political opponents is the way to win elections and "take the country back" - that is what happens in dictatorships, not democracies.
To be fair, I have seen hateful comments directed at Obama's main challenger, Mitt Romney, although they are less vitriolic and I've yet to read anyone say that Romney should be executed or that his supporters are un-American and should be killed. On several occasions I have observed people who do not plan to vote for Obama argue against and scold people using hateful or violent commentary against him.
In the case of the First Lady, I almost always dismiss any criticism of her because I believe that she has not done anything to warrant it, she does not create policy or change any laws, and because she has not commented negatively about her husband's political opponents. I disliked criticism of Laura Bush, too - for the same reasons as Michelle Obama; both are decent women.
I worry that, regardless of who wins, the rhetoric will continue after the election has concluded. People need to stop the insults and pure hatred and go back to getting along and compromising (and by "compromising", I mean that everyone makes the effort to get along/work with others, not one side gives in to the other). As I said earlier, keeping a cool head is the way to go.
Friday, 7 September 2012
Gabrielle Giffords at the 2012 Democratic National Convention
I have taken the time to watch a few of the major speeches that have taken place at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina over the past few days. I have been impressed with speeches from Lilly Ledbetter, Sandra Fluke, First Lady Michelle Obama, former President Bill Clinton, former Governor of Florida Charlie Crist, Senator Harry Reid, Vice President Joe Biden, and President Barack Obama himself; all of them gave enthusiastic, resolute and inspiring speeches, and it was amazing to watch and listen to both the speakers and their audiences.
The person I was most delighted to see attend the convention was Gabrielle Giffords; she lead the Pledge of Allegience with Florida respresentative and Chair of the Democratic National Committee Debbie Wasserman Schulz:
I felt proud and pleased for Giffords at how well she has improved since the attempt on her life, and it was a beautiful moment for her to be up there on the stage, but at the same time I did have some lingering anger towards her shooter as I watched her have some trouble walking and reciting the Pledge (although she was able to pull off both). As I have written before, Giffords' recovery has been remarkable; it's great she was well enough for an appearance at the DNC this year, and she will remain one of my favorite figures in the political world for a long time.
The person I was most delighted to see attend the convention was Gabrielle Giffords; she lead the Pledge of Allegience with Florida respresentative and Chair of the Democratic National Committee Debbie Wasserman Schulz:
I felt proud and pleased for Giffords at how well she has improved since the attempt on her life, and it was a beautiful moment for her to be up there on the stage, but at the same time I did have some lingering anger towards her shooter as I watched her have some trouble walking and reciting the Pledge (although she was able to pull off both). As I have written before, Giffords' recovery has been remarkable; it's great she was well enough for an appearance at the DNC this year, and she will remain one of my favorite figures in the political world for a long time.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)