Jon Husted's Attempts at Voter Suppression Amount to Government-Sanctioned Discrimination

"I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban — read African-American — voter-turnout machine. Let’s be fair and reasonable." - Jon Husted, Ohio Secretary of State

If you've been following what is going on in Ohio, you know that Ohio voters still do not know whether they will be able to vote during the three days before the election, something they have been able to do since 2005.

Ever since the Ohio election debacle in 2004, when voters stood in the rain and cold for 10 hours to vote because there were not enough voting machines, and still not everyone was able to vote, the county election boards decided to extend voting hours and to also allow voters to vote the three days before Election Day.  This alleviated the long lines.  This has worked since 2005.

In 2004, George W. Bush won Ohio, but in 2008, Barack Obama won the Buckeye State.

So now Jon Husted, the Republican Secretary of State, is doing everything in his power to suppress Democratic votes.  And his actions are very transparent.  Originally, he was only allowing early voting for military personnel (who typically vote Republican).  Disallowing early voting would have had a disproportional effect on those who lived in the urban areas which were more densely populated and also tended to vote more Democratic.  His actions have already been overturned by a Federal Judge. The judge filed a preliminary injunction against Husted, forbidding him from eliminating the three early days of voting, yet he has ignored the judge's decision and has decided to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Everyone has the constitutional right to vote.  Clearly, Husted is willing to contort the voting process that has been in place since 2005 to make it very, very difficult for Democrats, and specifically, African-Americans, to vote.  His intentions are obvious.  He has stated it now.  Everyone should be absolutely outraged by his actions, which amount to government-sanctioned discrimination.

First of all, it is NOT Mr. Husted's job to do whatever it takes to make sure a particular candidate wins.  His job is to make sure the election is fair.  How can he say he is doing the fair thing if this is the way that elections have been run for the past seven years and there has not been an issue with it before?  Let the people decide whether Mitt Romney or Barack Obama would be the better president.  Is he that unsure about his party's candidate that he has to rely on these deceitful, dishonest tactics to undermine the voting process?  Let everyone cast their vote.  This is absolutely despicable.  Mr. Husted, you should be ashamed of yourself.

No daylight between Todd Akin and Paul Ryan

Yesterday, Rep. Todd Akin (R-Missouri) made a statement which caused a huge negative reaction in the media and on social networks.  When asked in an interview if abortion should be legal in the case of rape, he responded, "From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," (referring to pregnancy caused by rape). "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume maybe that didn't work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist, and not attacking the child."

He later said he misspoke, however, the damage was done.  The Romney campaign rebuked Akin's comments, calling them insulting and inexcusable.  Some Republicans have called for Akin to exit the Senate race against Democratic incumbent, Claire McCaskill.  His controversial comment was the topic of conversation on every political news program.

Looking closely at his words, nowhere does he take into consideration the woman, the rape victim.  He doesn't consider the physical and emotional trauma that the victim has suffered.  And interestingly enough, Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan's stance on abortion is exactly the same.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) has been a member of the U.S. House of Representatives since 1999. He has a long anti-choice record from his years in Congress.

• During his time in the House, Rep. Ryan has cast 59 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues. All of these votes were anti-choice. 
• He cosponsored “personhood” legislation that is so extreme that, if passed, it would ban abortion care in almost all cases, including rape or incest.
• He cosponsored a measure that would force a woman to undergo an ultrasound before she can receive abortion care, even if her doctor doesn't recommend it and even if it is against the woman’s will.
• He has repeatedly voted to deny funding to Planned Parenthood.

Rep. Ryan has been outspoken on his anti-choice views:

• “I’m as pro-life as a person gets. You’re not going to have a truce. Judges are going to come up. Issues come up, they’re unavoidable, and I’m never going to not vote pro-life.”

I know that there are many who also are extreme in their pro-life positions, who do not believe in abortion, even in the case of rape or incest.  However, I would pose a question to these people.  What if your 12, 13, or 14-year-old daughter were raped?  What if she were to become pregnant from that rape?  Would you really force her to carry that pregnancy to term?  What if she became pregnant because someone in your family raped her?  Would you force her to carry that pregnancy to term--a pregnancy that was a result of incest?

It's very easy to hold convictions when you really think it's never going to happen to you.  But when these issues become personal, I believe that people begin to think twice.  I don't believe that issues are black and white.

What I find so ironic is that those who shout the loudest about abortion and want to take away a woman's right to choose are those who also want government to stay out of people's personal lives in other arenas (i.e. guns).  If these people don't believe in abortion, then DON'T HAVE AN ABORTION!!!  But don't take away a woman's right to have an abortion if she feels that is in her best interest, and ESPECIALLY if she's been raped, or the victim of incest, or she will die if she doesn't have an abortion!!!

Perhaps Romney disagrees with what Todd Akin said, but I wonder whether Paul Ryan disagrees.  And if not, will women want to vote for a ticket that takes away their rights?

The Test You Can't Fail

I met a woman from New York on Facebook who creates art related to diversity. She shared a very interesting article--actually a test--by Molly Secours that I think really drives the point home regarding white privilege. I hope that people begin to really think about what white privilege is, because right now, there is such a racial divide in our country between those who see so clearly the racial injustices that happen in our society, and those who deny that racism exists. The ultimate white privilege is to not have to talk about race, and those who would like to sweep the racial aspect of the Trayvon Martin case under the rug are exerting their white privilege.

Here's the test. You can't fail, and you may discover something about yourself.

Take the White Privilege Pop Quiz for Trayvon Martin: It's the Test You Can't Fail

Why You Should Care About the Trayvon Martin Case

I'm going to ask you a question. What if Trayvon Martin was YOUR child?

Oh I know, I know. Some of you can't imagine it. Because of the privilege that you may not even be fully aware of, you think this will NEVER happen to you. You can't imagine YOUR child ever being treated like a worthless piece of meat. So you don't really put yourselves in the shoes of Trayvon Martin's parents, and you don't TRULY feel the pain of Trayvon Martin's parents. You go on with your lives, knowing that this will NEVER happen to me. But just for a moment, imagine if this happened to YOUR child:

YOUR child is walking home from going to the local convenience store to pick up some Skittles and an iced tea for his/her younger sibling. You live in what you believe to be a "safe" neighborhood. A gated community.

YOUR child, who is only 17 years old, is followed by a 28-year-old. He/she is scared. The adult is following him/her. YOUR child runs. The adult pursues him/her. There is an altercation. YOUR child screams for help. And YOUR child is shot in the chest.

The police department does a cursory investigation.

The police department tests YOUR child for drugs and alcohol, but does not test the shooter.

The shooter is released because he claims self-defense, although he is the one who pursued YOUR child, and he is 100 pounds heavier than YOUR child, and it was YOUR child that was screaming for help.

The police department waits THREE days to inform you that your child is dead. YOUR child is laying in the morgue dead.

The police department withholds 911 tapes that provide important evidence.

The shooter is not a registered neighborhood watch captain, but a self-proclaimed neighborhood watch captain.

The shooter has been told not to pursue YOUR child, but ignores the orders and continues to pursue YOUR child. And this shooter is not a police officer, nor a registered neighborhood watch captain, but a regular citizen.

How would YOU feel?

Now if you don't already feel empathy for Trayvon Martin's parents, your blood must run ice cold.

But there is the additional element of racial animus in this case. George Zimmerman had a history of calling 911 46 times and being obsessed with looking out for young black men in his neighborhood. He stated in the 911 tapes that Trayvon was "up to no good" (he was walking home from the convenience store) and that he looked like he was on drugs. Then he also stated that "they always get away" and there is a portion of the tape that sounds like he says "f**king coons".

Why didn't the Sanford Police Department arrest George Zimmerman? How is this police department complicit in this case? Is this their brand of southern justice? If George Zimmerman had been black and Trayvon Martin had been white, would George Zimmerman have been arrested? (I think we all know the answer to that.)

A million people have signed the petition to fully investigate this case. This is about justice. In the public school system, we say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. We recite the words, "with liberty and justice for all". Those words do not ring true if things like this still happen in America.

If you don't care about this, and speak out about it, who is going to speak out when YOUR child is marginalized in some way? What if your child ended up being killed because he or she was gay? Or lesbian? Or disabled? Or disfigured? Or for some other reason? And what if no one cared?

Thoughts on the Trayvon Martin case

As I follow the media coverage on the Trayvon Martin case, I am disgusted by the inaction by the Sanford Police Department. I am glad there is now a federal investigation into the case, and I pray that charges will be filed against George Zimmerman.

Not surprisingly, FOX News has only one article covering this story. I guess it doesn't fit with their narrative that everyone has the right to own a gun.

Thank God for social media. If it were not for social media, no one would have known about this story. But because millions of people have been so outraged by this case, it has become a cause, and people will not be quiet about it until a full investigation is done and justice is served.

For those who think racism no longer exists, I think it is sad commentary on our society that a young black 17-year-old boy cannot walk home with a bag of Skittles without being considered suspicious. I find it pathetic when people assume that if you are a young black man, you are automatically considered suspect, but if you are a young white man, you are automatically given a pass. I am irritated beyond belief when there is a newspaper story about a black person committing a crime and tons of comments are made about how ALL black people are thugs, yet when a white person commits a crime, it's attributed to his mental status, not his race. Ever. And the gun rights defenders continue to scream about the 2nd amendment. Even when something like this happens.

How about the white sergeant who killed all of those Afghan civilians? The narrative is still about wondering if he was mentally stable, trying to find an excuse for why he did it. How about those civilians who died? What if an Afghan soldier opened fire on a bunch of white American civilians, including women and children? Would Americans be trying to find out if he was mentally stable? Probably not. They would want him executed. Just saying. No one would care why.

Today on the Thom Hartmann radio show, there was a great discussion about how the NRA and the media panders to the fear in white men, and as a result there's this love of guns in this country, which has resulted in deaths of innocent people. There's even a law in several states in which a person can "stand their ground" and can kill someone if they come into their home, and they have a feeling that they're being threatened. Is this a law that gives white people a license to shoot young black men if they feel "threatened" by them, without threat of legal action? And why do I have the sneaking suspicion that if a black man felt threatened by a white man, and shot him, the law would have no problem arresting that black man and charging him with a crime--and the "stand your ground" law would not ever come into play? Anyway, from witness accounts, Zimmerman was NOT the victim here--Martin was the one crying for help, and Zimmerman was the one on top of Martin--he had a good 100 pounds on Martin.

The only crime Martin committed was walking around a white neighborhood while being young and black and having a stupid moronic policeman wannabe like Zimmerman see him.

Why President Obama Tiptoes Around Race

I was in the car tonight, driving to pick my son up from Tae Kwon Do. I almost exclusively listen to talk radio in the car, and tonight was no exception. I turned to KOMO News Radio and was listening to an excerpt of an interview of Barack Obama by Diane Sawyer.

Somehow the conversation turned to the issue of the GOP debates. Sawyer asked President Obama if he felt that the candidates were saying things to gin up racial resentment. I found it interesting, but not surprising, that President Obama avoided talking about race. He didn't answer the question in racial terms, but rather redirected the answer and said that it would be up to the voters to decide what type of President they wanted. Sawyer kept asking the President the same race-related question in different ways, and in fact even said, "Don't want to go there, huh?" And he didn't go there. Ever.

Because President Obama doesn't benefit from white privilege as other presidents did, he cannot talk about race without being accused of playing the race card. While former President Clinton often talked openly and honestly about racial issues, and was often referred to as the first "black" president because he was very in tune with the African-American community, President Obama has had to essentially pretend that race is never an issue in any circumstance in order to appease white voters. President Clinton, because he benefited from white privilege, was able to talk about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking. When he declared there was a racial issue at hand--in fact, when any white person declares there is a racial issue at hand, their race lends them more credibility for that position than a person of color will have. ("White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" by Peggy McIntosh, 1988). Tim Wise says it best in this essay from March 6, 2008:

"More importantly, to the extent Obama’s success has been largely contingent on his studious avoidance of the issue of race–such that he rarely ever mentions discrimination and certainly not in front of white audiences–one has to wonder just how seriously we should take the notion that racism is a thing of the past, at least as supposedly evidenced by his ability to attract white votes? To the extent those whites are rewarding him in large measure for not talking about race, and to the extent they would abandon him in droves were he to begin talking much about racism–for he would be seen at that point as playing the race card, or appealing to “special interests” and suffer the consequences–we should view Obama’s success, given what has been required to make it possible, as confirmation of the ongoing salience of race in American life. Were race really something we had moved beyond, whites would be open to hearing a candidate share factual information about housing discrimination, racial profiling, or race-based inequities in health care. But we don’t want to be reminded of those things. We prefer to ignore them, and many are glad that Obama has downplayed them too, whether by choice, or necessity."