Shame on you, Georgia.

There is no excuse, none, for a state to kill someone when there is ANY reasonable doubt whether he committed the crime. You have blood on your hands tonight.

Rest in peace, Troy Davis. I hope you didn’t commit the crime that you were accused of, and I hope your death represents a change in the U.S.’s idea to execute people. Maybe then your death won’t be for nothing.

Advertisements

Georgia, do not execute Troy Davis

I do not know all the details of the Troy Davis case, nor do I — or anyone else besides him and whoever is responsible — know if he is guilty or not. But there is beyond enough evidence to question whether Davis committed the murder, and therefore, the state should not take someone’s life in its own hands. With no physical evidence available, no DNA, and nothing but witnesses who later recanted their testimony, Georgia — and the nation as a whole — cannot justify taking a man’s life. Casey Anthony got away with killing her daughter because there was not enough physical evidence that tied her to the crime, so the prosecutors were unable to prove her guilt without a reasonable doubt, even though everyone knows she is responsible for the child’s death. But barring a miracle, in a few hours, the state of Georgia will execute a man who very well may not be guilty. Again, I do not know if he is guilty, but neither does anyone else because the case is based on such flimsy evidence, which means the state should have the moral high ground to allow the man to survive.

Perry, Romney blame Obama for Palestine wanting statehood

According to the two Republican front-runners, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, the reason for Palestine’s bid for statehood at the UN is a result of Barack Obama’s Middle-East policy. Apparently, it has nothing to do with Palestinians living without a state for 42 years in an occupied territory, but it has everything to do with Obama’s pro-Israeli foreign policy, which has done nothing to support Palestine or a Palestinian statehood other than encourage Israel to negotiate with Palestine based loosely on the 1967 borders, which has been the official position taken by anyone, including previous Israeli presidents, to make peace.

This is a clear attempt by Perry and Romney to court the Jewish vote by using falsehoods to discredit Obama. Anyone with a slight understanding of politics knows that Obama has been just as supportive of Israel as any other president. No politician from either party would ever actively work against Israel’s interests, and Obama has consistently requested Palestine to drop its bid for statehood in the UN. At least the National Jewish Democratic Committee President David A. Harris came to Obama’s defense:

Perry’s comments today demonstrate that he clearly has little command of the U.S.-Israel relationship and even less interest in preserving the historic bipartisan support for Israel. His baseless attacks on President Barack Obama’s strong record of support for Israel and the actions that the President and his Administration are taking to beat back the Palestinian’s unilateral initiative are nothing more than a deeply disturbing ploy to inject domestic politics into the U.S.-Israel relationship.

In addition, Romney said Obama should cut financial aid to Palestine if it goes through with the bid for nationhood, and also “reevaluate its relationship with any nation that votes in favor of Palestine.” So the U.S., then, would need to reevaluate its relationship with just about every nation in the world except for Canada and some countries in Western Europe. Critics of the Palestinian bid for statehood will claim that the recognition of a new nation should come through negotiations, and not through the UN, but of course Israel itself was founded through the UN, not through negotiations with Palestine or any Arab countries.

So the Republican candidates were ignorant and misleading in their accusations, but the problem is what Perry accuses Obama of doing — placing Palestine and Israel on equal footing to negotiate peace — is actually what he should be doing. Favoring Israel over Palestine, which every president does, ignores the realities of the Palestinian problem and permits Israel to continue its occupation of Palestine without any incentive for negotiating for peace. Palestine, reportedly, is interested in “serious negotiations” with Israel, but it’s clear that Israel does not want peace with Palestine or make any effort to recognize a Palestinian state.

 

It’s simple, Tea Party: want to reduce the deficit? Tax the rich!

While the Republicans and the Tea Party insist on reducing the deficit, they refuse the most logical solution to reducing the deficit: raising taxes on those who can most afford it. The GOP’s strategy is simply irrational and mind-boggling. Never has a minority party been so hard headed and reluctant to compromise on an obvious solution to the problems that they are emphasizing.

The Republicans and Tea Party are the ones making such a major deal out of the budget deficit, and while it is a concern, it is far from the catastrophic problem that the Republicans are pushing the U.S. towards. During a significant economic recession, the solution — as history has shown — is not to slash all spending, but to spend more to create jobs and wealth, which raises more revenue for the government. In addition, the idea that what the U.S. needs to do reduce the deficit is simply cut these “entitlement” programs without raising taxes is absurd! Whether its a family or the federal government, the most obvious solution to reduce debt is to increase revenue.

Nevertheless, when President Barack Obama proposes a tax increase on the wealthiest class, the so called “Buffett Tax”, which simply asks millionaires to pay at least as much as the middle class in taxes, House Speaker John Boehner (Republican) rejects it, saying the only acceptable way to reduce the deficit is to cut entitlement programs. During a severe economic recession, when many Americans are unemployed, why is unacceptable to raise on the most wealthy of Americans? Does anyone truly believe it will hurt the economy if taxes are raised on the wealthy? Why does the Tea Party have so much support? By far the majority of Tea Party supporters would benefit rather than be hindered by a tax increase on the most wealthy, yet they — and the politicians they support — refuse to negotiate on it. The U.S. has performed a lot of irrational policies in its history, but the Tea Party’s stranglehold on the government and the economy is perhaps the most unusual in that it benefits almost none of its supporters.

Studies have shown that “racial resent” is one of the most consistent and popular beliefs among Tea Party supporters, which makes one wonder: are the Tea Party supporters working against their and the nation’s overall benefit for the simple fact that they insist on fighting tooth and nail to a black president, regardless of what he proposes? I am willing to hear other explanations, but I cannot think of a rational reason why Tea Party supporters, who the majority of them are not millionaires, would object to raising the taxes on millionaires so they are at least equal to the taxes on the middle class? If the Tea Party insists on the reduced deficit, it’s completely irrational to think that they would object to a tax raise on millionaires who are paying less in taxes than the middle class!

If any Tea Party supporters read this, please comment and explain to me your logic behind this. I cannot understand your rationale.

Ron Paul’s former campaign manager died young without health insurance

During the Tea Party debate recently, Ron Paul was asked if someone who opt’ed out of health insurance should be allowed to die. The crowd cheered “Yes!” in a bizarre mob-like execution style fashion. Paul said “That’s what freedom is all about.” Now we learn that Paul’s former campaign manager died at the age of 49 due to pneumonia without health insurance. His mother was left with around $400,000 in medical bills. On the bright side, at least as Paul would see it, he died as a free man, because “that’s what freedom is all about.” However, I don’t think that’s what Patrick Henry meant when he said “give me freedom or give me death.”

So, for the record, the Tea Party cheered Ron Paul when he said freedom is about letting someone die, but boo’ed him when he pointed out the actual motives for 9/11. At least I no longer have to defend Ron Paul.

Why is Sarah Palin talking? And why about “crony capitalism”?

Sarah Palin’s advisors must have taught her the term “crony capitalism” a couple weeks ago because I keep seeing her use it over and over. Recently she accused Rick Perry of it. I am opposed to “crony capitalism,” but I do not believe Palin knows what it means. Many large oil corporations supported her run for governor in Alaska, and she performed favors for them. As governor, she also appointed many of her close friends and former classmates to high government positions in the Alaskan government while firing officials who opposed her, which is exactly what she is criticizing Perry for. Remember when she had officials fire a state trooper because he recently went through a divorce with her sister? Time and time again, she crossed the line between her political life and her personal life. Her history of cronyism is as old as her political career. She currently works for Fox News, which is owned by News Corp., which itself is a model of crony capitalism. Fox News employs conservative politicians and former politicians, giving them jobs to promote their political agendas, which also furthers Fox News and News Corp.’s political agenda.

I am not defending Rick Perry from Palin’s comments. I agree he is a “crony capitalist,” and I cannot stand him. But I have two major questions with Palin’s criticism of Perry:

  1. Who is she to accuse anyone of “crony capitalism”? (see above)
  2. Why is she even talking and bashing Republican presidential candidates when she has not yet entered the race herself? (see below)

If Palin plans on running, she should throw her hat in the ring already. While the rest of the field is campaigning, debating, and attacking each other’s previous records, Palin is sitting on the sidelines criticizing them, and since she has yet to say whether or not she will run, the candidates are not in position to respond to her attacks. She is free to criticize the candidates once she announces whether or not she is a candidate, but as of now she is limbo between being a politician and a political commentator, and she’s enjoying a free ride of ripping on others while not revealing her own plans.

Not that I care if the Republicans fight amongst themselves, I wish they would spend more time attacking each other rather than coming up with wild anti-Obama conspiracies and finding new ways to obstruct any of Obama’s plans. Yet, it seems ridiculous for Palin to criticize someone for crony capitalism when she was a model for it, and furthermore, she is in no place to be criticizing any other candidate’s political record until she announces her intentions. She is skipping out on the debates, but still criticizing the candidates in public platforms without giving them opportunities to respond in a public manner. If she wants to remain a political commentator, then she is free to criticize them, but she must declare her intentions so they can attack her own political history.

Until Palin announces whether or not she is running, I hope the only reason I see her name in the headlines is if more details about her drug use or affair with Glen Rice come about. Stories of other affairs with black athletes would be equally acceptable, as long as she further isolates herself from racist Tea Party base.