In 1963, an elected public official named George Wallace openly defies federal law, denying equality.
Justice over bigotry shall ultimately prevail in Kentucky.
But let us not forget the disgraced bigot who openly stood in defiance, blocking a public doorway, thwarting the U.S. Constitution, and obstructing the basic freedoms of others. Moreover, let us remember all those repugnant voices who joined in on the spectacle and openly defended such bigotry under the false pretenses of “religious freedom” and “states rights.”
Presumably the land of liberty and equality, America has witnessed this shameful moment before.
And it revealed an immoral ugliness that even its most ardent protagonist later went to great lengths to apologize for, trying their best to make amends for clearly being on the wrong side of history.
The so-called advocates of “law and order” have become champions of unlawful disorder.
A Kentucky woman named Kim Davis, a self-described “Christian,” opposes marriage between same-sex couples. Fair enough. As a free citizen, she’s got that right (to protest). In fact, any liberal on the other side of the issue (myself included) would defend her individual rights as a citizen to the fullest to speak out on behalf of her beliefs, no matter how wrong we think they are.
The most worthwhile journeys almost always take unforeseen detours.
While the quickest route to any destination is always a straight line, such uncompromising intransigence also tends to be boring. Taking the path of least resistance ultimately provides few rewards and little, if any, satisfaction — except for lower life forms.
I tend to be skeptical of those who never change their opinions. Someone who insists that his or her mind can’t be changed isn’t a person I usually like to be around. I’m even more suspicious of someone who was born into a defined set of religious beliefs or a certain political philosophy, and never challenges those basic assumptions over the course of an entire lifetime. The straight line approach certainly doesn’t require any additional time or effort, so it’s the easiest path to follow. That’s why it’s so common everywhere. Yet those who take such a predictable path without considering alternatives usually don’t offer much in the way of critical thinking, creativity, originality, nor innovation.
Most of the time, what’s posted here are (what I believe to be) answers.
Today however, I have mostly questions.
Let’s begin as follows: What moral responsibilities, if any, do those of us in wealthy countries have to accept new immigrants from less-developed nations?
More specifically, should we make distinctions for political refugees versus those who immigrate entirely because of greater economic opportunities on the opposite side of the border? And to be even more specific, what about stateless refugees from war-torn areas, or those facing severe persecution back at home? What if an undocumented immigrant is fleeing a life-or-death crisis? What about religions and ethnic conflicts such as Sunnis fleeing Shias, or Shias fleeing Sunnis? Under any circumstances should illegals be forcibly returned to their homeland, and if so, when and where?
These are critically important questions facing many, mostly Western nations right now, with no easy answers.
The assholes of America have found their ideal candidate.
He embodies their deepest-rooted fears. He plays to their crazed phobias and nuttiest conspiracy theories. He exploits their frantic desperation for simple answers to complex problems. He’s the grotesque political pathogen of mass ignorance. Like them, he’s every bit as mean, as crude, as juvenile, as xenophobic, and overtly as sexist and as racist as they are — only worse.
Meet Donald J. Trump, the current Republican Party presidential front runner — otherwise known as the baron of bankruptcies, the oligarch of opportunism, pharaoh of fraud, the prince of pricks, and the asshole of all assholes.