RACISM & POLITICS...ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ATLANTIC

With the 2012 Iowa caucuses scrawled into the pages of history, the candidates for the GOP Presidential nomination, minus Michelle Bachmann of course, have shifted their theatre of operations to the Granite state of New Hampshire.  After Willard Mitt Romney’s victory, albeit a narrow one over Rick Santorum, many pundits have him as a cert to win the New Hampshire Primary and steamroll onward to the Republican National Convention.  It’s not earth shattering news that Mr. Romney is expected to win NH as even before the debate season started late last year, he was sitting atop the early polls in the north eastern state.  Mostly due to his previous stint as Massachusetts Governor.

Since NH is an uphill battle for all the other candidates, the endless tour of handshakes and rhetoric continue.  Not only are Mr. Romney’s fellow candidates trying to narrow the massive gulf in the polls between the frontrunner and the rest of the pack to an acceptable loss margin, they’re also viciously fighting among themselves in a tooth and nail death match to scrape a point of two from wherever they can in a war that promises to be more sadistic than a night of gladiatorial bouts in the Roman Colosseum.  The war they fight in NH, and for the rest of the election trail, is going to be one of sabotage, deceit, and verbal tactile nuclear missiles.

However, all the candidates in the GOP race have proved more adept at scuttling their own campaign.  The collateral damage caused by a campaign of rhetoric & desperation reaches much farther than merely the selection of GOP candidates, as the fallout burns at the very core of humanity and civility. With all the sound bites from this trench war that have been covered in the media, none have been more inflammatory than the recent racial charged comments from Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich.

Mr. Gingrich said, “African American people should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps.”

Mr. Santorum said, “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them someone else’s money.  I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.”

In the world of politics, opinions can change.  Ideas on the economy, foreign policy, homeland security, the budget etc are malleable.   They are so, because we live in an eclectic world with vast differences in the way we take the country forward.  Neither far right nor far left political views can be wrong…as they are only one view point in the spectrum of what is the best course to steer the advancement of our civilization. 

Racist sentiments, on the other hand, have absolutely no place in, not just politics, but the world!  These recent comments, coupled with previous comments of vial racist hatred that have cropped up through the GOP primary season, should not be allowed to pass into the pages of history.  The stand needs to be made today, it needs to be made now, and it needs to be decisive.  Many view the political race as a battle of republican vs. democrat, conservative vs. liberal, us vs. them…but what every voter from every side of the aisle needs to stand up in unison, now more than ever, and scream…is that there is no ‘them’…there is only ‘us.’  We are not black, white, latino, we are human.  We are all human.

EDITORIAL NOTE: From now on out, I'm going to refer to myself as 'we,' as this is not a case of varying opinions on political direction, but a global stance that must be adopted by all to stamp out racism.

Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum’s incendiary statements are based on disgusting stereotypes and in the year 2012, have no place on this earth.  We, as equal people, are locked in the delusional ideology and egregious mistakes of the past.  We are shackled to that history, and in order to move on as human beings, we need to leave that history where history is always left…in the past.

Voters of today need to adopt a zero tolerance policy on any sentiments such as Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum’s.  When a discussion turns to words and ideas that divide us into a smaller group based on the color of our skin, it will always be counter-productive.  It will always be a step into the past, a step farther away from us realizing that we are all equal in being human.

Written by: Phil McCarron

WHEN THE INDEPENDENCE SUBJECT IS BROACHED...RACISTS CRAWL FROM THE WOODWORK.

I actually don’t have anything to do with politics in any shape or form. I agree with the whole basic notion of someone looking after your best interests, making sure that your wants and beliefs are taken into account, then going with what the majority wants.

But we know that doesn't always happen.Like for example if 9 out of 10 people want pizza for dinner, everyone gets pizza. However, sometimes you find that if the politician wants to eat Thai then the pizza doesn’t get a look in, regardless of the majority.

Hey Ho, what’s that saying then? ‘It doesn’t matter who you vote for, the government always get in’.In the UK there is no ruling majority party, so we have a coalition, which is quite frankly working as well as a chocolate ashtray, in my humble opinion.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has been around for only about 90 years, however previous incarnations of the British union have existed since circa 1706/1707. Consequently the question of devolution and/or independence for Scotland has been around for the same amount of time.

When this discussion about Scottish Independence arises it has a tendency to become very heated and very passionate, you see most of this is steeped in racism between Scots and English.I'll skip the history of Bannockburn, English Rule and being sold out by greed. I promise not to mention the play ‘The Cheviot, the Stag and the Black Black Oil’ which was incidently written by a guy from Liverpool. I don’t think it would be too leftfield to describe this as Scotlands version of ‘Roots’ by Alex Haley.

You see being Scottish, you are often brainwashed into thinking that you are way more unimportant that someone who is English, even though we are all supposed to be British. Try to hand hand over a Scottish tenner when you want to pay for something south of the border, you are stared at, snubbed and even in some cases, it will not be accepted, even though it is legal tender.

Watching 'The One Show' on BBC1 I've just heard the actor Paul Betany talk about being English and having English friends. Not British? No? Apparently not. This superiority complex from some English people, especially media related is very like fashion magazines telling women that your life is worth shit if you're over 25 and 8 stone.

Now, many English people are under the opinion that Scotland holds THEM back, no idea from what though, and if Scotland leave the Union, then it will have a massive drop in income and as a result become like Greece but without the nice weather. I ask you, if this was the case, and Scotland were all parasitic draining the already stretched resources of Westminster, would Scotland not be dropped like the proverbial hot potato?

Or could it be that some parts of England are jealous as hell that if you stay north of the border, where there is still a publicly operated NHS, free prescriptions and the education of future generations is supported for all, not just the rich or lucky.

The most amazing bit of a Scottish referendum on independence is that Scotland must first ask permission from Westminster in order to hold the referendum in the first place.

Yeah that’s right, the battered wife in the refuge, hiding her kids from her abuser has to ask permission to leave…..

Ok, creative licence there but you get the point.

I am not racist, I tell people I am British, I don't treat people differently because of where they were born or the fact that they wont accept my money. I've even been asked by a Londoner if we had electricity where I come from..... Yes seriously. Next time you hear someone saying something about scots people being drunk, eating fried food all the time and being miserable with money think about whether you'd use a stereotype for someone who is Asian/black/eastern European and if they would find it offensive.

Written by: Lynn Tulloch

NEWT GINGRICH: POURS GAS ON THE PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI FIRE

 As the carnival horse race for the GOP nomination is approaching the final straight, many of the younger horses in the field have fallen at fences of gaffes, gropes, and the famous "anyone but Willard" water ditch.  In the wake of this thinning field the veteran runner, Former Speaker Newt Gringrich that attracted no bets until the 'at the post,' aside from the long shot gamblers, has pulled ahead of the ailing pack.  Being head of the pack, however, means all cameras are on you, and all commentators are screaming you name. And with close coverage, comes close scrutiny.

Though a lot of political rhetoric can be taken with a pinch of salt and viewed as merely a grisly means to a political end, sometimes a truth about a candidate comes out that transcends the now commonplace (although it doesn't justify it) inflammatory statements of political campaigns.  Most recently, Newt's comments to The Jewish Channel TV station in regards to the Palestinian people is one of these inflammatory statements.

Mr. Gingrich Said, "Remember, there was no Palestine as a state, It was part of the Ottoman Empire."

He continued in saying, "I think we have invented the Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and who are historically part of the Arab community, and they had a chance to go to many places, and for a variety of political reasons, we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s. It's tragic."

Now I'm not going to delve into the pages of history and make a case for either the Israelis or the Palestinians, as history is written by the perception of man, which is undoubtedly biased.  And no 'peace deal' will ever be reached as long as history remains the deciding factor.  

Newt's comment is quite purely and simply, extreme bias.  It's counterproductive, it's racist, and it is profoundly hypocritical.

First and foremost, his claim that "It was part of the Ottoman Empire" is correct, in fact the Ottoman Empire stretched as far north as around Budapest.  It encompassed, what is now modern day, Greece, Ukraine, Albania, Bosina, Croatia, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and parts of Saudi Arabia.  If Newt's reasoning of the Palestinian history is correct, does that mean that EVERY one of those other countries that were once part of the Ottoman Empire should return to rule under a Turkish banner? Simply because at one point in history they were all territories of a former, now fallen, empire?

A second part of his comment also has profound ramifications if the vile bias is sucked out it and it's viewed as the voice of 'reason.'  He claims that the Palestinians are an "Invented people."  This next statement should not be taken out of context as without the context, it is just as inflammatory as Newt's statement.

If Newt's assertion that the Palestinian people are an "Invented People" is assumed as true...then that also means that Americans are invented people.

The American people were 'invented' by ex-pats from European nations, most notably Great Britain. If Newt's logic is sound, then all Americans are actually nothing more than citizens of the British Empire. If you go back far enough in the pages of history, in most cases it was someone else that 'owned' the land you currently live on.  In America's case, it was the NATIVE American tribes.  It is their land that is currently occupied by the "Invented Americans."  So if Newt's basis for who should reside on what piece of the earths crust is simply based on previous ownership, then every American must leave and return to their European homelands, every Australian must return to the United Kingdom, French Canadians must return to France etc.

Actually, let's take Newt's reasoning a step farther.  Every citizen of every country on the face of the planet has to go back to Pangaea.  On second though, let's take it one step farther than that and say that every human has to walk back into the ocean that our genetic ancestors crawled out of so many years ago.

I specifically used that last sentence to make another point, incorporating religious tensions with those of a historical nature.  Historical and religious fascination are the reasons that peace cannot be reached in the Middle East.  In order to move forward we, as a united human race, must put aside historical discrepancies, and religious conflictions to live in the present and look to future.  The 'promised' land for all of us is earth...the entire planet.  To try and carve it up into sections based on ancient texts is extremely counterproductive to the needs of today's globalized world.

I wish to make clear that I am not an advocate for either Palestinian interests, or Israeli interests.  I'm and advocate for all peace between everyone that inhabits the earth.  Just as I condemn Newt's Palestinian statements, I condemn Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements toward Israel...as I view them as entirely similar in nature, they both imply that a group of people don't exist.  


I firmly believe that anybody with aspirations to become the president the United States, needs to be utterly impartial when it comes to the Palestinian/Israeli divide, they need to look to the future, not reiterate that past, especially when the past of the US is as murky as any other nation.  Again, it was history that Newt was eluding to, and history always has two sides.  The Americans in the revolution could be viewed historically as patriots in the US, but traitors in the UK.  What America called 'Westward Settlement' the Native Americans could label genocide.  History is littered with injustice, but at some point we must pave over history, as counter intuitive as that sounds, to build the foundation for a united future.  We must make concessions with our past, concessions with ourselves, and concessions with each other in order to live together on this planet.

Newt's vile bias has no place in the world of today's politics.  After spending so many years as House Speaker, he should know that in any peace deal, there are concessions on BOTH sides. And that clinging onto such a narrow minded view is detrimental to the overall outcome.