Archive for Paul Ryan

The Dimmest Bulb in the Box.

Posted in Education, Politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 30, 2012 by urbannight

I read this article as my roommate was getting ready for work.  Since I was really early, I tried to access it but it was blocked.  So most of my quotes are not verbatim and therefore not marked out.  The one that is marked may not be exact.  I also don’t have the name of the second party to this comedy.  I suspect he must be a country artist but I never heard of him.

Last night, Clay Aiken made a twitter remark about a new drinking he was playing where they drink every time a black person takes the state at the Republican National Conventions.

Some other artist got all upset because this comment was so racist.  In doing so, he showed his own lack of intelligence as Aiken’s remark was intended to point out the racist nature, in general, of the Republican Party. 

When Aiken didn’t issue an apology, this other man takes another tactic and criticizes Aiken for using a hashtag with the word ‘sober’ in it if he is playing a drinking game. 

Again, he showed that he was a dim bulb.  If you are playing a drinking game in which you drink when something happens, and that something is not happening, then you are not drinking.  In other words, the statement is that the Republican National Convention was a rather white event.

When this other artists of whom I’ve never heard, makes a comment about how we are supposed to be inclusive, Aiken finally responds to him.  He says something to the effect of, “I am [inclusive].  How come your party is not?”

The question becomes, is it racist to use an indirect statement (perhaps as a form of irony) to point out the racist behavior of another group?

Todd Akin, Paul Ryan, and Rape

Posted in Politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 21, 2012 by urbannight

This guy thinks he has the right to define what violence against women is?

He can apologize all he wants.  But I don’t think he used, “the wrong words.”  I think Todd Akin said exactly what he really thought. 

That somewhere, he was told women couldn’t get pregnant from rape because their bodies would ‘protect’ them from that.  So if a woman got pregnant, she must have wanted it on some level.  It’s just a variation on the old saying, “she was asking for it.” 

This is not the first time I’ve heard the theory.  It’s a very old wives tale I think.  What is truly scary is that people would believe and espousing this concept in our modern era with a modern understanding of medicine and biology. 

He wanted to change the definition of rape a while back.  I need to find out how he wanted to change it.  It’s already been changed before.  It was changed to recognize the fact that a husband can indeed rape a wife.  It used to be viewed that marriage was a contract in which a woman, by marrying someone, was agreeing to sexual activity with a husband whenever he wished it.  Therefore, no sexual act between a husband and wife can be considered rape.  I certainly hope they were not trying to reverse that. 

And as I look it up, they are not.  But it’s almost as bad.  It is trying to go backwards in time. 

They are narrowing it down to ‘forcible’ rape.  That means raping an unconscious victim, a drugged victim, or a mentally challenged victim would no longer be called rape. 

This means people using rape-date drugs on people would no longer be forcing sexual activity on people without their knowledge or consent.  I’m not sure what it would be called under their plan?  What else would you call rendering someone unconscious for the purpose of non-consensual sexual activity with them? 

Unless the idea is that if you are having a drink with someone, you are somehow agreeing to sex.  That doesn’t make sense.  What I you were having a pop? No alcohol at all.  Are you still ‘asking’ for it?  Or by agreeing to go on a date you are thereby agreeing to sex?  This coming from men who claim to be Christians, who are not supposed to have sex before marriage.   Does this mean they are not supposed to date?   What do they suggest then?  Arranged marriages?  Did they date their wives?  Did they assume that meant their wives/then girlfriends were agreeing to sex every time they had a date?

A girl at a college party, or maybe a woman a company party, passes out and someone takes the opportunity to have sex with her.  She is not able to consent.  So because she had to much to drink, I guess Akin and Ryan think it means she is asking for it and it is okay for a man to have sex with her like that.  That takes us right back to the idea that alcohol equals promiscuity.

What about women, institutionalized because of severe mental challenges, which operational ages of 5, 6, 7 years old, who don’t really understand what is going on?  It’s okay for staff to take advantage of them sexually?  Sounds like it based on what Ryan and Akin were trying to do.

Akin stated what he really believed and felt to be true.  A woman who gets raped is asking for it.  The onus of blame is on the woman, not the man.  And Ryan is right there beside him in thought.  And people really want to vote for a presidential ticket with Paul Ryan on it?  Shame on any American who votes for him.  Shame on any woman who votes for him.  Shame on anyone who can support people who believe this way.