Liberal Dan Radio 09/17/2014: More Stephen VanderGast than you can handle

Ok, maybe not. But this week on Liberal Dan Radio I discuss several issues including the NFL situation, what should a poor person be able to own and not be judged for it, and more.

And as always headlines, tweet of the week, and more this week on Liberal Dan Radio: Talk From The Left, That’s Right.

Liberal Dan Radio 9/10/2014: Ray Rice, Edwin Edwards, and Special Guest Joanna Schroeder

On the September 10, 2014 episode of Liberal Dan Radio:

I will discuss the endorsement of unrepentant convicted felon Edwin Edwards for the 6th congressional district of Louisiana by the Louisiana Democratic Party. Previously I had stated my reasons for opposing his candidacy and what might happen if the state party went ahead and supported him anyway.

I will also have on the show previous guest Joanna Schroeder from the Good Men Project. We will discuss a variety of issues from the controversial nail polish and Cee Lo greens comments to the Ray Rice firing by the NFL.

Those issue, headlines, tweet of the week and more tonight at a special time, 9pm Central, on BlogTalkRadio.

A few comments on the Louisiana Democratic Party endorsement of Edwin Edwards

The Louisiana Democratic Party has endorsed unrepentant convicted felon Edwin Edwards for Louisiana’s 6th congressional district. The seat is an open seat with no incumbent because the current office holder is Bill Cassidy, one of the Republican challengers to Democratic incumbent Senator Mary Landrieu.

First, read this post about why I oppose the Edwin Edwards candidacy.  Now that the Louisiana Democratic party has endorsed him I have been getting grief from some fellow progressives about my refusal to jump aboard the Edwin Edwards bandwagon.

Some suggest that I oppose allowing felons back into society. That is false. I supported Malik Rahim for Congress when he ran against Bill Jefferson and Joseph Cao. He was a convicted felon but unlike Edwards, Rahim spent his post prison time helping others instead of helping himself.

And let’s just ignore for a second the fact that it is just wrong to support Edwards because of his criminal background that should not be trusted. Let’s ignore that supporting his candidacy is the ultimate “the ends justifies the means” statement. Let’s look at this from a purely political standpoint. Senator Landrieu is facing a difficult reelection campaign. All of her elections have been close, but this one is going to be the closest yet. Does she really need to have the baggage of an Edwin Edwards candidacy being used against her? I can imagine the Bill Cassidy or Col. Rob Maness ads now. “Look at Mary Landrieu, she is supported by Democrats. These same Democrats support convicted felon Edwin Edwards”. Democrats nationwide are struggling to keep hold of the Senate. Even if Edwards can pull off a win in this election, is one additional seat in the house worth losing the Senate? I don’t think so.

I lived in Maryland when the Edwards/Duke election took place. And had I been living in Louisiana and had I been of voting age I would have absolutely voted for Edwards against Duke. That time voting for the crook is important. This time there is no Duke. This time rejecting the crook is important. That election embarrassed Louisiana nationwide. And it wasn’t just because we had a Klansman running. It was also because that opponent of the Klansman was using the phrase “vote for the crook” to try and win. This will be another embarrassment to both Louisiana and Democrats. I wonder how many other Republicans will be able to leverage Democratic support for Edwards into political points. Look, it may very well be the case that Edwards could win and that his win would have no negative impact on anyone else running. But in this election I fear that we cannot take that risk. And I fear that the endorsement of Edwards by the Louisiana Democratic Party could very well be the nail in the coffin of the Landrieu campaign.

But now the second is over, and we should not ignore the fact that regardless of his ability to win that we should be rejecting the Edwards candidacy. The ends do not justify the means. Edwin Edwards to this day insists that he did no wrong. He is delusional. He is greedy. He is selfish. He needs to go away. At the end of the day I have two children. I have to be able to look them in the eye and set a good example for them. I cannot do so while supporting Edwards and I cannot support a party that endorses corruption like the Louisiana Democratic Party just did.

When I first heard of the possibility of an Edwards campaign I said that if the Louisiana Democratic Party endorses Edwards that I would cut my ties with the party. I intend to follow through on that promise. I can fight for progressive causes without waiving the banner of the Democratic party. Other states have benefited with a progressive third party pushing for progressive issue. I will still likely vote for and support progressive candidates despite their party affiliation. I will vote for Cedric Richmond and Mary Landrieu. But I refuse to do so as a member of a party that holds on to past corruption instead of building to the future. If it would be possible to be a registered Democrat nationally while rejecting the state party I would do so. But there seems to be no way to do that.

 

Update: I found out that you can change your voter registration online. If you do leave the party, tweet @LaDemos and make sure to use the hashtag #ILeftLADemos

Using Gender Neutral Language When Discussing Domestic Violence

There is a lot of discussion going on about the firing of Ray Rice after a new video was released showing the situation where he assaulted his then fiance in an elevator. Many people will debate how the NFL dropped the ball in this case. What I want to write about is how people are discussing the issue of domestic violence and why I wish people would move towards non gender specific discussions when having a discussion about domestic violence.

Just now, as I watch ESPN, one of the sportscasters said “Somebody who hits a woman like that belongs in jail”. That is true. However, wouldn’t it be better to say “Someone who hits another person like that belongs in jail”? Had Ray Rice punched a man in that way, would that mean he doesn’t belong in jail? If Michael Sam punched his partner in that way, wouldn’t he also deserve jail time?

I have heard others say “it is never ok to hit a woman”. Is that true? If a woman comes at you with a knife, isn’t it ok to defend yourself? But even if you wanted to reword it that it is never ok to initially hit a woman, that still ignores many other times where it is not ok to hit someone. We should be wording it “It is never ok for one person to strike another except for in self defense”.

And all I am talking about here is how we should be discussing violence towards others. It is a fact that a majority of domestic violence cases in the United States are perpetrated against women. It is also a fact that a significant number of domestic violence cases in the United States are perpetrated against men. We should be focusing on how we can prevent such violence. We should recognize that violence against women is 3/5 of all domestic violence. But when saying the times it is ok to hit people and to not hit people, we should include all people that you should not hit and not just one set.

Victimizing victims with child support

An Arizona man, Nick Olivas, was sexually violated by a 20 year old woman when he was only 15 years old, by the nature of the fact that no child under 16 can legally consent to sex of any kind under Arizona law. No charges were pressed at the time. Olivas said he was uncomfortable with the situation at the time. However, he was unaware that he could go to the police and that the sexual act was a crime.

The rape produced a child. Now that the statute of limitations has run out and she can no longer be charged with the crime of rape (despite the fact that we all know that it was a rape that occurred) she sought child support from her victim. She was successful. Not only was she awarded child support in the future, he was assessed charges  for past child support that he “should have” paid plus a 10% penalty for those past due child support payments that he knew nothing about. Apparently it is the responsibility of rape victims to know when their rapists give birth and to support the children that they did not legally consent to creating.

I have no problem with the idea that the simple act of a male consenting to sexual relations with a woman causes him to be financially responsible for any child that results. But this is not what we are talking about here. This is rape. This person could not consent to the sex that was had and it is a travesty of justice to seek monetary payments against him. Defense of the law will typically come in the form of “it is not the fault of the child” that the child was born. Not only does this miss the point, since we can find other ways to support kids born from these situation, these arguments sound horribly similar to the arguments made against abortion rights in the case of rape.

Men’s rights advocates, who are usually wrong on many issues, will come out against these support laws as being wrong. They are right to oppose them but they do so for the wrong reasons. They will likely blame feminism for their existence. In fact one twitter user, who may or may not be an MRA (but sounds like one) states that this was the result of feminism.

I disagree. In reality laws like this are caused by the patriarchy and if feminism is successful in dismantling the patriarchy these laws will go away. Here are my reasons why the patriarchy is to blame for such laws.

The Patriarchy supports the idea that women are caretakers and men are the bread winners. Many of the flaws in our system that MRA will blame feminism for are because of archaic social views that a child should be raised by a woman and should be financially supported by men. Eliminating the gender pay gap, breaking up archaic gender roles, and embracing that both parents have equal roles in raising a child will go a long way in fixing the perception that women should be the ones who get custody and support payments. Once this happens, the laws can be changed to reflect our new social norms.

The Patriarchy supports the idea that men are pursuers and women are to be pursued. You have heard the arguments before. That teen boys who get to “score” with “older babes” are “lucky”. Regardless of what age of consent laws say, male victims who are incapable of consenting to sex under the law are scoffed at when people suggest that they have been victimized. These male victims must have wanted it, according to the tropes, and that must make it ok (or at least “better” than when an older male sleeps with a female who is legally incapable of consenting to sex). By keeping the idea that men pursue and women are pursued we not only retain the idea that women are possessions, but we also deny men the ability to say that they are victims. It contributes to why Olivas never initially contacted the police.

Eliminate the patriarchy and you help solve the problems that exist in this case. Eliminate feminism, and these problems continue as nobody is left to fight the actual root causes of those problems. 

Liberal Dan Radio 9/3/2014: Victim blaming and backwards thinking

On the September 3, 2014 episode of Liberal Dan Radio:

Several celebrities have had nudes of them released that were obtained by people hacking their accounts. Some people are suggesting that keeping your pictures in “the cloud” is not a safe way to store such pictures and that such people are just “asking for it”. Others suggest that taking such pictures altogether are them asking for it. Others see hypocrisy in the treatment of female celebrities and male celebrities. I will cut through the hype and give my feelings on why some scenarios are different than the others and also explain why some of this blame being placed on the persons who took those pictures is just another example of victim blaming. Victim blaming just victimizes the victim.

More victim blaming comes at the hands of Cee Lo Green. After being accused of raping a person who was drugged, he had the gaul to suggest that sex with an unconcious person is not rape. Seriously. Forget you…

Another example where a victim is again victimized is the case of Nick Olivas, a male in Arizona who at 15 had non consensual (read rape) sexual relations with a 20 year old woman. As a 15 year old he could not consent to sex with the 20 year old but yet he is financially responsible for it? That makes zero sense.

Finally, I will discuss the ruling in Louisiana today that upheld the Louisiana ban on same sex marriage. Again, Louisiana bucks national trends to the detrement of its citizenry. Louisiana will eventually be forced to recognize marriage equality, but it will be dragged there kicking and screaming.

Those topics, headlines, tweet of the week and more at 8pm central on Liberal Dan Radio: Talk From The Left, That’s Right.

Liberal Dan Radio 8/27/2014: How many more?

On the August 27, 2014 episode of Liberal Dan Radio:

How many more young black males must be shot by the police before something is done to fix our system of law enforcement in this country. In Ohio, John Crawford III was shot and killed in a walmart because he was brandishing a toy gun. There was apparently no warning given and no request for the gun to be put down before the police opened fire on Mr. Crawford.

Here in Louisiana Victor White III died in the back seat of a police car. He died from a gunshot wound. According to police reports he found a gun somewhere, while restrained, and shot him self in the back while the deputies left him alone. Likely story.

And of course we have the Michael Brown case that continues to have its interesting twists and turns. No grand jury charges yet for the officer who killed the unarmed teen. But there are some interesting aspects of Missouri law that need to be looked at more carefully in this case to show excatly what is wrong with this system that we have.

If there is time I will discuss issues like Common Core and the anti-GHB nail polish that was created by 4 male students. Otherwise I will discuss those issues next week.

Those issues, tweet of the week, words of redneck wisdom, headlines and more on Liberal Dan Radio: Talk From The Left, That’s Right.

 

Why run from the cops?

It is a question that many a white person will ask when they see a black person fleeing from the police. I will admit that I used to ask this question myself. Doesn’t running from the police make it worse for the person running? If you just cooperated with the police then you would be treated  justly and fairly because you give the police nothing to act badly on. Right?

Well, if you have thought these things in the last week or so after the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson then you are looking at the situation through your rose colored classes of privilege. As a white person you likely have never been stopped by police for “jaywalking”. In fact you have likely never been stopped and frisked. You have likely never been pulled over in a nice neighborhood and asked if you belonged. As a white person you are likely approached calmly and rationally by a member of law enforcement when you are stopped for routine items like broken taillights, running stop signs and speeding. White people have every reason to cooperate with law enforcement. Getting a ticket may suck but it is not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things.

The treatment of a young black male by many in law enforcement is much different. I cannot know this via my personal experience. I can only open my eyes, remove my privileged glasses, and see what happens to people who are darker complected than myself. What I see is not a pretty picture. And that picture is completed with the recent shooting of Michael Brown. Evidence points to Brown running away from the car and being shot at while 35 feet away. I am not sure where in the police handbook where it states an individual with his back to you 35 feet away is justification to use deadly force. If getting captured by a police officer means that you have the possibility of being beaten up and potentially killed by that police officer and if none of that happens you then have a chance at being railroaded through a judicial system that is biased against you, the question shouldn’t be why run from the cops. The question should be, why wouldn’t you run from the cops?

The bottom line is this, if I had to put myself in the shoes of persons who are black and was then pulled over by the police, I would sure as hell hope that they were running shoes because I would want to get the hell out of there as well.

 

Chance for a $25 in Origami Owl jewelry.

For tonight and tonight only I will be holding a drawing for you to receive up to $25 in Origami Owl jewelry. Here are the simple rules. My wife sells Origami Owl Jewelry. You can see her site here. Retweet the tweet containing the link to this post and you will get one entry into the drawing. If you make a purchase through her site I will give you 4 additional entries into the drawing. Email me at liberaldanradio @ gmail and let me know that you have made a purchase and what your twitter handle is.  Open to listeners in the continental US only.

The contest will close at the end of the show and a winner will be announced shortly after that. If you want to listen to the show, the live broadcast is here.

 

 

Liberal Dan Radip 8/13/2014: Return of the Stephen

On the August 13, 2014 episode of Liberal Dan Radio:

Stephen VanderGast returns to debate the issues. Topics for potential discussion include the House Committee report on Benghazi, the comments of Neil deGrasse Tyson and GMO foods, and the law in Illinois that includes shooting police under the castle doctrine.

Those topics, headlines, tweet of the week, words of redneck wisdom and more at 8pm central on Blog Talk Radio.