Just the Way it is....

People have some deeply held convictions.

Convictions that they allow to influence all they see, know and feel.

I've said before that I live at a kind of crossroads.  People show up who need a shoulder for a little while then they make their way to whatever.

I think my last brush with so-called "romance" was the most stark example of that.

Oh lord!  We're not going there again!  No worries...

But it did show me just how deeply divided otherwise like-minded people can be.  The sin of ideology I call it. 

A sin that takes one small aspect of someone's makeup and inflates it into a lifestyle.  A insular cocoon of circular logic and prejudicial perspectives impenetrable by anything that threatens the ideology.

We are what we are no matter what...That's just the way it is...

No, that's the way you want it.

The saddest part of it all is that the world quickly goes from a wide vista of opportunity to tunnel vision.  Creative thought, compassion, insight is all framed within a narrow view.

I've looked at the other side.  Tried to understand what it was that was so different about me and them.  Spoiler alert, it aint much.

What I found wasn't a pack of rabid savages.  Just fear.  Fear of losing what never really existed.  At least not without acknowledging what the real cost of their utopian vision was.  A vision that wasn't their own by the way. 

We tend to divide ourselves into tribes based on...whatever...

Far more scholarly authorities than I have written a mountain of tomes on the subject.  You've no doubt already seen their work.  I won't bother to rehash it here.

We live in a society that recognizes that we tend to seek out only that which supports our own world view.  The dangerous part is that the media has seized on that premise and eschewed objectivity for a tantalizing revenue stream that preys not on facts but fears.

Conservatives do it.  Liberals are no better.  So long as the other guy is the boogeyman we are sufficiently distracted to cede our own power to propaganda and rhetoric.

The propaganda feeds the machine.  The machine pumps out endless rhetoric and red meat. 

There is no compromise so long as the machine is churning.

Your heroes?  Your pillars of democracy?  They're the face of the machine.  A construct to divide otherwise like-minded people.  To keep poking that sore spot until you wretch and scream in pain.

The drug?  The cure?  Throw a bone to salve the wounds they created.  Just enough relief to keep the faithful working toward their own destruction.

We are in this country literally in the grip of mass scale Stockholm Syndrome.  I don't care what color the map says your state is.  Neither side will ever do anything to upset the machine.

Examples?  Glad you asked...

Obama claimed to fix Student Loans.  Nothing really happened and millions are still indebted to a corrupt system that enslaves borrowers for debt that should never have existed in the first place.

Trump promised prosperity with protectionism the result of which has nearly bankrupted thousands of small businesses and farmers who suddenly find no markets for their goods.  Multinational corporations can care less.  But Mom and Pop?

The saddest thing is that all the time we were waving our banners and wearing our MAGA hats we were surrendering our own power in favor of a fantasy.

A fantasy that will deprive you of life, love and occupation should you identify with the wrong side.

Nothing will change so long as we continue to exist in a fog of ideology political or otherwise. 

This is the true challenge to the evolution of the human race. 

To resist the urges of the lizard brain.  We are where we are because of what we allowed to happen.

This is on me, you and those that came before you. 

But if you're committed to your ideology, have no fear.  Reason has no value and facts are malleable.  Enjoy the appearance of a civil society and the shiny chains you've made for yourself.

Some of us knew but nobody cared to do anything about it.

Ideology...

I did something tonight that anyone that knows me would find shocking...

I went with a friend to see a political documentary, Death of A Nation.

A film that, to be honest, doesn't quite fall within my sphere of beliefs.  Which by the way happen to lie somewhere in the middle.

But...

I'm a strong believer that what we have in common is far greater than what divides.  So as I sat quietly and attentively watching the screen I suspended any pangs of my own ideological leanings in hopes of finding that common ground.

Thing is, strong ideologies tend to dismiss such hopes and this movie ultimately left me feeling like I was watching less documentary and more propaganda piece.

...and I was disappointed.

I was hoping to find that common ground, see an intelligent presentation of an alternative view not colored by extremist ideologies and conspiracy theory.  

That's not what I got.  Instead it was little more than red meat for a political base.  That it was seen in any other light by otherwise well meaning, intelligent people was discouraging. 

I was hoping the overwhelmingly negative reviews that used words like "laughable" and "preaching to the mentally unsound" were unfairly leveled.  

Hard to rebuke such barbs when the core message of the film was that Democrats were aligned with the like of Hitler, Mussolini and ultimately Satan while Republicans walked in the glow of the almighty.  

Not exactly a call to unity...

So at the end when my friend asked what I thought my only response was...

"Interesting"  

Let me be fair here.  If such a presentation had the opposite political bend I'd be just as disappointed.  

I have a real problem with extreme ideology and a strong believer that truth lies somewhere near if not at the middle.

My friend went on to emphasize her belief in the  "truths" portrayed in the film.  My response...

"Truth is malleable"

"I'm sorry you feel that way,"  said she...

I was sorry she didn't understand what it was I was actually saying.  In case you're wondering what that is it's simply this.  I feel that such a work, regardless of its political bend, is less interested in truth than an agenda.

We all have our own agendas even if we don't acknowledge them.  But agendas are inherently selfish things. Existing often for no other purpose than to manipulate others to get our own way even at their expense if necessary.

In the end I kept my opinions neutral.  I'm not interested in throwing away a relationship over one aspect of someone's personality.

Nor do I evaluate the value of a relationship by such a narrow aspect as politics.  

...but many do.

So here we are.  

Embracing ideologies with no more value than dust in the wind.  

Embrace the wind and you're touched by nothing.

Beware False equivalencies - Breitbart and its kind are NOT news

I was reading another ZDNet article this time showing how fake news and siloed information was a danger to U.S. democracy.  The long-winded article went into a treatise, complete with spiffy chart of where on the political spectrum all the various "news" organizations fell.

CNN, AP and Reuters were considered middle of the road, mainstream with Huffington Post and Fox News occupying the left and right of them respectively.  Of course the middle is always under attack as being too liberal by somebody.

Seems the past decade has spawned an outcry for a more "balanced" media view bringing forth what is laughably called Fox "news" and ultimately lending legitimacy to far right wing "journalism" like that purveyed by the likes of Breitbart news (a known proponent of Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist ideologies.)

Folks,  the past 8 years have taught us what happens to a country caught up in in siloed rhetoric.  Men of otherwise good intent are prisoners of the polls and fearful of a vocal minority.  A minority that grows into an immovable majority on both sides sown only with the seeds of propaganda.

We're literally too stupid and too lazy to know any better.

We cherry pick that which we agree with and discard the rest.  You can't help it, the bias is so great, the vitriol so thick that it's nearly impossible to find common ground.

This is not the function of journalism.  Opinions belong on the editorial page not the front page.  But in a world of information overload we don't have time for opposing views especially when they come from those who care to know nothing but their own.

Those who refuse to recognize or even acknowledge the lessons and warnings of history are the real danger.  Degrees don't make you intelligent, being aware of your world does...

"We aren't a democracy - say the Pledge of Allegiance and realize this.  Democracy, as in the Roman Empire, is rule by the mob.  Heaven help us if we get there, as the Roman Empire didn't last as long as the U.S. has."

I'd like to say I made that quote up but I can't.  He's off by at least 300 years and doesn't care to realize it.

So much for "No Child Left Behind."

That quote, by the way, is from the comment section of the same article and sadly it's not alone.  I see it far too often and when the obvious oversight is called out instead of thoughtful reflection there is instead an attack.

Libtard, Butt-Hurt, Elitist.

These are the retorts.  These are the product of faux journalism and if nothing else we need to read the signs.

Is it so hard to form an opinion based on your own views instead of someone else's?

Is that NOT what this grand democracy is supposed to be?

Rhetoric is not governance, it's a campaign and campaigns are about wars.  Warriors are about conquering.  To conquer is easy, governing is hard.

Just ask a Roman...

Judicial Watch: A cheap shot at First Responders

Petty, Shallow, Political. 

That's the motto that should be plastered on the front of Judicialwatch.org's website.

Lest you think it's an impartial activist organization focused on judicial fairness I offer the following "Headlines"

"District of Corruption"

"Obama IRS Scandal"

"CDC Official Calls Obama Worst President, Amateur, Marxist After Influx of Illegal Alien Minors"

And most recently...

"Probe Ends Free Labor Union Ads on City Vehicles"

I don't care who you voted for in the last election, that last one is a bridge too far...

The attack on the offending "Ad" in question shocked even the normally blood red populace of planet Arizona.  This may be the land of gubernatorial finger wagging at Presidents but when you go after Firefighters for a sticker on their truck that says...

"Our Family Helping Your Family"

You're just being asinine...

For no other reason than a tiny IAFF logo ( International Association of Fire Fighters) that appears above the motto, Judicial Watch has accused Phoenix Fire Fighters of giving free advertising to the Firefighter's union on the taxpayers dime.

Judicial Watch apparently has a problem with Teachers, Cops, and now Firefighters.  That is if there happens to be a union that supports them.  Well at least that's the takeaway of this latest PR campaign against stickers on fire trucks. 

BTW, most if not all professional Fire Fighters belong to the union.  Calling this sticker "advertising" is like calling a postage stamp "advertising" for the postal workers union.  

How many times have we seen commercials about the pride America takes in those who choose a career in public service?  Should we consider them union advertising too?

Perhaps they'll go after Arizona license plates next.  They do say "Grand Canyon State" which blatantly advertises a popular tourist destination.  One that feeds all those "Private" resorts and hotels.  Imagine all those taxpayer dollars going to promote a big hole in the ground...oh the injustice!

The one thing you have to understand is that the Firefighter's union is not the Teamsters.  For the most part they can't go on strike.  

Really now, it's one thing for Safeway to miss a load of Fruit Loops, quite another when your house is burning down.

Bottom Line: It's about an organization that ensures that people who put their lives on the line every day have everything they need to do it safely and competently. 

That's the mission Period...

So just what the hell is wrong with you Judicial Watch?  Would you prefer we return to the 18th century where all emergency response was done by good intentions and the bucket brigade?  Would you rather have law and order enforced by lynch mobs or policing agencies that are bound to protect individual rights?

What's the end game?  Or perhaps the better question is, How does a 501 C3 non-profit get away with political activism? 

Look up the rules and the IRS spells it out...

"It may not be an Action Organization i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."

All I see on their site is a politically charged collection of "Actions" most of which are aimed at a sitting president.

It's like giving the National Enquirer tax exempt status.

That their actions are based on a political agenda is one thing but to use their status to attack first responders is pure cold blood. 

Shame on you and shame on anyone who believes in your so-called cause.

The reason for the bloodlust

When I wrote the last line of my article on the Jodi Arias verdict I hadn't planned to write anything more about it.  To say I was disgusted with the festival of bloodlust is an understatement.  It was pathetic and disheartening. 

You need to know that my issue is with the mad rush to the gallows and not the conviction.  Is the death penalty warranted? possibly but when it's the preferred option we have to take a step back and examine our own values.

After catching an episode of Makers: Women who make America I had an epiphany of sorts.  It's a PBS documentary series that deals with different aspects of the female experience.  

This particular episode chronicled women who shaped and brought to light women's issues in America.

Ok, so what.  Just another PBS humanities study right up there with whatever Ken Burns is doing these days...

Where my epiphany comes in was the discussion of how women's roles are still in flux even after a century of progress.  Men by and large still hold a very 19th century view of women and in conservative circles even more so.

Remember, Arizona is a staunchly conservative state.  Gloria Steinem probably wouldn't find much of a fan base here but Phyllis Schlafly would probably be given keys to the Governor's executive toilet.

It's that characteristic that made me do a bit of digging.  Specifically, I was curious about women who were sentenced to death in the U.S. for capital crimes.  There are 27 states that embrace the death penalty and Arizona has ranked in the top half at #13 as recently as 2012.   

While it's still true that the overwhelming majority of death row inmates are male, the 1% or so that are female seem to have a few traits in common.  One is that their victims were usually a spouse or a boyfriend the other is obvious, they were men.   Another increasingly common factor is questionable prosecutions with groups like Amnesty International frequently becoming involved.

Conservative values are very much tied to a 19th century ideal and with that a definition of women's roles.   Much of the bluster you've seen in recent political campaigns is a reflection of those values.  

Which brings me back to the whole bloodlust thing...

You see, while a man has a roughly equal chance of life imprisonment or death row for killing a woman when the roles are reversed the odds can change dramatically.  In a state that leans conservative (like AZ)  women often find themselves running headlong into conservative ideologies when they challenge the status quo.

Now before anyone runs off on a tangent know this...

I don't suggest for a minute that Jodi Arias is innocent but I do suggest that the public reaction to her sentence had more to do with wanting to punish an "uppity woman" than justice for Travis Alexander.

It's not the crime, it's the attitude that's intolerable to their very core.  An attitude that those with such views feel must be punished.  Preferably with blood if possible.

I'm surprised I missed it the first time.  I must have been overcome by the vitriol.  

A new Year, an old injustice

Happy New Year!

At midnight the minimum wage went up a few cents in 20 or so states.  While the Federal minimum wage is still at $7.25 most states are within $1 of that figure.  In most cases, federal jobs excluded, the state wage supersedes the Federal. 

In Arizona, for example, the wage rose to $8.05 per hour on New Year's day 2015. 

It almost seems generous until you run the numbers....

The average minimum wage job will not offer full time hours (less than 35) to their workers due to employers unwilling to shoulder the additional burden of offering healthcare, overtime and other benefits afforded fulltime employment.

As such and assuming $7.25/hr Federal minimum wage the "technically" Part Time worker (which could be up to 34 hours) would be grossing $12,818 if they got 34 hours a week and worked 52 weeks of the year. 

After deductions that employee would be well under the current (for 2014) poverty line for a one person household of $11,670.  Even 40 hours would offer no reprieve after deductions for health care premiums and a higher tax rate would effectively lessen take home pay.

In 1985 I could live very well on just under 12 grand.  In 2014 I'm likely on public assistance, rely on emergency rooms for my healthcare and frequent the local food pantry to eat.  

Worse, I have a bevy of new regulations to sift through concerning mandated health insurance that I can't afford anyway.

So when I hear resistance from employers paying less than $9 an hour to their full time employees stating that an increased wage would force an increase in prices I'm literally gobsmacked.

The argument is basically this....

"We need to keep wages low and our workers in abject poverty in order to keep our prices down."

I've long been a proponent of a fair wage for a fair day's work and along with that paying what things really cost. 

But what I'm hearing is little more than institutionalized slavery rationalized by an economy based on consuming instead of value.  It's a society where WalMart is the standard and the advances of the last 100 years of labor law are looked on as an inconvenience perpetuated by evil unions.

We hear that minimum wage jobs are "entry level" and not meant to be permanent but gone are the days where they were the exclusive domain of teenagers looking for gas money.  Parents, senior citizens  and displaced professionals often find themselves competing for them simply because there isn't anything else.

What these employers don't realize is that paying a slave wage breeds slave economies that can no longer afford  their wares. 

The snake is eating itself...

These jobs are the last bastion of self-sufficiency for workers without any other opportunity.    

There's no further argument to be made when the opposition's rebuttal is grounded in inequity.  It's the same argument that led to the Southern states walking out of congress in 1861.  That being that the Southern economy could not survive without slave labor.

How is this argument any different other than its scope?  In this case an entire nation instead of a portion of it.

I can't accept the ridiculous or the unjust...enough said...

What a Supreme Court victory says about us.

This week's Supreme court ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was a victory.  That said, it's sad commentary on the state of humanity.

That societal norms in the United States are so backward as to allow a  government to tell a woman what she can do with her body while in the same breath proclaiming individual liberty is laughable.  That we have legislative debate on the proper parties to a committed relationship is embarrassing. 

That it's official state policy to condemn other cultures for similar beliefs is nothing short of hypocritical.  Is it any wonder then that the United States is so hated.  "Do as I say not as I do" has never been good policy.  We need to lead more by example than sound bite.

I've had a sort of epiphany lately or perhaps just more able to express what I see.

I've always been very open minded but admit that when it comes to topics dear to the Rainbow coalition I've been a bit annoyed by their medium. 

I find it distasteful for an entire community to define itself by whom it chooses to share their intimate moments with.  I could care less what gender you find arousing to be honest.  As a straight man I've resigned myself to additional criteria before approaching an interesting member of the opposite sex.  That being, "You like guys, right?"

I'm the first to admit that I wouldn't be caught dead marching in a parade with a banner reading, "We're here, we're NOT queer, get used to it."  

So much for the "You don't see me marching in any heterosexual parades" argument.

But I get it now...

Polite society is so caught up in advancing its imperfect vision of normality that you literally have to be outrageous just to be heard. 

It's not just the concerns of the LGBT community either, it's a concern for the rest of us too.  To disenfranchise anyone contrary to our better selves diminishes us all.

Look, if you believe that a loving couple of the same sex is going to bring down civilization any more than the sexual escapades of your favorite televangelist you're just not being honest with yourself.

Please don't hold up biblical references as proof either.  The text has been corrupted by human ambition for eons and if we really chose to take it as literally as some would have you believe, we'd all be hanging from crosses on some Roman hill.

Our greatest cultural influences, providing us with the foundations for our literature, government and conduct didn't concern themselves with the specifics of our most carnal nature.  Shakespeare's most impassioned sonnets were focused on a young man.  Roman culture didn't even bother to subdivide acceptable physical relationships based on gender but rather on acceptable conduct.

It's not that I advocate anarchy or debauchery, I'm just tired of humanity spending more time on their genitalia than advancing the species.  By the way, the act of procreation isn't enough to advance the species.  If it were cats and rabbits would be ruling the world from their flying cities.

Even as a straight man, the fact that I choose not to prioritize procreation above all other pursuits can have a debilitating effect on my societal position.  I've never been an advocate for doing anything for its own sake and the traditional family construct is one of those tenets for me. 

The concept is simple if not self-evident.  If you don't endeavor to improve the world you walk through then what chance can your offspring have?

The simple state of being is not enough to correct the inadequacies of a narrow minded progenitor.  I see far too many lost souls imprisoned by the limitations of their procreators.   For the few that escape,  freedom comes only after unbearable pain and isolation.

For the others, the "normal" ones, the same disdain and disrespect handed down from parent to child  only advances an imperfect world view through yet another generation . 

And humanity stands still.

Until we can rise above concerns of our lowest desires humanity will never reach its full promise.  Love, sex and relationships regardless of the participant's gender should be as accepted as breathing but they're not. 

That's why this week's legal victory is so critical yet so reflective of our own immaturity.

Sour Grapes and the Folly of Secession

Article first published as Sour Grapes and the Folly of Secession on Technorati.

Arizona is certainly a trendsetter, unfortunately for all the wrong reasons...

This week, hot on the heels of President Barack Obama's second term the local news reports that over 14,000 Arizona residents have signed a petition to ask "permission" to secede from the union.  The petition was started by the mysterious Nicholas M. of Gilbert, Az. 

Using the White House's We the People website a petition submitted by our Mr. "M" states...

 "The citizens of the great state of Arizona have the right to stand for their principles,” and  “That man is granted unalienable rights, which are not the dispensations of the government, but find their beginnings in God and come from God alone. These are the principles that our forefathers stood for, the principles upon which our Constitution is based, and those in which we firmly place our belief and resolve"

I'm not sure which constitution he's talking about. 

To hold up the U.S. Constitution won't work since it governs the body you're trying to leave.  To hold up a  state constitution is folly since the last state to have anything resembling a secession clause was Texas.  In fact one of the conditions of statehood is to specifically remove any secession language from the constitution of the prospective state.

Arizona isn't alone in its activism and apparently all  50 states have similar petitions in the wake of the election with some more successful than others.   

In Texas an equally mysterious character in the person of Micah H. has managed to collect over 100,000 signatures for his Texas secession petition. 

Strange how all these mysterious characters are suddenly starting petitions.  It's almost as though there was some type of organized effort.  Perhaps by a conservative group pre-occupied with politics and hot caffeinated beverages?

Petitions require only 25,000 signatures to receive an "official" response which upon meeting that threshold is likely to go something like this, "Thanks for your petition, we value your opinion but No"

Even Arizona's fiery state's rights advocate, Gov. Jan Brewer, has publicly stated she did not support the idea of secession.  Of course she doesn't.  Her distaste for the federal government may be obvious but no state can afford to lose its share of the Federal dole.

Unfortunately for the secessionists, they're not likely to find much support from other state governors either.  Setting aside the legal ramifications, state governments are far too dependent on federal funding to seriously entertain the idea of secession. 

When the South lost the Civil War (a secessionist movement)  it was due to a failing economy and flawed economic construct.   Perhaps it is the best example of the dangers of an extreme ideology overruling reason.   Apparently history has few lessons for a secessionist. 

So much for the bloodless revolution.

Law Enforcement and Political Activism

Article first published as Law Enforcement and Political Activism on Technorati.

It's good to have heroes.  People whom you can look up to and pattern yourself after as you move through life.  It's fairly obvious that Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu has a hero in Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and possibly Rush Limbaugh.

In the latest episode of "Babeu on Immigration" we find the Pinal county Sheriff bemoaning what he calls "Roadside amnesty"

The Pinal County Sheriff had this to say to local news outlets today.

"Within hours of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices upholding the main portion of Arizona's SB1070 law, President Obama and Janet Napolitano, with a wave of their hands, have made what was illegal one day, legal the next. They can't pass their dream act, so they change enforcement policies, which undermines the rule of law,"

He goes on to cite an alleged incident involving a 17 year old stopped for exceeding the speed limit by 50MPH.  Apparently the teen had no driver's license or other identification because he was an undocumented immigrant. 

The Sheriff contacted U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) but found no interest in the teen since he had been in the country for most of his life.   ICE does not consider this type of "illegal immigrant"  a priority focusing instead on recent and repeat border crossers, those over 30 years of age and felony offenders.

Babeu holds President Obama and DHS Head Napolitano to blame for having to release the young offender to his mother's custody with a citation instead of turning him over to ICE for deportation. 

Babeu cites the revoking of the 287G agreements between DHS and local law enforcement as the root cause. 

The 287G agreements allowed local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law and hold offenders in custody.  With the SB1070 supreme court decision, DHS terminated the agreements which in Babeu's view allows "illegal immigrants" like the aforementioned teen to go free.

Babeu continues...

"The President fails to understand the...impact created by his decision to not enforce immigration laws..........What other laws will the President wave and not enforce?"

Conservative pundits often cite the reason that Gitmo detainees could not be brought to U.S. soil is because they may gain the same constitutional protections as U.S. citizens such as a right to jury trial and counsel.  Which begs the question, exactly what laws isn't Sheriff Babeu able to enforce?  The laws that exist or the laws that he'd like to exist?

The teen in question was arrested in Sheriff Babeu's county which at last check was well within the confines of the United States.  It's likely that along with the criminal speeding offense, a laundry list of other charges await the teen unless he happens to have a parent who belongs to the Mexican consulate.  He was arrested while traveling to work so that's unlikely.

Law enforcement's primary responsibility is to enforce existing laws, regardless of political bias or opinion.

While the prospect of activists judges is frightening, activist law enforcement is even more so.  Like Arpaio it appears Babeu has no qualm with using his position as a political platform.  In some cases, tragically as in his recent misinterpretation of a murder/suicide as a drug cartel assassination.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa county Arizona has done a stellar job of self promotion for the past 3 decades and it appears Pinal county's Sheriff is looking to get in on the act.  Nothing garners more press attention than a public persona emphasizing political extremes that border on a circus sideshow. 

It's likely you don't know the names or political positions of Arizona's other 13 county sheriffs, perhaps that's the way it should be.

A softening of Santorum's image?

Originally published as A softening of Santorum's image? on Technorati

Over the weekend news broke of a dramatic turn in the health of Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum's 3 year old daughter Isabella.  The New York Times reports that  she was suffering with Pneumonia which is likely a complication of a genetic disorder she's suffered since birth called Trisomy 18. 

The condition results from extra copies of chromosome 18 during embryonic development.  This causes a multitude of health issues including birth defects and serious life threatening medical conditions. 

Half of the  patients diagnosed with the condition do not survive past the first week of life while the remainder suffer serious medical and developmental problems.  

Santorum has continued with his campaign Monday afternoon after his daughter recovered from the bout with pneumonia giving an address in Missouri with other events planned through Tuesday.

According to reports, Santorum's daughter has been a centerpiece of his campaign and when asked why he'd run with a daughter in such a precarious condition his response was his belief that the Obama health care plan was  "a threat to those like Bella, “on the margins of life.”

The story has been picked up by most news outlets with a piece by the Headline News Network discussing Isabella Santorum's tribulations over the weekend with accompanying soft focus still photos of the candidate with his daughter and light discussion of Trisomy 18 afterward.

As one of the more hard line conservative candidates seeking the 2012 Republican nomination Santorum's views have been seen as radical by some with quotes such as the following from early January;

"I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."

Or in an April 2003 Associated Press interview on his beliefs on the right to privacy.

"And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family."

Santorum's recent showing among Republicans has been poor with the attention focusing largely on his rivals Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Whether he's seen as too radical or just ill-spoken it's unlikely the Santorum campaign can sway enough support for the nomination.  That begs the question of why he would continue on especially when his daughter's condition has been so precarious. 

Santorum has been quoted as saying a primary reason for his campaign is his daughter yet his political positions extend beyond her birth.  As the family values candidate Santorum has been quoted as saying that nothing was more important than the family.  Which makes it somewhat confusing that faced with a less than successful presidential campaign he would choose to return to it so quickly after his daughter's recent bout with illness.

With his daughter at the centerpiece of his campaign these actions seem out of step with his position.  No supporter would hold it against him if he withdrew to attend to family issues.  Still this most recent turn of events will cloud,  if at least temporarily, more radical aspects of his career.  There's no denying the effect even if the observation borders on the tasteless to some.

Soft focus press photos aside it would seem that his daughter's illness may have brought a softer focus to his campaign with extreme positions forgotten at least for now.    

Want 5% Off $100 or more on you next software purchase?