My History with GEAR Debate at RHS

~~ originally written for the 2013-2014 year of Ringgold High School's school paper, The Ram Pride ~~

In my sophomore year, I stepped up to a podium in Ringgold High School's library, unruffled my lined paper full of my sloppy notes as much as I could, and gave a speech filled with statistics about drugs and football stadiums. This was my first time participating in a GEAR-sponsored debate at RHS, and it was a rather in invigorating experience. It remained the same rewarding thrill every time I did it afterwards.

Anyway, I got up there and gave my rebuttal speech, and our team full of tenth graders beat a team full with upperclassmen. I did a good job, which is a belief supported by my peers as well as the GEAR instructor at the time. We even went on to the championship, because our team scored higher than any other affirmative team. My quality stayed the same in the championship round, save for apparently coming off as petty and rude, according to some peers as well as one of the judges. The topic was drug testing for student athletes, a topic I really didn't have much of an opinion on prior. As we researched the topic, I started to support the side I was defending, starting my streak of always debating on the side of an issue I agree with. 

I find debate much more satisfying if I am defending ideas I actually think are good. So, as the lefty liberal I am, I debated in favor of Barack Obama for president, in favor of marijuana legalization in Pennsylvania, against NSA spying, and finally just last April, in favor of a federal minimum wage increase to $10.10. It felt good to debate against the ruthlessly robotic Mitt Romney. It felt good to defend adults thrown in jail for putting a relatively harmless substance into their own bodies. It felt good debating against an over-reaching spying program that throws privacy out the window in exchange for a minuscule level of defense against terrorism. And finally, it felt good to throw my hat in the ring for a minimum wage increase from it's pathetically low amount of $7.25 to a much more reasonable number of $10.10. Debating in favor of my own opinion was even more gratifying when I knew that my opponents were also defending their own opinions; I know I was able to have that experience for all of my debates except for the marijuana one, which, perhaps not coincidentally, was my toughest debate.   

There are four people on each team, two doing what is called a constructive speech and the other two doing what is called a rebuttal speech. For my first two debates, I did a rebuttal speech, and for my last three I did a constructive. As the name implies, the rebuttals are speeches directly refuting the opposing team's arguments, and are done during the latter half of the debate. They are two minutes long, and are generally expected to be mostly put together during the actual debate because of the nature of the speech, although many don't follow this notion. I always did; I would write an opening sentence and a closing sentence prior, and then make bullet points during the debate. It certainly worked in my favor because both my peers and the judges took note. A rebuttal speech is much better when it is clear that the speaker is actually directly addressing what the opposing team said, rather than guessing in a speech written before hand.    

Because of how the program is structured, the constructive speakers are typically seen as more important than the rebuttal speakers. I have a hard time avoiding running my mouth and love attention, so I much preferred this route. Constructive speakers give a three-minute speech expected to be pre-written (although some very rarely speak off the cuff), are cross-examined by an opposing constructive speaker for two minutes, and then cross-examine the other opposing constructive speaker for two minutes. I have been passionate about writing ever since I was in sixth grade, so I always wrote a very good speech. My first time, I had a hard time on the cross-examination (we faced a very good team and were perhaps overly confident given the topic of weed legalization), but the two debates afterwards, I think it is safe to say that I did a positively great job on the crosses. The audiences' reactions were a bit animated in their support of me during these crosses, and the judges we're immensely positive. My opponents sure didn't like me after a cross, though, which I think is lovely. 

I suppose I have some advice. When cross-examining, address your opponent in the form of a question as much as possible. This forces them to address exactly what you want them to address, leaving them little room to respond with some other point. When your opponent is very weak on a certain point, it works wonders to ask a solid question, and then simply let them talk for all to hear. You must come off as dominant over your opponent to the audience and the judges during crosses; this means politely but firmly finishing your sentences when they try to interrupt. Crosses are all about looking good and making your opponents squirm. When it comes to the constructive speeches, I'd say the first speaker's speech should be more focused on a more emotional, moral argument, and the second speaker's should be focused on a heavier, statistic-laden argument. This eases the audience and judges into your side, first pulling them in and then affirming the position. And again on rebuttals, please don't pre-write; it misses the point entirely, although judges tend not to be nearly as harsh on this as they should be. 

The astoundingly low participation for the last debate is alarming to me; there were only two teams entered (usually there is around at least six), and a comparatively small audience. Two of the three judges were also chosen the day of the debate. If things keep going down this path, I fear the program won't even exist anymore, which would be a huge shame on the school. But since I am graduating this year, making sure the program is strong is a job that falls on the 2014-15 school year of faculty and students. 

All I can do is remember my history with the GEAR debate program; it's a pleasant thing for me to do. I loved my experiences participating in this program. Throwing on a nice suit and sneakers, feeling good about defending my ideals, and flexing the writing and speaking skills I am so keen on keeping sharp were always a joy. Whenever I'm arguing with friends about politics or about the fairness of my play-style in a video game or about the new item at McDonalds in the future, I'll think back on my times shutting down my opponents in my high school debates. 

S456 ARCHIVES: Debate - Personal Review and Kainz Interview

~~ the following is a piece I did for the 2013-14 school year of "The Ram Pride," Ringgold High School's school newspaper ~~

Back on April 29th, I participated in Ringgold’s Fall Debate on the topic of Marijuana Legalization. The proposition was “Marijuana should be legalized in Pennsylvania,” and I was on the affirmative side of that proposition alongside team-members Adam Martin (11), Marissa Miller (11), and Sam Allman (11). In the preliminary rounds (which we didn’t end up getting past), we faced a negative team of Sam Kainz (12), Cassie Lignelli (11), Conner Dudas (11), and Nathaniel Patton (11). I did… um… I did well. I honestly don’t feel comfortable labeling my performance any more specifically than that. After the debate, I not only received the award for the most worthy adversary from the team we faced, but I received myriad compliments from my peers. But personally, that whole day, I felt rather badly about my performance.

I was what’s called a “constructive speaker” for my team, which entails giving a three-minute, pre-written speech building up the position of your team, a two-minute cross-examination of one of your opposing constructive speakers, and handling a two-minute cross-examination from one of your opponents. My speech was well-written, working up a logical and emotionally-invigorating case for getting the Man off of citizens’ pot. When I sparred against one of my opponents in my cross-examination, I think I did a pretty good job of pointing out a bit of a fallacy in a statistic the other team brought up. But when I was cross-examined by an opponent, which was the first cross-examination of the debate, I fumbled over my words, didn’t have much to add on some talking points, and overall allowed the opposition to poke holes in our team’s argument.

Now, that’s two out of three successes, and if I look at the situation more objectively than I’ve been willing to allow myself, it’s easy to see that I didn’t exactly tank when I was cross-examined. But, well, you see, I have pretty specific skills, I think, so I take pride in them and hold myself to a high standard for those skills. I’m inclined to do well with English-type things: I think I write well, speak well, think analytically well, understand grammar well, etc. My weakness, while not crippling, was glaring, so I felt a bit, well, awful, afterwards.

I do admire the team that I faced, which went on from their victory against my team (from both the judges and audience) to an overall victory in the championship. One of the reasons I admire them is that – if I understand correctly, which I’m nearly certain I do – everybody on that team is actually in favor of legalizing marijuana. In a broad sense, they don’t really support the case that they were making, but they still defeated all opposition. I hunted down Sam Kainz, the oldest and perhaps best of the team, for an interview.

“So how does it feel to be on the winning debate team?” I asked. “Good I suppose,” he replied. “Are you proud of your team?” I asked. “Yeah,” he replied.

Before this debate, Sam said that he participated in “every single debate,” besides “only miss[ing] one or two.” He’s also been involved in things like Youth and Government: The take-away is that he has involved himself in quite a bit of public speaking. According to Sam, his team’s biggest weaknesses were clinging too hard to certain points and an “extreme apathy” from their team as a whole, which is amusing coming from the championship-winning team.

In RHS, the general consensus seems to be overwhelmingly that marijuana should indeed be legalized and regulated like alcohol, which is why I thought it would have been smarter to do a topic like, say, the assault rifle ban, which seems more split. I asked Sam about this and he said that he feels the topic of marijuana legalization was “long overdue,” and he seemed positive about the decision to choose that topic. Sam “absolutely” supports the legalization of marijuana outside of the debate, but said he found debating a position he disagrees with to be “enlightening” and “easier.” In defiance of his team’s arguments, he believes that legalizing marijuana would indeed bring money in rather than lose it, and that “marijuana being addictive is a bit of a reach.” He does say, however, that marijuana “would be made less safe if legalized,” citing the increased unhealthiness of legal cigarettes over the years.

The most important thing to take away from my interview with Sam is that Matt Petras was “absolutely” the most valuable opponent he faced in all of the marijuana debating he participated in.

See, Matt, you didn’t do so poorly…  

Next year Sam will be out of high school pursuing education at the “only school he wanted to go to”: The prestigious and “extremely difficult to get into” West Point. Next year I’ll be preparing for the next debate, and probably also reading comic books and writing for this paper as per usual.

Oh, and also, Sam found it important to note that “The goal is always to crush your opponent.” And that his friend Jessie Pry was a “great scorekeeper.” 

S456 ARCHIVES: Troubles with Wages in America

~~ the following is a piece I did for the 2013-14 school year of "The Ram Pride," Ringgold High School's school newspaper ~~

Since 2009, the federal minimum wage has remained at $7.25 an hour, despite increasing once both years before. Many believe that minimum wage should increase, while others think that it would be bad for the economy. Some states, like California, have already raised their minimum wage, but the state of Pennsylvania has kept it at $7.25. Exactly how much to raise the federal minimum wage, and by when, is a point of contention amongst supporters. Remarks from the president during the last state of the union address prompted discussion on raising minimum wage nationwide, even though little progress is being made for supporters. 

Back in February of this year, Barack Obama said in the State of the Union Address that he would like to see federal minimum wage increase to $9 an hour, and then automatically increase after that with inflation. According to “Inequality.org,” the minimum wage “[a]djusted for inflation using the BLS online inflation calculator… would come to $10.55 per hour in 2012 dollars.” Obama is either compromising, or attempting to avoid bad economic implications for such a large increase. In his speech, President Obama points out that “a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line.” What’s frustrating for proponents of this increase is that, as Annie Lowry from The New York Times writes, “the proposal would see the federal floor on hourly wages reach $9 in stages by the end of 2015.” That is a long time from now.

Recently, though, strikes that originated in New York from November have flooded the entire country. The Thursday before Labor Day, “workers at McDonald's and other fast-food chains conducted strikes and walkouts in nearly 60 cities,” according to USA Today. These protests aren’t specifically asking for a minimum wage increase, just a standard wage increase, but to $15. Still, these strikes express a large disappointment over wages for workers towards the bottom. Additionally, America as a whole supports a minimum wage increase to $9.00, with, according to a February poll from Pew, 71% in favor and 26% opposed.

I talked to Mr. Manko, Ringgold’s Advanced Economics Teacher, to get a grounded perspective on the matter. When I asked him whether or not there would be an extreme reaction from businesses to a minimum wage increase, he said changes would “happen gradually.” At the end of the day, he says businesses won’t let wage increases eat away profits, although “some may” just eat the costs. He did cite some chains like Sheetz that pay their workers above the minimum wage, and explained that offering good wages is an effective way of enticing people to work for you. When I asked whether or not Pennsylvania raising minimum wage independent of the rest of the country would have differing results from a federal increase, he said “you’d see an increase in cost of living,” citing other states that saw increased costs of living with a minimum wage increase. I challenged him by saying that it may have been the cost of living that prompted a minimum wage increase instead, and he conceded that it is a tough “chicken before the egg” problem. He did note that there are more to the equation than wages for workers, saying that benefits like healthcare and vacations are important.

Perhaps most importantly, I asked why the heck we haven’t seen an increase in minimum wage in around three years. His response: “Politicians are scared” of upsetting corporations. 

S456 ARCHIVES: Obama's Tyrannical Gun Control

~~ the following is a piece I did for the 2012-13 school year of "The Ram Pride," Ringgold High School's school newspaper ~~

Barrack Obama is rolling out new gun legislation. What's odd is that the new legislation does not seem to be a reaction to the disaster at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in which a madman wielding an assault rifle gunned down twenty children and six adults. No, this new wave of gun law proposals focuses on a five-year-old girl in Pennsylvania, who said, according to CNN, "I'll shoot you, you shoot me, and we'll all play together." It is reported that she was referring to a Hello Kitty bubble gun.

Barrack Obama is pushing a ban on military-style bubble guns, assuring Americans that concealed bubble guns for home defense and bubble guns intended for hunting will remain perfectly legal. Barrack Obama is also pushing for a maximum of four fluid ounces for containers of bubble soap.

There is outrage from both the left and the right. Piers Morgan is outraged at this new legislation, claiming that what the president should be focusing on is restrictions on what Morgan calls "actual guns." The National Rifle Association is outraged, but from a different perspective. The NRA believes that the president is infringing upon American children's second amendment rights to defend against robbers on the playground.

Barrack Obama has said that he understands many American's desire for a ban on assault rifles and large clips, but has said that the country needs to focus on the "true issue" first. The President has said that he has spoken with eye doctor Richard Starr about the negative effects of bubble soap in children's eyes. Starr says that bubble soap coming in direct contact with children's eyes halts the development of their vision. Barrack Obama says that taking away the bubble guns will force bullies on the playground to use finger guns instead, which the President claims are "much less damaging." When asked about a ban on finger guns, the President fears that removing children's fingers will decrease overall proficiency in handwriting.

Americans are overwhelmingly against the President on this issue. In response, the President said "My propositions have a higher approval rating than congress, which is probably pretty good, right?"

-only the first quote from CNN is real; the contents of this article are fictional and satirical-

S456 ARCHIVES: Obama Needs to Step It Up

~~ the following is a piece I did for the 2012-13 year of "The Ram Pride," Ringgold High School's school newspaper ~~

The economy took a massive turn for the worst under Bush, and that same president's warmongering in the Middle East fired up the anti-war crowd the most since the Vietnam War. America as a whole seemed very displeased with their leader, so when Democrat Barrack Obama was elected president back in 2008, it was a very exciting time for many disappointed Americans. It was an especially exciting time for progressive Americans, as Barrack Obama presented himself as a candidate that would lessen war, provide left-leaning economics, and stand for social progress.

Well, how did he do? For both America as a whole and progressives?

Well, he "came out of the closet" as the first president in United States history to formally support Gay Marriage, and repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell. He didn't do anything against women's right to choose, and he didn't do anything against Planned Parenthood. He did bring the troops home from Iraq, but it sure did take awhile, and we are still in Afghanistan. He and his Justice Department have hit hard on Medicinal Marijuana clinics, and the next four years under Obama do not look particularly bright for full-legalization of weed in states that desire to do so. He has been very weak on taxes, even though his spending has been no holds bars. The Affordable Care Act is certainly a step in the right direction, but there's certainly a long road ahead if we plan to seriously compete with other countries in regards to healthcare.

He's done an immensely "okay" job so far. In his second term, he needs to step it up, and hopefully he'll be more willing to do riskier things without the fear of not being reelected hanging over his head. I'm not very educated on foreign policy and our situation in the Middle East, so I'm not going to pretend that I am, but I do know that Obama and congress needs to get that all resolved as soon and as nonviolently as they can. And I do know that sounder economics and a rational and modern approach to marijuana legislation are the two things he needs to focus on the most.

If Barrack Obama needs to do a lot of spending for his agenda, so be it, but he has to raise taxes to compensate. Some very rich Americans manage to pay a very low tax rate, and Obama seems to know and care about that, but we can't be sure if he's going to actually follow up on his principals. And America can definitely do for some big cuts to spending - our bloated Defense budget that out-spends China 6-1 comes to mind immediately. In the debates Obama was very firmly against Mitt Romney's position to actually raise military spending, but it doesn't seem like our president is proactive about making significant cuts to Defense.

Marijuana Legalization is an issue of civil liberty and freedom, but it's also something that can help the economy of states that wish to legalize it. Money will not be spent putting people in jail for nonviolent weed offenses, and states will actually see revenue by taxing transactions that are already happening anyway. Heck, if Obama and Congress got together and ended prohibition of cannabis on a Federal level, telling each state that they cannot stop the sale, usage and ownership of marijuana by adults, and allowed states to handle regulation and taxation, that would be fantastic. Probably won't happen, though.

Like many liberals, I want to like Obama more than I actually do. He does a very good job of extrapolating a very progressive, inspiring view of the world and government in his speeches, but he doesn't do that great of a job when actually carrying out his rhetoric. Loads of money we don't have is being spent, and our taxes are pathetically low. Obama's Justice Department seriously believes that medicinal  marijuana is a threat to society that requires throwing harmless people behind bars. America should be even more skeptical of President Barrack Obama in his second term, and part of me is optimistic, but I'd be surprised if the next four years aren't anything but another shade of okay. 

S456 ARCHIVES: The 2012 Presidential Election - An Overview

~~ the following is a piece I did for the 2012-13 year of "The Ram Pride," Ringgold High School's school newspaper ~~

The 2012 presidential election is quickly approaching, and the question on everybody’s mind is simple: Who should we vote for? Should President Barrack Obama be reelected, should the Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney get the job, or should we throw our votes at someone else like Gary Johnson, Ron Paul or Rocky Anderson? Let’s take a closer look at these gentlemen.

***

Barrack Obama is the current president of the United States. Barack Obama is our first president to officially back Gay Marriage. On abortion, he is adamant in securing a woman’s right to choose with his pro-choice position. Obama’s health care plan is very controversial, especially with the insurance mandate which came along with the Affordable Care Act. On taxes, Obama believes in the rich paying more than they currently do and the middle class paying less, respectively. Obama had Osama Bin Laden killed and brought the troops home from Iraq, which is a part of his fight against Al Qaeda. The national debt has increased by approximately five trillion dollars since Obama took office. His VP choice – and current Vice President, of course – is Joe Biden.

Official Website: http://www.barackobama.com/

***

Mitt Romney is the official Republican nominee running against Obama. Mitt Romney believes strongly in “traditional marriage.” On a federal level, Romney wants Gay Marriage to be outlawed. On abortion, he believes in overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortion a state’s rights issues. He is personally pro-life and is against any federal funding towards abortion. When it comes to health care, Mitt wants Obama’s health care smacked down on a federal level in exchange for policies that, as his official website reads, “give each state the power to craft a health care reform plan that is best for its own citizens.” He wants the federal government’s only roll in health care to be helping to secure a “level playing field for competition,” his website also reads. Romney wants more money going to National Defense. Mitt believes in tax rates much more similar across the board than what Obama wants. He is running with his VP pick Paul Ryan.

Offical Website: http://www.mittromney.com/

***

When it comes to third-parties, Gary Johnson is probably the most well-known. Gary Johnson is a Libertarian with the basic belief structure built around limited government and liberty. He believes in non-interventionalism, meaning he only thinks that military actions should be taken when absolutely necessary. When it comes to the economy, he wants spending to be cute and taxes to be cut. He thinks that removing Obama’s proposed insurance mandate and focusing on competition is the solution to America’s health care problem. He is in favor of ending America’s strong efforts to incriminate drug users and wants marijuana prohibition to cease. He is very similar to Congressman Ron Paul, who is more popular but has ended his campaign.

Official Website: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/front

***

Though not as popular as Gary Johnson, at least from my observations, Rocky Anderson is another third party gaining traction. On health care, Rocky takes a more far-left approach to health care, standing for the single-payer approach that Canada takes, or at least something similar. Rocky Anderson wants Minimum Wage to be raised to “no less than $10.00 an hour,” as to help fight disparity amongst the economic branches. Anderson wants America to end its financial and diplomatic support for Israel. Anderson is against the death penalty and thinks that life sentences bereft of parole may be a better option. Rocky is firmly against Guantanamo Bay, wanting it shut down, and for fair trials for terrorists to fill the void. He is a part of the Justice Party.

Official Website: http://www.voterocky.org/

***

I asked around and students of Ringgold High School certainly have things to say. I do not have enough data to give an approximation of where Ringgold stands as a whole, but I can give you some individuals’ opinions.

Students like Sam Allman (11^th) and Jonathan Layton (11^th) support Barrack Obama. Liz Gearhart (12^th) and Aaron Turkovich (11^th) are willing to throw their hats in the ring with Mitt Romney, even though only the former is of age to actually vote. Nate Petrosky (11^th) supports Gary Johnson, while Alex Ferguson (10^th) sticks with his support for Ron Paul. Yet still, students like Eric Rosenburg (10^th) don’t particularly care, and students like Alex Stumpf (11^th) don’t really like anyone.

As for me? Well, before I wrote this I half-heartedly was rooting for Obama, but after writing this, I have to say, I’m quite smitten by Rocky Anderson. 

S456 ARCHIVES: Mitt Romney has Already Lost

~~ the following is a piece I did for the 2012-13 school year of "The Ram Pride," Ringgold High School's school newspaper ~~

For whatever reason, the loud and proud Herman Cain, the liberty-loving Ron Paul, the "Strong" Rick Perry, the Chick Fil-A chomping Rick Santorum and the feminine Michelle Bachman did not clinch the Republican nomination. None other than Mitt Romney claimed the spot in the ring against Barrack Obama. If you ask me, I would say that he got the nomination because he was perceived as the least controversial and therefor the safest bet to getting Obama out of office. But, now that he has had some time in the limelight as the Republican pick, and now that the Republican and Democratic National Conventions have ended, it's apparent that Romney is not doing the job that so many conservative Americans want him to do. It seems like he does a new dumb thing every day, I can't imagine he's very appealing to minorities and moderates, and the RNC and DNC made the Democrats look a whole lot better than the Republicans. Mitt Romney has already lost the 2012 Presidential Election.

Romney and his VP pick Paul Ryan say that they're going to remove certain tax loopholes as an alternative to President Obama's proposal of taxing the rich more, but when asked which bracket will receive these tax cuts, Romney and Ryan didn't have any answers and Mitt took the opportunity to make Democrats out to be bullies for pressing him. Another day Romney made it a point to say that airplane windows really need to open, and that it's, as Huffington Post reports, "very dangerous," that they don't, making Americans collectively giggle and sigh a depressing sigh. He may have been kidding, but this flub, no matter how much of his words he meant, hit the internet hard and made him look less than intelligent. The Stranger reports that, when asked, "Is $100,000 middle income?" Mitt said, “No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less." Now, 250,000 is the maximum amount to be considered middle class under our current president's tax plan, as the same source points out, but Romney shooting down the questioner's "$100,000" to say "$200,000 to 250,000" is misleading when, to quote this same source again, directly, "median household income in this country is $50,000." Romney just keeps saying things that makes the general public view him as an out of touch aristocrat that doesn't care about them.

Besides white, heterosexual, rich men, who is really going to connect with Mitt Romney? Are the gays, who he wants to make sure can't marry on a federal level, going to be slapping ROMNEY/RYAN bumper stickers on their car? Will all of the Americans that make critically-acclaimed films like Milk so successful be okay with this stamp on LGBT rights? I say no to both. Similarly, I can't imagine enough of those who don't place themselves clearly on the left or right of the political spectrum would throw their vote at Romney instead of Obama or even a third party. Romney may catch their eye when he promises to be more fiscally responsible than Obama, but they'll probably be quite turned off when they hear him go on about how he wants federal protection of abortion to cease, and when they hear him talk about his opposition to contemporary demands of the gays and when they hear him say that he will smack down all of Obama's progress on healthcare. Who exactly does Romney speak to that's going to net him a place in the White House? He's not even likable compared to his opponent, as a Gallup poll reveals.

The Republican National Convention did a good job of making their party, and Romney along with it, look oh-so-very silly. At the RNC, Clint Eastwood, speaking very poorly, might I add, reprimanded an invisible Obama like a painfully annoying Jeff Dunham (or more painfully annoying, depending on your opinion of Mr. Dunham) talking to a puppet. Also at the RNC, the room was filled with applause and shouts of glee as they shouted "We built it!," a response to a version of Obama that is socialist and doesn't value an individual's hard work; such a man Obama clearly is not. At the DNC, we see a beautiful, glorious, inspiring, hour-long speech from Bill Clinton that really makes Obama out to be quite the promising candidate and makes the Republican plan out to be foolish. And he does so with facts. And logic. And rhetoric that's not misleading. Not with invisible politicians and aggrandized slogans that aren't even rooted in reality.

I can't see Romney winning this. The polls agree, the latest from the Huffington Post [as of 8:00 PM, September 30th, 2012] placing Obama at 48.8% vs. Romney's 44.4%. Unsavory sentiments fall out of his mouth like snots from a child's sick nose. His backwards-approach to social issues is hardly going to help him get moderates and minorities on his side. His party looks bad, as the RNC and DNC exemplified. I don't think that it is too early to say that Mitt Romney has already lost the 2012 presidential election.

***

Tell me why my opinions aren't quite good in the comments below.

***

Sources:

"Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan Can't Say Which Tax Loopholes They'd Plug (VIDEO)": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/09/mitt-romney-paul-ryan-tax-loopholes_n_1868444.html

"UPDATE: Mitt Romney Wonders Why Ann Romney's Airplane Windows Don't Roll Down": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/24/mitt-romney-airplane-windows_n_1910930.html?utm_hp_ref=travel

"Romney Stresses Opposition to Marriage Equality in South Carolina": http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/01/17/405115/romney-stresses-opposition-to-marriage-equality-in-south-carolina/?mobile=wp

"Poll: Americans pick Obama over Romney on likability, but Romney wins on economy": http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/245243-poll-americans-pick-obama-over-romney-on-likability-but-romney-wins-on-economy

"Mitt Romney Thinks America's 'Middle Income' Is $200,000 to $250,000": http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/09/14/mitt-romney-thinks-americas-middle-income-is-200000-to-250000&view=comments

"Clint Eastwood speaks to an invisible Obama: Twitter mocks 'gran turdito'": http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/us-news-blog/2012/aug/31/clint-eastwood-invisible-chair-twitter

"‘We Built It’ Resounds at RNC’s First Night": http://frontpagemag.com/2012/joe-kaufman/we-built-it-resounds-at-rncs-first-night/

"2012 General Election: Romney vs. Obama": http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-general-election-romney-vs-obama

"Transcript of Bill Clinton's speech at the DNC": http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/05/transcript-bill-clinton-speech-at-dnc/

"Values" [Romney's official position on abortion is detailed on his official website here]: http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values

"Healthcare" [Romney's official position on healthcare is detailed on his official website here]: http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care

A Perspective on the Morgan/Mock Debacle

I really do like Piers Morgan. I think he can be prudish, dismissive, and embarrassingly ill-tempered, but I really do like Piers Morgan. He seems like a well-intentioned, passionate, and generally kind person. I especially admire his strong passion for gun control advocacy, even though I have issues with some of his approach on that issue.

Whenever I saw this tweet, I was puzzled:

What did I miss? I thought. Don't tell me he's transphobic...

And then I saw this tweet:

Oh boy. Is he joking or is this for real? What the heck happened?

Eventually, I got myself educated on this controversy Morgan had stumbled into. Janet Mock, a trans woman and trans rights advocate, was recently on his CNN show to discuss her new book Redefining Realness: My Path to Womanhood, Identity, Love & So Much More. His interview was very supportive of her and her cause, and the two had a friendly discourse about mostly her growth to her current state as a fully-transitioned woman.

It turns out, this exchange of their's caused some controversy; most notably from Mock herself in these tweets:

After the drama on Twitter, Mock was invited back on the show by a disgruntled and slightly vindictive Piers Morgan:

"I'll deal with you." Yeesh.

You can watch the videos here and here to catch up for yourself if you are not already caught up.

Overall, I'm very disappointed by Piers Morgan. My central problem with how he handled himself is that he did so very much in a fashion that showed much more concern for saving face than actually caring for the struggles of the trans community. He brought up his support of the gay community, as if that somehow gives him a pass on offending a different group of people. He brought up an old article in which she seemingly labels and characterizes herself just as he did, when in actuality, that article wasn't something she was responsible for, as she wrote about at the very beginning of her book, according to her.

It seems very obvious to me that he made a mistake when describing her life, and is too obsessed with maintaining his righteous self-image to admit to his mistake. He's missing the distinction between gender, something very nuanced, and sex. It's not appropriate to call her "formally a man" and "born a boy" because ever since she was able to fathom such a thing, she didn't identify as a boy, despite her sex and assigned gender.

She also makes the point that focusing on her transition in relation to her very committed relationship with her boyfriend "sensationalizes" her life history in a way that cheapens the struggles of the trans community. While I don't blame Piers for spending a lot of time on this, because it is very interesting and new to so many people, I certainly get her point. Framing this as her being a "former man" certainly takes that discussion to a bad place, and there are a lot of meatier, larger issues that could have been discussed. For example, check out these statistics in this screen cap from a "Pantheos" article:

Piers Morgan's main critique of Mock seemed to be that she did not call him out and correct him for his apparent mistake, to which she replied that sure, she probably should have, but that she didn't because she was afraid. I think this fear is obviously understandable. If this fear wasn't understandable, the argument between the two over Morgan's [mis]representation of trans people wouldn't have happened.

Janet Mock came off as a coolly intelligent and warm woman. She didn't handle the situation absolutely perfectly, but her failings were not only understandable, she also personally admitted them. 

With all of that being said, one of the main reasons I found this controversy so fascinating was that I really identified and sympathized with Piers on an emotional level. I identified and sympathized with him not because I feel I would have also misrepresented trans people in an offensive manor (although, to be clear, I would be open to the possibility of this article showing some kind of ignorance on my part), but generally because I could picture myself putting my foot in my mouth in a similar way. 

I sometimes say things that are ignorant, or offensive, and my ignorance/offensiveness should be apparent to me. But it isn't, because of a kind of worried attempt on my part to make myself seem morally and intellectually righteous at all times. It can be tough to admit you screwed up.

I really think I know the mental process he went through when the controversy started on twitter. The rapid dash for sources and arguments backing up his claim that were attractive for simply confirming his opinion rather than for their credibility, as her counter-argument in the second interview showed; the bringing up of other, clear moments of moral/intellectual righteousness, that really aren't relevant but absolutely are to him, in his deluded state of mind; etc. He just knew he was in the right, because he just knows he's a good, smart guy. 

I get it. I feel bad for him. He made an unfortunate, offensive mistake in discussing a complex issue. While labeling him transphobic may be a stretch, he's in the wrong here, folks. I only wish that he quits being bullheaded and admits that he goofed.