Monday, December 2, 2013

TIME Magazine's Person of The Year Vote Is Really Troubling Me

   Y'all, I have a true problem with this. To me, this is disturbing; extremely. It's that time of year when TIME Magazine scouts out their person of the year, and the top two choices are Rand Paul and Wendy Davis. I'll go into what both of them did later. But I wanna analyze something first.

   The link to this was posted to a tumblr page, and someone thought that Davis should truly be winning this (feminist I think), so they had this signal boosted to their followers, and what used to be 67-33 Paul, it turns to this (see pic). Well one, this is the power of social media, but the question is, do they really know who did what?

   What Paul Did: Rand Paul, son of former Rep. Ron Paul, got up on the Senate floor, and did something truly brave. Without warning, he started a filibuster, demanding something simple: an answer from the government whether it allowed people in the US to be killed by drone strikes. It was a simple request that should have easily been answered. But it wasn't...  It was hours before he finally got an answer early in the morning. But it highlighted something: here was a guy standing up for the Constitution, wanting to protect people domestically and in foreign countries from being blown to bits by government drones.

   What Davis Did: The Texas legislature was moving to vote on new abortion industry regulations. The regulations were somewhat simple, making the clinics have a hospital they would have access to, and other things. It seemed to be pro-safety (I thought Dems were all for safe things), but the Dem Senator in Texas just didn't like it. So, with help from other Senators and pro-choice groups, she filibustered in the Texas Senate. People flooded the Capital, demanding the bill be defeated. There was violence. Twitter flourished with new users complaining about it all. Hangers and signs were waved. The bill was passed. Then she came out and said she was pro-life later.

   There's a difference between the two: one wishes to protect life, the other is okay with killing it. Paul is deserving of some recognition from people. But no, let's just back the women in favour of killing unborn kids. It seems fitting though, because other famous recipients would be Hitler and Stalin. I don't really give a damn who truly get's it, but really figure out who did what, and other stuff about them before you vote for them.