I probably don’t need to recap, but just in case you hadn’t heard for some reason, audio recordings of NBA Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling going on a racist tangent leaked in late April. The league took near-immediate action, placing an indefinite, broad-reaching ban on Sterling from NBA-affiliated activities, in addition to a 2.5 million-dollar fine. League Commissioner Adam Silver declared he’d insist that the Board of Governors force a sale of the Clippers. The general public was appalled by Sterling’s statements, but then, a funny thing happened on the way to the game. The media had a peculiar fascination with V. Stiviano, the woman in which Sterling was having his salacious conversation with. He was chastising her for making it apparent that she associates with black people by taking pictures with sports legend Magic Johnson (she herself is black and Mexican). Just as surprising as Sterling’s remarks was Stiviano’s fairly composed-and almost apologetic-tone on the tape. I personally was taken aback by this and found it sad and self-disrespecting that a person of color would surround themselves with someone so racist for any reason, but that wasn’t the primary reaction to her demeanor by the press, nor was there sympathy or concern that Sterling may be verbally abusing or controlling someone in his circle. The interpretation of her composure was instead that she was the one who leaked the tape. I never wondered who released the recording or why, because, who cared? The bigotry of a person in power in an organization full of African-Americans was exposed. Shouldn’t we be applauding the individual(s) who let the proverbial cat out of the bag (or at least be glad that they did it)? Apparently not.

Without any confirmation that Stiviano was behind the tape’s disclosure (not that it actually mattered), she was stalked by the paparazzi and vilified. Dug-up information on her background revealed that she had plastic surgery, a criminal record (which included arrests for petty theft and driving under the influence), several aliases and that Sterling’s wife, Rochelle, was suing Stiviano for the return of property and expensive vehicles purchased for her by Donald. The court documents also detailed that Rochelle was accusing her of being a seducer of wealthy older men (there is almost a 50-year age difference between Stiviano and Donald). From this it was deduced that Stiviano was a scorned snake of a mistress who sought out to record Sterling and sell the damning audio for a quick buck and maybe 15 minutes of fame. Even if this assumption is true to any or all extent, again, who cares? Does it change the fact that Sterling made those comments and is a bigot? I saw one news panel where the entire broadcast of the story was just about Stiviano and the hosts angrily theorized about her “motives.” Aren’t we mad at the racist or nah? Isn’t he the true villain here?

Stiviano began to take interviews and tell her side of the story. One would think the primary questions would be to establish if Sterling had a pattern of discrimination and hate speech, the details of the conversation in mind and what Stiviano may have endured while around him, but it was all about the nature of her relationship with the embattled team-owner. A relationship that, despite Sterling frequently appearing with her at events and games, no one examined, detected or inquired about. No one seemed to notice or care that he possibly had a mistress before. In one of the more disgusting and poor instances of journalism I’ve ever seen, “Entertainment Tonight” correspondent Brooke Anderson repeatedly asked Stiviano if she had sexual relations with Sterling (episode airing on 5/21/14), making sarcastic facial expressions, comments and groans each time Stiviano denied, even saying she didn’t believe Stiviano. When Stiviano became (understandably) perturbed, Anderson accused her of being “combative” and “defensive.” Afterwards, while at the ET panel table, Anderson and the other hosts dissected paparazzi footage of Stiviano, labeling her as attention-seeking for wearing a visor to cover her face from cameras and flaunting herself when she wasn’t wearing head gear. When she asserts herself under Anderson’s berating and aggressive interviewing, she’s “combative,” but her polite greeting and compliments pre-interview were to “butter [Anderson] up.” I directly tweeted Anderson: “How dare you call V. combative when you berated her and continued to repeat questions because you didn’t get the answer you wanted. I thought interviews were to get a person’s perspective, not convince a journalist of their truth.”

Somehow, it’s been more important to discern whether or not V. Stiviano is a “slut” that outed a man for gain, versus the bigger story from whence she came. We claim that Sterling’s mindset is deplorable, yet, we’ve sought to punish and scrutinize the person we believe to have brought it to light. A sin is a sin and a wrong is a wrong, but the media’s irrelevant and unbalanced focus on Stiviano would imply that possibly being a mistress and possibly outing a man is worse than being a racist. Why is this happening? It’s because of sexism. 1) Regardless of gender, infidelity is frowned upon. However, because promiscuity is a more acceptable and expected behavior for men than women, “the other woman” or a woman who cheats is often more heavily ostracized (and for a longer period) than a male in the same position. Indicia of this is how the masculine forms of the word “mistress” (ex. lover, paramour, kept man) are either lesser-known or don’t withhold the same level of insult. Furthermore, there are multiple slurs to call promiscuous women (ex. slut, skank, whore, hoe, tramp, etc.), but hardly any for men. In effect, these words are so closely tied to women, that “man” is used as a pre-fix to apply it to a male (ex. man-whore). 2) Women who challenge or disrupt the gender-hierarchy of control (women are to be in a subordinate role when amongst men) are generally viewed as an enemy of values and/or men. Stiviano recording an incriminating conversation that ultimately took a man out of his station of power makes her deserving of retribution.

Even after giving a far from humble and remorseful interview with Anderson Cooper, Donald Sterling will likely spend the last of his years rather comfortable and manage to get back into business-life. Meanwhile, V. Stiviano will probably struggle to evade her now destroyed image for at least a decade because of a sexist witch-hunt to shield a xenophobe. Sexism at its best. 

“I don't want normal, and easy, and simple. I want…I want painful, difficult, devastating, life-changing, extraordinary love. Don't you want that too?”

Fans of the ABC political drama, Scandal, seemed to collectively swoon and re-quote on Twitter when lead character Olivia Pope (Kerry Washington) delivered that line, breaking up with her current boyfriend to continue her convoluted, adulterous affair with President Fitzgerald Grant III (Tony Goldwyn). I shook my head and thought, “I’m going to make a blog post out of this one day,” and here we are. So many people, including myself, to a degree, have fallen into that trap of believing that it isn’t “real love” unless it drives you nearly insane. People figure that if any one person can drive and control their feelings so easily or make them want to “risk it all,” they must be their soul-mate, but the passionate arguments and extreme emotional highs and lows (often accentuated by satisfying, lustful sex) are just a smoke screen that could damage your being and keep you from experiencing a healthier (and equally sexy) relationship.

There are many reasons why a toxic relationship is like a hard-to-kick habit for some, but a main cause is that the adrenaline that comes with it is addictive; it’s like romantic Red Bull. It is sheer energy, having intense love and hate for someone and having to fight every second for you and your love to survive. Like a burn or a bungee jump, it makes people feel and know they’re alive. The drama is stressful, but it keeps life from being monotonous, and for those struggling with emptiness, it can give a sense of purpose or something to focus on. No matter how strenuous or breaking, test after test and trauma after trauma are tolerated because it’s thrilling to see if you’ll come out on the other side; people get swept off of their feet at the idea of “overcoming all odds.” Chasing this is part of the reason why people take up with “bad boys,” “bad girls” or “wounded puppies;” they come with conflict or a challenge.

There are so many other psychological and emotional stimulants that keep people attached to their James Dean or Amy Winehouse. Some do it simply because they’re bored or like the rebellion of it all; they get off on doing something people advise against, find gossip-worthy or consider “unusual for them.” For others, it’s an (sometimes subconscious) exercise in stroking and rewarding their own ego. When you’re dating a troubled person, you feel needed, useful. You feel special because you get the impression that you’re the exception to their rule; you’re the only person that can “get through” to them and they’re different around you. You pat yourself on the back if they appear to be making “progress” or “cleaning up.” You love it when they (or others) tell you how “good” you are for them. You gradually build this savior complex and think that the universe, God, destiny or some omnipotent, powerful force put you in this person’s life and chose you to be the one to help patch them up. When A) the toxicity reaches all time high, B) the codependence gets to be too much, and/or C) wisdom kicks in and you realize you can’t fix anyone or make them whole (their wounds are bigger than you; their growth and healing starts from within), you decide you want to leave, but you don’t because you now have consequential savior guilt. You don’t want to be another person that left or abandoned them. Maybe you’re worried they won’t handle the breakup well and will delve further into the abyss. In the unhealthiest of dynamics, a person will guilt you for trying to leave or they will  go to extremes, like harming themselves or faking a pregnancy, to make you stay.

“Is this just a silly game…forces you to scream my name, then pretend that you can't stay…when I try to walk away, you'd hurt yourself to make me stay, this is crazy…this is crazy…”--Lauryn Hill (Ex-Factor)

If your savior complex goes uninterrupted by guilt, you’re likely suffering from “potential-itis.” So many people haven’t said “adios” because they’re concentrating on what could be instead of what is. Getting or staying with someone because of their potential is unwise because there are no guarantees you’ll get what you’re hoping for and get a return on your time and emotional and physical investment. It could end up going well, by why play Russian roulette with your heart and happiness instead of choosing someone with better odds?

“Potential-itis” is a sub-symptom of another condition I like to call “I’m Not Going” Syndrome. “And I Am Telling You, I’m Not Going” is a song from the Broadway play and film adaptation Dreamgirls, where the character Effie demands “you’re going to love me” to her already-gone boyfriend, Curtis, and insists they’re experiencing just a rough patch and not a conclusion. Curtis was far done with the relationship, but Effie was taking her precious time seeing it…alone. ING Syndrome tends to occur when a union has gone well for a period (even if it’s brief) and starts to go south. “Potential-itis” is high in this scenario because you’ve seen great days with your mate. It wasn’t always this way, so you’re convinced the turbulence is an isolated situation, but there were red flags you ignored or a pattern forming that you know in your gut isn’t going away soon. You’ve turned off of “Honeymoon Avenue” (good Ariana Grande song), down “Point of No Return” road. Like Effie, you think if your mate “would just act right,” or if you could cut out all the crap and external issues (like the craziness or instability going on in your lover’s life), your romance could be great, but the circumstances are now beyond your control. You only have power over yourself; you can’t make anyone think, feel, say or do anything and you can only manipulate your environment so much. If your partner isn’t actively making changes or cooperating with you to improve the atmosphere, *Mariah Carey voice* it’s probably a wrap. 

“In another place or another time, we would’ve been beautiful, but we weren’t in another place or another time. In the here and now, we were disastrous for and to each other, even though we had a special and strong connection. I had to accept the writing on the wall. I didn’t have the power to make another place and time. There would be nothing left of me now if I continued to deny that truth.”--A friend of mine said of their experience with “crazy love” 

I've always had long, thick hair. As far as I can remember, washing and styling my hair was a time-consuming task for my mother and painful for my tender scalp. I dreaded the process of getting my hair washed and, when I got older, pressed. I also hated having the endless array of greases, oils, sprays, gels and other products weigh down and gunk up my tresses to achieve the simplest of looks. 

When I turned 14, I got my first chemical relaxer (for those who don't know, it's a product to straighten hair). Although I had to get a touch-up every 6-8 weeks, it seemed to make my hair life simpler. I could pretty much do what I wanted, when I wanted with my hair from day to day. I’m generally a low-maintenance type of girl, so relaxers fit my "comb it and go" life. Within the last year or so, I've had issues with extremely dry scalp, dandruff and breakage. It became uncomfortable to have relaxer crème anywhere near my scalp: tense burning sensations, scabbing, soreness. It was time to explore other options. 

I decided to join the ever-growing legion of African-American women "going natural" (either wearing their natural texture or straightening their hair without chemicals). I started my "natural" life continuing to have my hair straightened; this time, my stylist was using just a flat iron and humidity blocker product (humidity and moisture can cause frizz; with a relaxer, reversion isn't much of a problem). Given it was summer and my home AC was broken, keeping the frizz away became nearly impossible. A week after visiting the salon, most of my hair was straight, but my roots and nape were frizzy and hard to comb through. As I began to ask around for tips on how to remain as laid as I was with a relaxer, I learned my choice to be relaxer-less was apparently a socio-political one. Before giving me any real suggestions and answering my inquiry, some friends went on tangents about how I needed to accept what "God gave me" and stop "fearing" the texture I was born with, insisting that I wear my hair curly and implying there was no way to keep my hair straight (not true). One friend went so far as to say I had a self-hatred problem because I liked my hair straight. You see, to give context for their remarks, black Americans have an ugly history with hair and beauty measures. 

As critical commentary from within the black community regarding the demeanor, speech and physical appearance of Rachel Jeantel, a witness in the George Zimmerman murder trial, continue to roll in, “why are blacks divided and always pick on each other?” keeps being asked. The issue of “in-fighting” isn’t exclusive to blacks or African-Americans. It’s an element seen in all socially oppressed groups or communities that are fiercely discriminated against (ex. women, the poor, racial minorities, and homosexuals). Isolation and prejudice are very powerful tools used by those in dominant social control to keep others separated and suppressed. To illustrate how in-fighting begins among an out-casted group, I’m going to use the example of a school yard: something most people can relate to.

Let’s say at a school of 800 students, 700 are tall, skinny, blonde and middle-class, and 100 are short, stocky, brunette and poor. The 700 are obviously the dominant. The 700 reject the 100 because they look different and think they’re less-than because they cannot afford the same lifestyle. It’s emotionally communicated to the 100 that being short, stocky, brunette and poor are negative traits, and they begin to have low self-esteem and self-resentment. Self-resentment leads them to dislike, bash and identify flaws in their own kind because they represent what they wish they weren’t. Parts of the 100 try to lose weight and dye their hair to become more acceptable to the 700; these 100 are either viewed by their own as traitors or put on a pedal-stool for more closely resembling the 700. Those who are accepted (or tolerated, rather) by the 700 increase their hatred towards the rest of the 100 to remain in the circle. Those 100 who don’t care to be accepted by the 700 embrace who they are, but create standards and expectations as to what 100-ness means. Others who don’t meet the criteria for “real 100-ness” are deemed “not 100-enough” and ostracized. They now don’t fit in anywhere; 700’s hate them for being 100, and some 100’s hate them for not being “100-enough.” The 100’s are now a group of students at odds.

Social classes and categories are not evil within themselves, nor are differences. Excluding and despising others based on differences is what creates problems. For populations on the losing end of social hierarchies, it automatically creates a hostile environment of competition, jealousy, poor self-concept and “in-fighting.” My father once described black people as crabs in a bucket. Crabs crawl over each other, trying to get up the wall and out of the bucket. In the process of going up the wall, they often pull those further along down. Incidentally, they drop too and have to start all over. Even though many African-Americans (and other oppressed groups) are very aware of how centuries of prejudice, injustice and discrimination have affected relations within, it’s hard to undo what’s been psychologically learned; especially when racism is still such an impacting force. We constantly perpetuate the lies and stereotypes we’ve been taught about ourselves to each other and the world. In the case of Rachel Jeantel, we passed on the lesson-lie that dark skin is hideous and made of fun of her looks. On a personal note, through most of grade-school, I was that “100” who didn’t fit in anywhere. White kids either dismissed me or constantly highlighted my race, while black kids measured my “blackness.” I was “white” because I liked pop and rock music and wasn’t raised in the inner-city.

Again, this is a behavior pattern seen in all oppressed populations. One of my friends complained that in her workplace, the women are always secretly gossiping about one another and they try to stunt each other’s success. A higher-level executive admitted to her “They’ll [men] allow only so many spots for women to take charge. If you don’t eliminate your competition, you won’t make it.” Actress Gabrielle Union said in a recent interview that she was a “mean girl” who cut other black actresses down until she realized their “shine” didn’t dim her own, but propelled it. Another friend, who’s Latina, said she doesn’t like to socialize with other Latinos because of their dissension. I then asked “Aren’t you contributing to the separation if you shun them?” Although internal backbiting is frustrating (to say the least), we must not give up on our own and assist the division. As members of socially subordinate, “outsider” communities, to interfere with the effects of discrimination, we must constantly hold each other-and ourselves-accountable. Think before you speak and act. Analyze your biases and train of thought. Don’t believe the stereotypes and don’t live them out. Call those around you out when they say and do divisive things. It’s all easier said than done, but a conscious effort made yields results.

Why people think you can’t do both of these things baffles me. Why is it, that in 2013, we still think that in order for a woman to really love a man, it’s a requirement that she give up her independence or strength? I’m watching Beyonce’s “Next Chapter” and Oprah, who is a very modern woman, says to her: “You balance the fierce woman with obviously a woman who adores and loves her man,” as if one concept has anything to do with the other. When Destiny’s Child released “Cater 2 U” in 2004, so many cried out “Beyonce` was on ‘Independent Women,’ now she’s talking about catering to her man? She’s contradicting herself, she’s flipped the script!” Again, I wondered what the correlation was. How was Beyonce` relinquishing her individual power by singing about rewarding her partner for being a quality mate? Successful, self-sufficient men don’t get accused of being hypocrites if they’re dedicated to their mate. A last Beyonce` example, my father saw her video for “Run the World” and came charging in the room saying “Well, if girls run the world, what does she need Jay-Z for?” implying that Beyonce` would only be with Jay-Z because she needs him to do something. Maybe the divorce rate wouldn’t be as high if we stop approaching or viewing relationships as an exchange of services or roles; I’ll cook a meal and you’ll take out the trash, or as a form of imprisonment and submission.

Even some feminists perpetuate the notion that women can’t be both individually strong and devoted to their partner, as some have negative opinions of marriage and stay-at-home mothers. Stereotypes that “independent” women are selfish and incapable of giving their home-life proper attention and that housewives are weak pushovers both stem from our society’s painful history with gender politics.

The origins of the feminist movement began when a woman’s existence was limited to being a wife and mother, with little command over her own life or input in her marriage. That being said, marriage and home-life seemed to be a woman’s primary oppressor. Despite progress away from this tone, gender bias still affects relationships as we (men and women) struggle as a culture to shake free of our conditioning and former way of thinking. As we did then, we are still forcing women to choose and are missing the point. The movement wasn’t and isn’t about living an independent (or “fierce,” as Oprah put it) life versus a marital life. It’s about choices and freedom; the opportunity to choose either path or both and having freedom within such. A woman is not forfeiting her power in loving a man unless she loses her identity, defines herself by or allows herself to be disrespected or silenced in her relationship. Being true to oneself doesn’t prevent one from being able to love fully. Actually, if “fierceness” and loving are related at all, lack of it would hurt your relationship because as RuPaul says “If you can’t love yourself, how in the hell are you gonna love somebody else? Can I get an ‘Amen’?!”

Male or female, if your partner measures your love by how much you yield to or dim your light for them, then they don’t know what love is about. As cliché` as it may sound, your partner should always want the best for you (even if it’s not them) and encourage you to grow and shine your light as bright as you can. Instead of stifling or negating your voice, they should want to hear it and be considerate of how you think and feel. A caring partner isn’t going to look at your “fierceness” as an infringement on theirs; they’re going to love that ish and respect it. So yeah, Beyonce` can be Crazy, Dangerously & Still in Love (all song titles) with her man and be the Bootylicious, Independent Survivor (also all song titles) mega-entrepreneur-entertainer that she is. Blue Ivy in one hand, mic in the other, man beside her.  

By C. Dyer, contributing writer

I'm not going to talk about morality in general, because I know everyone has their own understanding of what is acceptable behavior. Instead, I want to talk about personal morals.

Personal morals affect our daily interactions and are driven by the things we value. They should be fairly constant unless we have a moment of enlightenment and recognize we are doing wrong. It's a sign of growth when we change for the better. Unfortunately, changes are not always driven by hopes of self-betterment.Too often, popularity and money are the motivators behind our decisions. Who to hang out with, what to wear and how to act are drawn from the opinions of our family and social circles. We become so dependent on the approval of others that we begin to insidiously lose our own identity. Many celebrities and politicians struggle with balancing personal morals and popular approval. Sometimes they even reach a point where morals are no longer an individual code, just a suit to be worn and changed when the winds of majority opinion shift.

Abandoning personal morals to follow the majority can be dangerous, because sometimes the majority is very wrong. Slavery, segregation, and anti-Semitism were all supported by a majority at one point in time. If no one had held to their individual code and what they knew to be right, women wouldn't be able to vote and restaurants could still deny entrance based on skin color. It isn't enough to be satisfied with the status quo and shrug off injustices. 

How much money would convince you to give up your code? Chances are there's a number. The reason is because money and power are valued more than nearly everything else. If this is true of yourself, it will eventually show through in your crumbling personal morals. Be true to your character and conscience. The world needs more genuine people.

"What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very self?"-Luke 9:25 (New International Version Bible)

J.Says’ Take: Some may view this article as presenting nothing new, but I think we all take it as a given that we don’t compromise or shape our moral views after others, when in reality, we do. All the time. We all care what people think, either on a small or large level. That’s why we clean up before someone comes over or feel the need to clear things up when we’re misinterpreted. Since we care what people think, this can easily affect how we set our moral standards or our honesty about how we set them. If we dare differentiate from what the seeming majority values, we just go find other people who share our feelings so we won’t feel judged. Take time to analyze your modes of operation.

I have a theory that most people would have a healthier level of self-esteem and self-confidence if not for the remarks of others. Even the most secure people with the strongest sense of self can fall prey if it’s the right person speaking to them. After hanging out with a few pals (some single, some not), I noticed how antagonized, patronized and stigmatized single individuals are. They hear rude and intrusive comments on a regular basis.

In our society, especially if you’re of a certain age, it’s expected for you to either be in a relationship or actively seeking one. Emphasis on dating starts early; 1st graders are often asked “do you have a girlfriend/boyfriend?” That being said, forbid you’re completely single (or not sexually active) and maybe feel alright with that, it raises questions and eyebrows. It’s assumed that something is off with you-you’re socially awkward, a workaholic, afraid of commitment, jaded and have trust issues, promiscuous, purposely single or secretly gay. If you discuss relationships or someone’s relationship specifically and you say something seemingly unsupportive, you’re just jealous. For example, I have never been a fan of P.D.A. (public displays of affection). I think it’s inappropriate and a little impolite to suck face or fondle your mate in public. I don’t do it now, and I’m in a relationship. Nonetheless, when I was single and complained about a couple at a pool, I was told “Oh, you’re just mad because you don’t have someone to do that with.” I thought “Why do they think I’m jealous? Oh, yeah, I’m so jealous of all the frustration and crying fits you go through with your partner…” If not jealous, it’s presumed your quietly lonely, sad and want to be set-up. One friend told me people think they’re doing her a favor by constantly trying to set her up and don’t believe that she’s ok with her current single status.

I think all these stereotypes and attitudes cause a fear or insecurity of singlehood and/or sexual abstinence (I mention abstinence because single men are often expected to be at least sleeping around). That fear sometimes leads people into romantic desperation; picking up relationships with whoever meets a bare minimum requirement instead of a solid, healthy match. Some of my girlfriends talk about singlehood like it’s a disease and they’ll die if they don’t find someone. I tell them all the time that if they relax a little and take the time to try and enjoy being single, there’s a lot to gain. You’d be surprised at the amount of emotional and personal growth one can experience, and how much singlehood can strengthen identity. These elements can actually help with dating as the root of many break-ups is individual emotional issues. So, if you’re in a relationship, don’t accuse your single friends of being dysfunctional, gay, jealous or lonely and if you’re single, don’t let the stereotypes get to you or affect your dating choices.

By C. Dyer, contributing writer
Note: Articles written by contributing writers don't necessarily reflect the opinions of J.Says herself.

The phrase "bi-partisan solutions" has come up a lot recently in reference to the fiscal cliff negotiations. Even at the current level of desperation, many politicians seem unable to consider compromise. This "my way or the highway" attitude is characteristic of most modern day politicians. I optimistically hope the United States is reaching a turning point in the way it approaches politics.

George Washington belonged to neither the Democratic nor Republican party. In spite of this, the then fledgling country overwhelmingly supported his election and reelection. During his time in office, Washington saw the heated disputes of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist parties and wanted nothing to do with them. Although he was no saint, his words on party division in his farewell address sound almost prophetic: "Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another..."

Rather than simply highlighting differences in the way people view public policy, political parties have become divisive in of themselves. Political parties are treated as a birthright, a source of personal pride, even a religion. Individuals who know nothing about each other can stereotype and despise one another simply based on party preference. Moderates, with barely a difference between them, take up banners handed to them by their role-models and pick a side in this silent civil war.

The government is constantly in a stalemate. Even when good ideas come up for consideration, they are routinely voted down because of the party of the person proposing them. Most politicians are so solidly locked into blue or red that purple is no longer possible. After the 2012 Presidential election, Republicans were expected to change their tactics and become more accepting of ideals they opposed. Rush Limbaugh asked in disgust whether the party should abandon its principles and support abortion and illegal immigration. The comments emphasized his narrow view of the possibilities.

A country that cares about principles AND people could achieve incredible things. Imagine what progress could be made if moderates would put aside their differences and find solutions everyone can be satisfied with. For example, instead of ignoring illegal immigration or promoting it, we could improve the efficiency and ease of immigrating legally. Rather than promoting abortion or ignoring the plight of young mothers, we could improve the adoption system and work to lessen the financial cost of child rearing. We could differentiate between marriage as a legal contract and marriage as a religious bond, securing protections under the law for homosexuals while reinforcing the right of religious institutions to govern the use of their buildings as they see fit. The parties have played their game of puppets for far too long. What we need is an America that's willing to change that. We need an America that's open to creativity and compromise. We need an America that can think outside the box. We need an America that sees purple.

PoliticalPoints: Politics quick, fast & in a hurry.

In the wake of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice declining a nomination to replace Gov. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, some Republican pundits and politicians whirled angry, sexist and racist comments while explaining their dislike for Rice even being considered. In analytical discussion about why a republican candidate (i.e. Mitt Romney) didn’t win the election last month, many public figures in the GOP concluded that a change of attitude and approach needed to come with low-income, female, student and racial minority voters. Guess that change has yet to arrive. Allow me to make it clear that NOT all republicans are racist, sexist, classist or homophobic, nor are all of their ideas toxic and negative. I believe the party has garnered the reputation for being the aforementioned, not because it’s a party ideal, but because of the backgrounds or personal attitudes of those who represent it. What bothers me most about this sudden approach epiphany is that it doesn’t seem to come from a pure place. There isn’t a desire to appeal or be more sensitive to the concerns of these voter groups because it’s fair or wrong to be prejudiced or exclusive; it’s all about getting more votes and winning elections. This is why some people don’t trust politicians and have little faith in government.

As most likely know, highly decorated and revered military general and CIA director David Petraeus resigned in early November after his affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, was exposed. Petraeus joins the lengthy list of American government officials caught in extramarital scandal, but this time, the response of the media and public was a little different. Usually angry, unforgiving, critical and demanding a resignation from a position of power, crowds seemed to feel sorry for the officer and wished he hadn’t stepped down. Does this mean our morality is deteriorating as a culture or have we become more benevolent and merciful? I think we’re just starting to better evaluate relevancy.

In the years after President Bill Clinton’s 2001 impeachment in which he lied under oath about the details of his own affair, many in media began to question whether the punishment fit the crime. Yes, he broke the law, but media and political analysts were looking at a bigger picture. Some made the argument that our cultural reactions to the transgressions of public figures is so harsh, that it could’ve pushed Clinton to lie to cover it up and we ended up losing a president who stabilized the economy over an issue that only affected his home life. Taking it a step further, imagine the reduction on smear campaigns if we only responded to scandals that correlate with the duty of public office. Politicians might have to actually rely on only politics to get ahead of their opponents, but that’s another issue for another day, I suppose.

All of these events have us talking about fairness and when a personal indiscretion should cause you to lose your job, consider resignation or be denied a position (by the way, as of this time, it hasn’t been concluded that Petraeus’ affair lead to confidential information being compromised). It’s been widely reported that employers and college admission counselors are now taking advantage of social media and browsing what they can of candidate profiles before making a decision. This is absolute crap to me. I have so many issues with this practice. First, let me say I find a lot of things about the traditional interview process discriminatory and unfair (for example, the over-emphasis on appearance. Not everyone can afford nice dress-wear, but they might be able to do a job well). Assessing a candidate based on their Facebook or Twitter page opens all kinds of doors for discrimination, not to mention it’s an infringement of privacy (are they going to ask for personal diaries or talk to our priests next?). If job-seekers are regularly discriminated against in the traditional process with laws in place, imagine the rate of prejudice when social media is factored in. Who’s to say that an employer won’t disqualify a job-seeker simply because they have opposite political views or over something petty like being a fan of Britney Spears? It might be over an unsavory status or suggestive picture, but how do we formally and fairly define “unsavory” and “suggestive” and how it correlates to the job position? Formal background checks, job references, resumes and interviews should tell you all you need to know about a candidate’s ability to perform a task well. Whether they hit the gay bar last week has nothing to do with it. 

The reality of it is if everyone was denied a job for personal gaffes, no one would have work. My stance is that if one’s missteps or personal choices doesn’t harm anyone or literally damage an establishment or company, they should be able to get and keep a job. Thoughts?