Judges and Party Affiliation

Something that has always perplexed me are judges claiming party affiliation.  Call me crazy but isn't a "judge" supposed to be an impartial party to the judicial process that makes decisions based on the facts, and laws at hand?
Of course this is election season and the various campaigns are in full force.  In the particular district I reside in there is a heated campaign for an appellate court seat.  Both the Republican and Democratic candidate are using all forms of media to promote their worthiness to sit on the throne.  The good news is the candidates are not using attack ad's against each other.  However, I still find it ridiculous that someone who is supposed to pass an unbiased judgement against another will do so under a party affiliation.  Granted the Supreme Court houses conservative individuals and liberal ones.  The difference being each one does not identify themselves with a party.  
This how the judicial system is supposed to be, unaffiliated.  Law enforcement even gets involved when it elects the top sheriff running as one party or another.  
When you run under party affiliation for positions such as a Judge, or Sheriff you are typically accepting support from that party.  When it comes time to pay the piper in your courtroom, or even the jailhouse, how can the public be assured that an unbiased decision is being made in accordance with the law?  Running under a party flag doesn't give you that ability especially when one of your supporters finds themselves across from you in a legal proceeding.  
When it comes to the judicial system all candidates should be unaffiliated and run on merit only.  Running under any party status does not fully allow for due process to complete its course.

Tolerance

Lets talk about tolerance.  Actually, I have a better idea, lets define it first.

tol·er·ance  noun \ˈtä-lə-rən(t)s, ˈtäl-rən(t)s\

: willingness to accept feelings, habits, or beliefs that are different from your own

: the ability to accept, experience, or survive something harmful or unpleasant

Now that we know what it actually means lets take a look at how politics is using the term today.  Conservative pundits are trying to make a case that liberals are the intolerant party, and liberals have been stating for decades that conservatives are the intolerant party.  

It is easy to see how most people can look at the conservative agenda and see intolerance at it's finest.  I mean when you claim that religion is the reason for attempting legislation that denies human's the choice to marry, no matter the sex, you have to consider that less than tolerant.  Liberals are no better off as we would have to agree that we are fairly intolerant of the conservative agenda but the claim is because of the conservative intolerance in the first place.

The number of conservatives in America has not changed.  Rather, it is the growing number of liberal minded people who have been rising as a result of the social exposure media allows.  The changing demographics of this country also plays a huge role in changing mindsets.  Social issues such as gay rights are front page news whereas in decades past it was an afterthought of an underground society.  Social media such as this very page you are reading allows for everyone to speak their mind, open their hearts, and bring together vast segments of the population to gain confidence that there are like minded individuals out there ready to speak the same to the values they hold.  

Social media though has also given voice to the extreme right wing conservatives such as Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin and they are using it to attack back.  Conservative pundits are claiming that there is a war on religion in this country.  To an extent lets go ahead and agree with that statement.  There is a war on religion but not one that they could have not otherwise seen coming.  You cannot suppress a group of people for too long before they begin to fight back against that which they are being oppressed for.  For instance religion had made being gay a social stigma to a point where being gay could result in you being killed in some states.  Homosexuality was considered, and in some respects still considered a disease, or unnatural all because of religious beliefs.  Religion and the will of god has been the driving force behind this stigma since the beginning.  The bible states that homosexuality is wrong.  The bible also states that we must stone adulterers, and cursing out our parents is cause for death.  Don't get me wrong, I felt like I was going to die the first time I cussed out my parents but alas I am still here.  If we aren't killing hormonal teenagers in the streets over a few choice words then why are we waging a war on homosexuality in the name of the bible?  It seems to me if we are going to take the literal word of God that something is or is not right then why not take all the words of god and live them to the full virtue as intended? 

The reason we don't is because the relevance of stoning someone in a public square over sleeping with their assistant instead of their spouse is such common place that there is not enough reality TV airtime in this world to publicly display such a spectacle.  It is the same reason we aren't picking off teenagers for dropping f-bombs at the dinner table, there would be no teenagers left to snipe after the first day.  Conservatives say liberals are the intolerant ones for attacking religion but it was never a problem when religion attacked others.

Tolerance is a two way street.  If you want tolerance towards your beliefs you need to show tolerance to other peoples beliefs.  Hey look at that, sounds like something your parents probably taught you as a kid but somehow we have all forgotten.

A good friend of mine stated this quote the other day; "If you feel the need to legislate your faith, you have completely missed the mark on what religious freedom is to begin with."  - Tayyib Rashid.  

Religion holds a place in the world but as ideas.  In America religion should not be the governance to the land of the free because if it is then the other 4,199 other religions that do not fit in within your belief system are not exactly free.  Tolerance begins within everyone, either you have the ability to do it or not.  Claiming intolerance when you cannot tolerate is somewhat of an oxymoron.

Russian Ultimatum to Ukraine Military Personnel In Crimea

Russia is playing the international stage by stating it only has it's citizens interests in mind while at the same time invading a sovereign nation with military force.  When the Syrian crisis was about to spiral out of control Russia stepped in and called for cooler heads to prevail.  Urging the United States to work with the international community to come to peaceful terms with Assad.  
Fast forward to Ukraine and now Russia has taken the opposite stance on the situation, and to larger extents than the U.S. was willing to do in Syria.  By invading the Crimean Peninsula Russia has set the precedent that it is in their best interest to protect Russian citizens there.  It is no secret that the Ukraine was experiencing political upheaval over the corruption from within the government.  The bulk of the corruption was fueled by Russian interests in the first place.  The ousted president fled to Moscow and is now under Russian protection.  How is that any different than a gang member running back to the other side of town only to return with 50 of his hardest hitting friends?  I applauded Putin during the Syrian crisis as I believed that the international community was overreacting and could have found diplomatic solutions.  Now, Putin has gone off the reservation and begun preparations for another full scale invasion, a-la Georgia 2008.
A sovereign nation such as Ukraine is allowed to experience political upheaval.  When the people believe their government is not working for them they should, and by all rights, be able to rise against such government.  Clearly there was enough support to oppose Viktor Yanukovich or it would never have happened.  This is called democracy.  The same democracy that Putin called for in Syria is now one that he is tossing aside and intervening militarily in the Ukraine.
If Putin really had the best interest of Russian citizens in the Ukraine in mind he would allow the U.N. to intervene instead of taking action on his own.  This is a political move to annex a portion of a country that houses his Black Sea Fleet and forgo future payments to lease the ports.  Issuing an ultimatum of "Leave by 5am or face a storm" is not looking out for the best interest of your people in a region, especially when you are telling this to unarmed guards.
Putin is making a clear play to annex the Crimean Peninsula and for all purposes he does hold the upper hand here.  He has been playing chess with the world while everyone has been focused on the middle east.  He saw his opportunity in the Ukraine, and grabbed it.
Twenty three years after the cold war ended, it took less than a week to spark international tensions again, and could spiral out of control.  I for one hope cooler heads do prevail, and it starts with Putin.