Libertine: On the Prowl
Vidi, vici, veni -- I saw, I conquered, I came. _______________________________________________________________
Lowest Common Denominator
The other day, Alternet posted an article, Former News Radio Staffer Spills the Beans on How Shock Jocks Inspire Hatred and Anger by Dan Shelley, which went behind the scenes of one such talk radio host. My response to the article follows below.Lowest Common Denominator
Right wing talk show hosts specialize in simplistic, black and white thinking and rely heavily on ad hominem attacks.
They attract the lowest common denominator of listeners and appeal to people's basest, least civilized instincts.
I regularly monitor Neal Boortz in a "know your enemy" campaign, but I'd never call the show, as I know I'd not get a fair hearing for my views. I've seen how he "handles" callers who disagree. For one thing, he usually only lets the most inarticulate opposing callers on the air, whom he proceeds to make fun of and uses to "prove" his points. Any opposing callers who slip through who speak clearly, he prevents them from making their points by constant interruptions. He'll hang up on them if they begin to get the upper hand.
So, I know it's a pointless endeavor to call this show, or any others of the same ilk.
Rather, I make my responses on my blog, where I can make my point without interruption and where it can be read for months and years afterwards.
No Communion For Obama Supporters?
Rev. Jay Scott Newman of St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville, SC has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil." He went on to say that "those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."Oh, where to begin?
First, using his pulpit to threaten parishioners because of their political choices is inappropriate. It's all well and good to talk about his church's opposition to abortion, but to couch it in political terms is another thing entirely. It is enough for him to talk about the Catholic church's position on abortion, then to leave voters to vote based on their own consciences.
Second, responsible voters choose a candidate according to a wide range of issues, not just a single issue such as abortion. If one uses abortion as the only litmus test for an acceptable candidate, we must remember that Hitler was against abortion, but that hardly made him a worthy candidate to vote for.
It's also interesting to note that Obama opposes the death penalty -- which agrees with another official position of the Catholic Church.
So, why then is Newman being inconsistent and hypocritical by not cautioning voters who voted for pro-death penalty candidates and demanding penance out of them? Does he consider some official Catholic positions on various matters to be more important than others?
Fifty-four percent of Catholic voters in SC voted for Barack Obama, a state which ended up going to McCain in the recent election. It's quite possible that concerns about the economy, health care, the war in Iraq, and so on, took precedence in influencing their choice of candidate, rather than imposing their church's stance on abortion on the American population, most of whom who are not Catholic, through secular law.
Thoughts?
FDR's "Economic Bill of Rights"
This is an excerpt from FDR's 11 January 1944 message to Congress on the State of the Union. Too bad he wasn't able to get it passed -- it sounds pretty good to me. I'm hoping Obama can work on some of these during his time in office.It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.
Killing Them With Kindness
As many of you might know, I have several "mirror blogs" on different blog hosting sites. Several days ago, I posted what I thought was a fairly low-key post about personality type and political orientation. It didn't get a lot of response here or on my other blogs, but last night my Blog City version of this post got a scathing comment from a far right neocon, whom I presume can't be much older than 22 or so, based on this maturity level.I responded, but not in the way he wanted me to. Rather, I followed my father's old strategy of "killing him with kindness". What follows below is his comment, then my response. You might wish to re-read the original post, so you can see precisely how much his comment was out of context
Anthony said:
You liberals disgust me. Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly. I'm a conservative right-wing Republican, yet I do not see in any way that reflected in my MBTI "personality type" Apparently I'm a INTJ. But I am a Physics and Electrical Engineering Double Major.
See, you jackasses to me make no sense.... on any issue. Name one issue you liberals are fanatical about. Abortion? The holiest sacrament of liberalism? You're going to tell me it's a constitutional right for a mother to plunge a fork into a baby's brain? Liberals are more upset when a tree is chopped down than when a child is aborted. Even if one rates an unborn child less than a full-blown person, doesn't the unborn child rate slightly higher than vegetation?
My response:
Anthony, your comment proves my point. Thanks for being so helpful.
It is possible to disagree with people without resorting to ad hominem attacks -- getting all worked up like you did in your comment is rarely productive -- it doesn't convince anyone to convert to your opinion.
You'd do much better persuading people to adopt your opinion if you remained objective, factual, leaving the drama and emotion out of it.
Thought a liberal, the traditional conservative does not "disgust" me. Rather, I see them as a person who cares about issues like I do, but has drawn a different conclusion than I have. I may think they're wrong and/or misguided, but I have no need to demonize that person in order to convince myself that my opinion has merit. It's not necessary.
Man, you don't know me, so your level of hostility is uncalled for. I'm not going to debate you on ANY issue, because your comment has shown you don't care a thing about civilized debate. You need to chill out and lighten up a bit. It will do your blood pressure a world of good and you'll live longer,
Good luck on managing the anger problem.
If this person is typical of young Republicans, then they're in deep, deep trouble. I also seriously doubt he's an INTJ by the level of emotion generated in his post toward someone he doesn't even know and who never once mentioned abortion in the post commented on.
Thoughts?
Mutts Like Me
In his first post-election press conference, when asked about what kind of dog he and his wife plan to get for their daughters, Barack Obama said, referring to his daughter Malia's allergies, " "Obviously, a lot of shelter dogs are mutts like me. So whether we're going to be able to balance those two things, I think, is a pressing issue on the Obama household."His description of himself as a "mutt", which was made casually in good humor, is an allusion to his biracial heritage, of having a black father and a white mother.
This self-reference indicates to me that President-elect Obama will take a common sense approach to racial issues, free of touchiness and without carrying a chip on his shoulder. We can safely assume that he won't blame every criticism of his administration, opposition, or setbacks on racism. Barack Obama will not play the race card at every opportunity, though I'm sure he'll effectively address any instances of real racism.
Many have said that he's the first African-American president, which is true. But it's not the whole truth. He's the first biracial president, just as much white as he is black, and he represents the white side of his heritage just as much as he does his black side.
Mutts like me. America has always prided itself on being a melting pot -- we're all mutts of one sort or another. It's part of what has made this country great and will continue to be.
Thoughts?
Propostion 8 Passes in California
California has passed Proposition 8, which yet again repudiates same-sex marriage, returning it to a legally unrecognized status. Religious conservatives, who supported Prop 8, made much of the idea of "preserving the 'sanctity' of marriage".But they're wrong. It wasn't the "sanctity" of marriage that was up for a vote; it was the legality of it.
The idea of sanctity has a religious base, thus is not subject to any law in a country that has the separation of church and state. It is a highly personal and private thing and properly is defined by whatever religious, ethical, or personal tradition one may believe in. It has never been the business of the government, nor should it ever be.
The legality of marriage, on the other hand, has nothing to do with religion in our country and never has. This is shown by the fact that getting married by a judge, a justice of the peace, or other non-clergy member is legal, where a wedding performed in a church or other house of worship without a civil marriage license is not a legal marriage, though it is a religious one.
Legal marriage has to do with practical benefits bestowed by the government, period. It doesn't concern itself with the emotional aspects of marriage or anyone's idea of sanctity. That's a wholly personal matter, up to those involved and whatever ethical beliefs they have to provide privately.
Even the Bible says to render unto Caesar (government) what is Caesar's, and to render unto God what is God's. Legalizing same-sex marriage, then, is "rendering unto Caesar", and has no effect on "what is God's".
Legal same-sex marriage will not affect religious marriage in any way. Houses of worship will be free to offer or deny religious weddings to same sex partners as they always have, as it will not affect their legal rights to be married in any way.
It just boggles my mind that such a basic right was put to the population to vote on, where people are likely to vote against the right to same sex marriage based on religious beliefs, that they think it's "icky", and other reasons that are properly considered to be legally irrelevant. Interracial marriage, for example, was finally legalized in all fifty states by a Supreme Court decision, and was never subject to voting from the general population. If it had, I'm guessing it would still not be legal in all fifty states.
And though I would vote in favor of same sex marriage (and did two years ago, unsuccessfully), I personally believe it's none of my business. I do not think it's my place to decide on the basic civil rights of fellow citizens, as same sex marriage does not affect my rights or my life any way, positively or negatively, Those who voted "yes" to Prop 8 based on religious reasons have effectively imposed their religious beliefs on the rights of others, which violates the separation of church and state in my opinion.
If it were up to me, I'd just abolish legal marriage altogether for everyone, as I don't think it's the government's place to define, legislate, or promote any form of private, personal relationship between consenting adults. As a non-monogamous heterosexual, I strongly believe this.
The practical rights and benefits that currently come with marriage could be granted under Domestic Partnerships that would focus wholly on such practical benefits that come with sharing a household on a long-term basis, and would be granted without regard to the nature of the personal relationship of those involved, sexual or non-sexual. That would be private, as it should be. Marriage would then be defined by those involved and optionally by whatever faith, personal, or ethical tradition those involved might have and would be unrelated and irrelevant to whatever legal benefits one would have as a Domestic Partner.
Thoughts?
Why McCain Never Had A Chance
Last night, shortly after hearing about the Obama victory, I listened to John McCain's concession speech, where the old, independent McCain re-emerged from under the murk of campaign rhetoric. As I listened to him speak, I was reminded of a McCain who would have made a much better president than George Bush, had he been elected in 2000.But in 2008, he never stood much of a chance of being elected. Putting aside the obvious reason that Obama was simply the better candidate with a better run campaign, I thought of several other reasons which contributed to doom the McCain campaign.
1. George Bush
Arguably the worst and least popular president the United States has ever had, McCain was handicapped from the very start by having to drag around the millstone of guilt by association with Bush. This factor would have hampered the campaign of any Republican candidate, however, not just McCain. Rightly or wrongly, McCain was dubbed "McSame" by a population weary of eight years of inept Republican leadership and who were ready for a major change.
2. Karl Rove
As another blogger said, nasty isn't nice. The dirty campaign he ran that obscured the real McCain, who was relatively moderate and known for reaching across the aisle to work in a bi-partisan manner, backfired on McCain.
3. Sarah Palin
The unfortunate pick of the grossly underqualified and bizarre Sarah Palin was the final straw for many voters, who might otherwise would have voted for McCain. She was chosen to appease a Religious Right that was clearly unenthusiastic about McCain, who was never one of them. The discomfort many people had with the idea of her possibly becoming president should McCain become disabled, was yet another nail in the coffin of the McCain campaign,
4. McCain's age
Directly related to the reason above, compared to the young, vital, and forward looking Barack Obama, McCain came off as old, tired, and mired in the past. Coupled with an extremist, unqualified, loose cannon running mate, McCain's age was a major concern to many voters. He might have been able to mitigate this factor somewhat had he chosen a qualified and experienced running mate with a broader appeal, however. Nevertheless, it was obvious to many that McCain's time had passed and it was time to look forward with a new generation.
There are many other reasons why McCain lost the election, but these four coupled with the obvious reason of Obama simply being an outstanding candidate, were the ones that most quickly came to mind.
Thoughts?
Happy Days Are Here Again
At 11pm Eastern time, I learned that Barack Obama had been elected 44th president of the United States.For the first time in eight years, I have hope that things will get better in this country and that we'll regain the respect of the rest of the world..
I have to admit that as the historic moment swept over me, I felt a little misty. I felt as aware of the historical significance of this election as we did when Neil Armstrong first landed on the moon.
I'm a bit speechless at the moment, but very happy. Feel free to share your thoughts below.
Another Endorsement
Ron Reagan, youngest son of President Ronald Reagan has endorsed Barack Obama for president:I assumed most people already knew that I had supported Obama. Anyone who has spent five minutes listening to my program would have known that. But if it helped to make it official, I'm happy to make it so.
Considering how much I've read from Republicans who insist that a vote for McCain will mean a return to Reagan Republicanism, I find it rather ironic that Reagan's son has declined to endorse McCain and will be voting Democrat tomorrow.
Thoughts?
Signs of the Season
In the last several weeks as I've been driving around, I've seen Halloween decorations side by side with a growing number of political yard signs. In the last two weeks, political signs have greatly outnumbered the various kinds of Halloween decorations.Because I live in an obdurately red state, I've seen more McCain signs than Obama signs. I expect to see more McCain signs in affluent neighborhoods, but I'm scratching my head when I see them in neighborhoods that can kindly only be described as being "down at the heels". It boggles my mind when I see people who vote against their own interests.
I suspect that McCain supporters in poorer neighborhoods probably are one-issue voters who are religiously motivated to concentrate on social wedge issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, and ignore their own economic interests.
However, for one state election, I'm seeing about as many Democrat signs as Republican signs. One reason for this I'm thinking is that Obama yard signs are hard to come by in my area -- I was unable to get one when I went down to my county Democratic headquarters. So, I think if Obama signs were more readily available, I'd be seeing a lot more than what I've seen, if the number of signs up for the local Democrat candidate is any indication.
And I've seen a good number of Obama signs in this one upper middle class neighborhood, which is a happy sight for me. So, not all people on that end of the economic spectrum will be voting knee-jerk Republican, either.
For the most part, I've not seen much sign vandalism. There's one McCain/Palin sign on one of the roads heading into town that looks rather battered; it's leaning on an angle and it looks as if it's peppered with BB gun shots. On the other side of town, one Obama sign is all twisted and dented in. But both damaged signs still stand.
I'll be happy to see the election over and all the signs finally gone.
Like Rats Off the Titanic
In recent weeks, several prominent Republicans have jumped ship to endorse Barack Obama for president. I would imagine that these endorsements were partially inspired by frustration after 8 years of an inept Bush presidency that has tarnished the reputation of the United States all over the world.For others, such as Colin Powell, John McCain's choice of the unqualifed, inexperienced, and erratic Sarah Palin as the VP running mate, which was characteristic of a McCain campaign that has been highly erratic all around. It was the last straw for traditional conservatives and moderate Republicans sick of neocons and the Religious Right controlling their beloved Republican Party.
Younger adults probably do not realize that the Republican Party was not always so far to the right. Until 1980, when Ronald Reagan welcomed the support of the newly-influential Religious Right, traditional conservatives and moderates controlled the direction of the Republican party. Unfortunately, the Religious Right would only gain more influence with each successive election until it had nearly gutted the Republican Party into what we see today, The rise of neoconservatism followed a similar timeline to that of the Religious Right.
Before 1980, the Republican Party was moderate on many issues, being both pro-choice and for the Equal Rights Amendment. We also have to remember that it was Richard Nixon who established the Environmental Protection Agency. Even in the 1980 primary season, many traditional Republicans, such as George Bush, Sr, continued to hold the moderate positions that the Republican party had supported. I remember that once Bush, Sr was chosen as Reagan's VP pick, he quickly flip-flopped on his pro-choice position in order to get in line with the new order.
But, thankfully, it seems as if many Republicans have said enough is enough and want their old party back. I can only wish them luck and I look forward to the return of a sane, moderate Republican Party.
Below is a partial list of Republicans who have endorsed Barack Obama for president
Jim Leach, Former Congressman from Iowa
Lincoln Chafee, Former United States Senator from Rhode Island
William Weld, Former Governor of Massachusetts
Arne Carlson, Former Governor of Minnesota
Wayne Gilchrest, Congressman from Maryland
Charles Mathias, Former United States Senator and Congressman from Maryland
Larry Pressler, Former Senator from South Dakota
Richard Riordan, Former Mayor of Los Angeles
Lowell Weicker, Former Governor and Senator from Connecticut
Claudine Schneider, Former Congressman from Rhode Island
Harris Fawell, Former Congressman from Illinois
Jim Whitaker, Fairbanks, Alaska Mayor
William Milliken, Former Governor of Michigan
Phil Arthurhultz, Former Michigan State Senate Majority Leader
Linwood Holton, Former Governor of Virginia
Jeffrey Hart, National Review Senior Editor
Andrew Bacevich, Professor of International Relations at Boston University
David Friedman, Economist and son of Milton and Rose Friedman
Christopher Buckley, Son of National Review founder William F. Buckley & former NR columnist
Andrew Sullivan, Columnist for the Atlantic Monthly
Wick Alison, Former publisher of the National Review
Michael Smerconish, Columnist for the Philadelphia Enquirer
CC Goldwater, Granddaughter of Barry Goldwater
Colin Powell, Secretary of State under Bush 43
Ken Duberstein, White House Chief of Staff under Reagan
Douglas Kmiec, Head of the Office of Legal Counsel under Reagan & Bush 41
Charles Fried, Solicitor General of the United States under Reagan
Jackson M. Andrews, Former Counsel to the U.S. Senate, & 1986 Republican Senatorial Nominee for Kentucky
Susan Eisenhower, Granddaughter of President Eisenhower & President of the Eisenhower Group
Francis Fukuyama, Advisor to President Reagan
Rita Hauser, Former White House intelligence advisor under George W. Bush
Larry Hunter, Former President Reagan Policy Advisor
Scott McClellan, Former Press Secretary to President George W. Bush
Bill Ruckelshaus, Served in the Nixon and Reagan administrations
Ken Adelman, Served in the Ford administration
Lilibet Hagel, Wife of Republican Senator Chuck Hagel
Bruce Rabb, Served in the Nixon administration
George C. Lodge, Assistant Secretary of Labor under President Eisenhower
William B. Ewald, Jr., Special Assistant under President Eisenhower
Robert R. Bowie, Assistant Secretary for Policy Planning, Department of state 1953-1957
Jarold Kieffer, Assistant Secretary, Health, Education & Welfare, 1959-61
Roswell B. Perkins, Assistant Secretary, Health, Education & Welfare, 1954-56
Timothy Ashby, Served in the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations
Richard S. Seline, Finance Director, Republican Party of Texas
David Caprara, Faith-Based Initiatives Director, Federal Volunteer Service Agency under Bush 43
John Perry Barlow, Former Dick Cheney Campaign Manager
Personality Type and Political Orientation
An article on Alternet today, Can You Guess a Person's Politics by Their Personality? Psychologist Team Says Yes, by Maria Luisa Tucker, takes a look at how personality type relates to political affiliation: She looked at several gauges of personality, but oddly enough, did not include the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, which is one of the oldest and more popular systems of personality assessment, used most widely in vocational assessments. My response to the article follows below:For those of you familiar with the MBTI, the sixteen personality types that stem from personality difference combinations in four key areas also show personality differences between liberals and conservatives.
The four continua are Introvert/Extrovert, Intuitive/Sensing, Thinker/Feeler, and Perceiving/Judging.
In my opinion the Intuitive/Sensing continuum and the Perceiving/Judging cotinuum most clearly show these differences, varying somewhat depending on which of the other two continua they are combined with, particularly the Thinking/Feeling continuum. Thinking/Feeling and Extrovert/Introvert, on their own, are pretty well represented on both sides of the aisle, however.
In the Intuitive/Sensing continuum, Intuitives are the introspective people who think in shades of grey. Sensing people are more concrete, take-things-at-face-value, black and white thinkers. Intuitives, then, tend more to be liberal and Sensors tend more to be conservative.
Similarly, on the Perceiving/Judging continuum, Perceivers are the laid-back types, those who do things by the seat of their pants, and tend to be on the disorganized side. Judgers are the organized, fussy listmakers, and in their extreme forms are the bean counters of the world.
Combine the two, and NP will tend to be the most liberal of the four possible combinations of the two continua, and SJ will tend to be the most conservative.
I'm an INTP, by the way.
There's a lot more to it than this, but there's no room for me to write a novel in the comment box here.
Take the Myers-Briggs Test
--
As an aside, I've read that Barack Obama is an ENFP, which correlates with my observations.
Out of the Mouths of Babes
Since 1940, the Scholastic Weekly Reader, read by schoolkids in classrooms nationwide has conducted an Election Poll every four years, with the poll also being available online since 2000, Students from elementary school on up have chosen the winning candidate all but two times, 1948 and 1960.This year, a quarter of a million students participated in the poll and the results are in. With a margin of 57 to 39 percent, the vote went overwhelmingly to Obama.
Many people consider the children's poll to be significant, both because they've picked the winner so often and secondly, because their voting patterns tend to mirror what they're hearing at home.
I certainly hope the kids are right again this year.
The Socialism Bugaboo
I've heard many Republicans say that they won't vote for Barack Obama because they believe he is a "socialist". Though I believe that he's more conservative than that, I have to wonder why such people have such horror and fear about socialism. From what I've read some conservatives consider it to be practically communism.But is it really?
Let's take a look at the countries that have practiced socialism and those that have practiced communism. The "communist" countries, past and present, can't really be called "communist", using a pure definition of the word. Rather, they have all been dictatorships, totalitarian states.
The socialist nations, of which the Scandinavian countries are a prime example, are free societies with free elections. They all have a high standard of living and also boast the highest life expectancies on the planet (no doubt due to socialized medicine!). Doesn't sound too awful to me.
It seems as if there's not a whole lot of sameness when you compare communism to socialism, after all.
But conservatives have a long history in mixing things up, which is because of their tendency toward black and white thinking. They're the ones who are against gay people teaching young children, because they've got homosexuality mixed up with pedophilia, which is akin to saying that Arnold Schwarzenegger must be a Nazi because he was born in Austria like Adolf Hitler was.
Thoughts?
Trickle Down Economics: Pissing on the Poor
Conservative Republicans have traditionally been against the rich paying higher taxes, believing that tax breaks for businesses and corporations will ultimately help those further down the economic ladder. They believe that businesses receiving such breaks will presumably pass the good fortune on by creating more jobs, giving employees better pay and more benefits, which will in turn further stimulate the economy.This sounds very nice on paper, but real life is quite a bit more complicated than that. The one essential factor left out of the trickle down fantasy is greed.
We must remember that businesses do not exist to help people to make a living. Businesses are started to help the business owners MAKE MONEY, period. Business owners consider the salaries paid and whatever benefits provided to employees as unavoidable business expenses -- and every business owner wants to minimize expenses, while maximizing profits. Thus, business owners seek to pay employees as little as they can get away with, as well providing the fewest benefits possible, all in the interest of minimizing expenses.
If anyone believes that corporate America actually cares about their employees' well-being, then I've got a bridge in Manhattan I'll be willing to sell to you.
As far as I'm concerned, trickle-down economics is just a euphemism for pissing on the poor.
Obama Quote of the Day
"My name, Barack, is Swahili. It means 'that one'. And I got my middle name from someone who obviously didn't think I'd ever be running for president."
Said by Barack Obama last night at the Alfred E. Smith fundraiser dinner. I love it -- It's perfect.
The "Plight" of the Rich
Right wing talk show pundits are fond of wringing their hands about the "plight" of rich people having to pay higher taxes than less affluent people. They complain the loudest about tax money being spent on social programs that help the less fortunate, with health care reform being one of their pet peeves..They rail againt not being able to "keep every dollar they make", viewing it as being no more than government sponsored "stealing" of their "hard earned dollars". They do this, conveniently ignoring the fact that even after paying taxes, they're still rich and still are living comfortable, privileged lives. The real issue is that it just grinds their gears that their tax dollars are going to actually (gasp!) help other people, whom they believe are all undeserving losers who lay around smoking pot all day.
I find it rather interesting, though, that they never complain about their tax money going to fund an increasingly expensive and unpopular war, for example, or other programs that do not assist underprivileged people. You didn't hear a word of complaint from them when the government spent more than $40 million for the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky investigations, to cite another example.
But taxes, like death, are inevitable and they're not going to go away, even if changes are eventually made in how they're collected. The government is going to get the money it needs to operate, regardless. I have no problem with my tax dollars going to help less fortunate people; it's just a part of life when one lives in a civilized society -- part of what gives any given society the right to be called civilized. Given today's shaky economy, any one of us could one day (and sometimes suddenly) be one of the weaker members of society and need assistance.
Thoughts?
John McCain and Religious Fundamentalists
Religious Right fundamentalists are expected to go to the polls to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket in a few short weeks. Their support of John McCain is decidedly tepid; they are voting against Barack Obama more than they are voting for John McCain, if statements made by religious right leaders earlier this year are any indication.
In February, Focus on the Family's James Dobson said:
"I am deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, voted for embryonic stem cell research to kill nascent human beings, opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, has little regard for freedom of speech, organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters in judicial hearings, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.
I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has sounded at times more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP caucus in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry’s running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does NOT make the medicine go down. I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.
But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should Sen. McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can't vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I am affiliated. They do reflect my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country."
In a major flip-flop, Dobson made this statement a few days ago:
"It's probably obvious which of the two major candidates' views are most palatable to those of us who embrace a pro-life, pro-family worldview," Dobson said.
"While I will not endorse either candidate this year, (in fact, I've only endorsed one presidential nominee in my life) I can say that I am now supportive of Senator John McCain and his bid for the presidency."
Why the flip-flop, you might ask? It's very simple. McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate to appease Dobson and others of his ilk. She's one of them, a fundamentalist -- a "true believer".
And this brings me to the issue of John McCain's age and health. This is a reality that both Democrats and fundamentalist Republicans fully acknowledge and are concerned with. But the two groups approach this issue from different perspectives.
Both groups acknowledge that, if elected, there is a strong possibility that John McCain might be incapacitated or die because of bad health while in office, at which time Sarah Palin would become President of the United States.
The difference is that this is something that fundamentalists would secretly welcome, as it would elevate "one of their own" to the Presidency, removing the candidate they had to hold their noses to vote for. Democrats, on the other hand, would be praying for McCain's continued good health, should he be elected President, as he's a lot less scary and is more qualified to be President than his running mate.
Thoughts?
Life Imitating Fiction
Usually fiction imitates life, but in this case, it's the other way around. It seems as if the Republican ticket was taken from the cast of the cartoon TV show, "King of the Hill".
Not only do McCain and Palin look like Cotton Hill and his daughter in law Peggy Hill, McCain also has Cotton's bad temper and Palin, like Peggy Hill, is arrogantly underqualified for job she seeks.
Political Double Standards
Since John McCain announced his choice of Sarah Palin as running mate, I've watched in both amazement and amusement as many Republicans have performed mental contortions in attempts to get on board with McCain's choice and support Palin. I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.For one thing, we all know that if Palin was a Democrat and Obama had chosen her for his running mate, the Republicans would have been gleefully eviscerating her, making short work of her Jack of All Trades; Master of None resume. Her lackadaisical approach to her education, followed by a resume that is the profile of a capricious dilettante, would have been roundly and rightly criticized. She's a dabbler, not a dedicated public servant.
For another, if Sarah Palin had been Samuel Palin, the same would have occurred, regardless of which party "he" belonged to. A man whose resume implied the bearer as having the attention span of a hummingbird wouldn't have made it as far as governor, let alone to Vice Presidential nominee.
Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and also John McCain all have one thing in common. Their entire careers have been devoted to public service of one sort or another, and have been appropriate preparation for the high office they seek. Sarah Palin's has not. The fact that she's a woman shouldn't mean voters should grade her on the curve; that would be the worst form of sexism -- they certainly didn't cut Hillary Clinton any breaks. And I'm appalled that Republicans who claim to love their country and their party are allowing their party to be dumbed down in this fashion.
Thoughts?
{ Last Page } { Page 1 of 4 } { Next Page }
The Libertine
Bedroom
Dossier
Library
Associates
Voyeur
My Other Blogs
Adventures of a LibertineA Libertine's Thoughts
Confessions of a Libertine
Categories
animalsblog stuff
books
culture/social issues
daily life
family
history
humor
language
libertine
news
people
personal
politics
quotes
rants
religion
reviews
sex
work
writing
Recent Entries
World Toilet DayLowest Common Denominator
Bar Hookups
Mormons and Marriage Discrimination
Bad Things Happen All At Once
Associates
kingofankhzarafa
jeremy
Chica
treasa
sexybeast
birdsnest
Eclectablog
elisataufik
elisla
sladewilson
grnidlady
Chandramoon
littleMissConfused
DeeJay
donald113
stefee
indigomoonarts
LauriesAsylum
sortingitout
kinnigurl
Cabinfeveronline
grimfairy
womanoffeathers
TrevaLVF
juancarlos
CertainInsanity
audsmom
jeeps
slayerbarbie
oldmanlincoln
thebigp
texican
Quacksplats
Patty
Vampyre
Rubicon
mandaj
selkie
deadonthesofa
Aielman
Lisa
Zoey
mothman
alittle
jelene
itsmylife
Minda
forinfnity
paledaemon
readerwil
windy
lisalisabobisa
tony
blogawards
Cam
Snowy
Your Two Cents
Weather
Stats
Good Reads
Blog Catalog
