We won. But I basically have to shut up everywhere I go, even on the AMRN, which, you know, I own.
It feels like all the bloggers I read are shocked and horrified at the outcome of this election. (Many haven't posted about it yet, or are avoiding doing so, but their silence, added to previous commentary, makes their opinion obvious.)
Over at BoingBoing, the so-called Directory of Wonderful Things, hateful, anti-Republican rants run rampant--see "Dumbass Republicans" and "Republicans are fucking stupid" (paraphrase).
It was all these people that made me believe Kerry had a good chance of winning, that the election was going to be a lot closer than it was.
There aren't a lot of interesting blogs written by people who make decisions the same way I do. Den Beste pretty much shut his down in favor of an anime fansite. (He was hoping to avoid all the snarking that went on in his email. But as Sean said, he has no idea what kind of hell he has just entered into. Anime fandom should not be underestimated...)
Meanwhile, I've never really found another good blog that explored world events through a more conservative eye, while still being thoughtful and interesting. A lot of what I've seen is spiteful and reactionary. (This is partially why I keep telling AJ he should have a blog.)
I'm glad I voted for Bush. I think he was the best candidate available at the time. I wish there had been someone better, but there wasn't. Kerry would not have focused on the things that I believe need to be focused on at this time.
I just feel like I'm a minority here on the Internet, and I'm wondering why that is.
I don't see either of the two parties as having all the answers. I will tend to go with the Republicans in general because I feel that they are more balanced, but on social issues I am almost completely with the Democrats. Social change needs to occur. Eleven states, including my own, banning gay marriage? First of all, this is a ridiculous thing to even be thinking about when we're at war. What is the point of having this vote now? Secondly, what right should the government have to dictate what kinds of primarily religious, social bonds we can form with each other? Someone on the bruno boards once said that marriage itself should be abolished in the eyes of the state, and that civil unions should be open to anyone--including a parent and child who live together, for example--so that those who have a true connection and who form real "households" could enjoy the same tax breaks as married people do now. This would have the effect of cutting down on marriages of convenience. Meanwhile, people who wanted to could have their religion of choice "marry" them, and they would apply for a civil union in order to reap the tax benefits. I think this idea has some merit to it.
Obviously, then, my beliefs concerning social issues contrast dramatically with those of your typical Republican. However, I don't go completely over to the Democrat side here. For one thing, I will never agree that abortion is right. I don't understand why other agnostics and atheists don't agree. If they truly believe, or are willing to consider, the idea that this life is all there is, then why do they feel that it's okay to take that life away from someone, without asking their opinion first? Why is convenience for those who have lived a little valued over the chance to live at all for an unborn child?
I also don't know if affirmative action works at all. I feel that, especially here in Georgia, the real racism is not going to be curbed until education is improved and more people have access to true dialogue on the subject.
And so, obviously, you see that I feel that education is important. I have my own opinions on our educational system, why it is failing and what we should do to fix it, which as far as I know are not reflected in either party's agenda.
What I'm saying here is, there are things that Bush believes in to his core that I would prefer to have nothing to do with. But that doesn't automatically make Kerry a better choice. The "anyone but Bush" camp is horribly shortsighted, in my view.
I still feel that Bush is the best option we had available to guide us through these troubling times. Now I will just have to sit back, keep my mouth shut on my various blogs and forums, and wait for the outrage to die back down to a simmer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
The social issues are the reason I favor the Democrats. I was not a big fan of Kerry, I would have much rather seen Dean on the ballots than Kerry. We talked a great deal about the role of the President and Diplomacy when I took my Diplomatic History of the USA class right before the Iraq war started. I really don't think there was much difference between Kerry and Bush in their foreign policy stances except that Bush has (in my opinion) bungled our relationships to other nations. Therefore I voted for Kerry in the hope for a fresher start and a more liberal social agenda (I really wanted Dean because of his education policies he implemented as Gov.).
I don't hate republicans as a group, but I dislike the hardline religious right because of their desire to base so much policy off religious beliefs. I remember how much democrat bashing was going on during Clinton's years so I think it occurs no matter who wins.
Our own beliefs on issues such as abortion come from a variety of areas, including our own experiences. For example, I favor abortion and birth control, almost to a dangerously communist point, because every day at work I see women with multiple kids living off the government or living in such poor conditions that the kids are victims. The government requires to pass tests to drive a car, to hunt, to fish; but anyone can be a parent.
Sanction the people who exhibit the behavior. Change the welfare system and tax laws so that people don't get an easy benefit just by popping out a kid.
Offer free sterilizations!
But don't cut off the life of someone who has already been conceived and is growing into a person. It's not her fault.
There is nothing wrong with affirmative action, except that it uses up tax dollars on enforcement of the regulations.
Having become the resident expert on AA, here at work, I can say that without qualm. Why? Because AA has NOTHING (Absolutely not a single thing) to do with hiring. If a company uses their AA policy as a benchmark during their hiring process, they have vilotated the Equal Employment Opportunity regulations, which require companies to consider applicants based on their qualficiations with out regard to race, gender, creed or status as "protected veteran".
Affirmative Action is about RECRUITMENT. The primary requirements are that the company take 'affirmative' (read: positive) action to determine where their recruitment efforts are "missing" women and minorities. For example, are all of the employment ads appearing in publication of interest to white males? Can attempts be made to make women's and minority groups aware of the company's job openings and requirements?
Further, Affirmative Action is not mandatory except for companies exceeding a certain number of employees (50) WHO ALSO have government contracts that exceed certain revenue limits (too complex to go into).
The only effect Affirmative Action should have on the average white job hunter is that he or she may have to contend with more qualified applicants due to the distribution of job notices to a wider audience.
I'll admit that there HAVE to be cases where AA has interfered with a qualified applicant in favor of recruiting a less qualified minority or woman. Attacking AA for this is wrong, because AA in no way encourages this, AND that type of activity is unlawful under EEO.
Sam
To Will:
Okay, Now--without returning to your comments on Bush--explain why Kerry was better. I equally disliked both men, and didn't vote. I'm just curious, because much of the commentary I see blasts one candidate without weighing the other. Heather's is a rare personal note that gives thoughtful reasoning on her views of both men.
I will admit that I leaned more toward Bush than Kerry, but I'm a defense contractor, and Democrats are bad for our business. With that the only factor that really stood out from the mire, I could not, in good faith cast a vote (that's only one of a leigion of reasons I didn't vote. I shan't go into the others, I have my own blog).
that's me with question for Will, if I didn't sign it
Sam
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Sam, I actually wasn't thinking about AA in terms of how it affects Average White Guy. I was thinking about it in terms of how companies might feel about it.
For example, I know of an office here in town in which racist comments are made regularly--mainly against middle easterners. For example, a hotel owner from India is "a Patel". A business owner who wants to bargain is muttered about behind his back with comments like "They're all like that." When it is heard that someone has refused to tip, the first question asked is "Was she black?"
This inherent racism is not going to go away by applying regulations to the companies, and in fact these regulations, which are something new that company owners have to learn and figure out how to deal with, could add a further sense of annoyance at "those people".
That's why I don't think AA can solve the problem of racism, and why I feel that it might be harmful.
However, you make valid points. Taken without regard to the climate of the office, the idea makes a lot of sense. Assuming the regulations are followed, this at least means that minorities have a better chance of being recognized for their abilities.
My concern is the resentment and distrust they will experience as employees.
It's a shitty situation, Heather, finding yourself surrounded by people that are outraged because the evil Bush, Jr. back into office. And you know, I've heard it mentioned some on the news here and there, but I don't think it'll ever get really out there that his popular vote exceeded every president since Ronald Reagan. But whether people know about it or not, it's true, and that means you're not alone. It also means that more people out there are on your side of things.
Of course, then you're going to have to factor in where you spend your time -- because its typically true that the more vocal, involved collegegoers are liberals like their professors, and that churchgoers are conservative. But that doesn't mean that you have to involve yourself in a college atmosphere to find liberals, or even that you have to go to church to find conservatives.
That may not have much to do with anything, but I think it crosses over to hangouts on the Internet fairly well. There are an overwhelming amount of sites, blogs, and chats where you can go to find liberals. There are most certainly places where you'll find conservatives too, but I'm not going to lie and say I've found any worth mentioning.
A simple fact, without going into too much (if any) explanation, is that kids and young adults tend to embrace the liberal mind set. It's more attractive to them than conservatism. Now, without going into that anymore, the brunt of people you're going to meet playing role-playing games and writing up blogs on the INTERNET are kids and young adults. This particular group -- bloggers and gamers -- are predominantly liberal. And that's a tough sort of place for a conservative to discuss his political opinions.
You can always look for a spot where people are old enough to have taken a good look at the issues and are savvy debaters, of course, but those places are rare, and are usually better for debating than playing games or reading nonpolitical journals.
So basically, back to what I said before, it sucks that you're where you are, but it didn't surprise me to see the reactions you've noted at the AMRN and elsewhere.
As for the gay marriage debate, it was done not by the government forcing a rule on the people, but by the people deciding for themselves what they wanted for their state. Even if you don't agree with the popular opinion in your state or others, our government is founded on electing leaders by popular vote to stand for us in Washington - in the House and the Senate, as well as the Oval Office - and that's how they took this gay marriage debate. The reason it was done now was because judges in states across America were, in fact, reinterpreting the laws the way they saw fit, despite arguments from the governments surrounding those justices. The fact is, something needs to be clarified here, or else we'll have renegade judges deciding by themselves what the state will accept to be legal.
Sure, maybe gay marriage should be legal. But it isn't Bush's or any judge's right to say what we the people want in our country. Thus, a button on the ballot, so each of us can say what we want for our communities. Perhaps it was done a bit soon, but those that wished for gay marriage weren't out campaigning for gay marriage -- making their case -- they were rushing to cities where the judge was overstepping his place and doing something illegal with his seal of legality atop it. That's not the way a government is run -- that's chaos. They moved too fast, and this is the unfortunate conclusion.
However, this is the first step to having gay unions recognized across America. Now it's out there. Now people can make the case for it, instead of gay marriage being one of those sorts of issues you keep under wraps. Or in the closet, to be cliche. Now is the time for those that wish for gay unions or gay marriages to come out and attempt to make their case with the American people -- not with the president or other law makers -- that not allowing gays to join the way a man and a woman can is like keeping blacks as slaves or women out of the working force.
In the end, America is the people, not the leaders.
As for abortion, a more and more common outlook is that it prevents kids from growing up in crappy homes. It keeps parents that don't want to work on the easy track. Abortion should be available, rather than holding parents accountable for what they do. Rather than holding teenage girls that should know better accountable for what they do. Liberals see that there is a problem, and that abortion can help to stop it. Conservatives think we should take it back to the source and teach those kids that consequences will be there for you if you do something stupid.
Abortion and the death penalty. Killing.
The death penalty says to those that might consider murder that they could, in fact, die for what they do. It's right there. No free ride, no chance at bail or reform. You kill, you die.
Abortion isn't the death penalty. Abortion is a quick-fix to someone else's life that fucked themselves up, that carries with it the abortion of a fetus that never got to grow up and make their own choice. This IS NOT about the parent that is living off welfare. This IS NOT about the girl that got raped. This is about the child that could have grown up to be someone that fell in love and worked for their money and lived the American dream. Every life is sacred, and every life should be given its chance.
It's easy now -- now that abortion is legal and accepted -- to accept the operation without considering the child at stake. I don't know that religion is responsible for the belief that life starts and conception. Because if we men and women -- we people -- don't fuck with that pregnancy, there most certainly will be a life that you can definitely see and believe when it's all over. Who are we to assume when that life starts? There are those cases where the pregnancy might end if doctors don't step in, but at least there we are using science for LIFE. We are using our knowledge for life, not an easy-out when someone fucks up.
To those that may not agree with me: Would you rather embrace abortion, or would you rather embrace teaching our children not to make mistakes before they are prepared to be held accountable for them? What's the better outcome? If we don't depopularize abortion, how can we begin to teach children it isn't okay to fuck around and then go get fixed at the doctor? Bush and conservatives would like to see abortion abolished, but that's a dream for the future. We wouldn't even think to so much as suggest removing that option entirely until it was certain that young children had been raised to understand what can happen when you have sexual relations too young. Better to make abortion occur less, and teach abstinence and safe sex more.
And just on a last note, this "Bush bungled our foreign relations" is really starting to bother me. He did what he saw, with the same evidence that everyone else that voted for the authorization to use force (Kerry too) saw. Let's remember that many nations across the map supported the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. But not all, right? Why does no one recall the Food for Oil scandal that just came to light? France, Germany, Russia, and China involved with Saddam Hussein behind the door, using the UN's initially well-meaning Food for Oil program to feed money to Saddam Hussein in their own special business deals. The UN may never finish their own internal investigation, but the scandal did take place, and it is even evidence that some of that 10.1 billion "cash-cow" given to Saddam had ended up in the hands of terrorists and, now, insurgents fighting the US.
If you work a job, and you like tattoos, you sometimes have to wear long-sleeved shirts. When you take a girl out and you really want to go upstairs on the first date but she doesn't want to, you give her a kiss at the door. But America has no "boss" when it comes to our own national security. We don't HAVE to pander to countries that are working secret deals with the enemies while saying loudly in the public forum that Saddam should be given more time.
These countries influenced their people through the media and through their leaders' reaction to the war. No matter the nation, people are like to be loyal to that nation. And that America went to war to protect its people and France did not because it was involved in secret business deals with Saddam does not matter when it comes to loyalty. It's a shame, but its true.
The great thing about America is our freedom of thought and our freedom of speech. And our massive freedom to see and read and know anything we want. We can make up our own minds, and we can decide to be against our own leaders should we choose to be. But we are Americans. Why do so many of us feel that we need to submit ourselves to other nations not acting morally or rightly? Why are we wrong for defending ourselves when those that are against our attack are knowingly pushing money into Saddam's bank that never is given to the people it was meant for?
We aren't perfect. But we are America. We bring freedom to Iraq with each passing day. Use that massive freedom to look, and you'll see that there are equally as many good stories coming out of that country as bad. It isn't always bleak and black like other nations and some of our own news organizations would have us believe.
There's a reason that more of our troops supported Bush than Kerry. Why is it that those that support our troops can't see that? Because the troops can see what they're doing every day. The good and the bad. We, unfortunately are fed the bad and we have to look hard for the good.
If the other nations across the globe cannot come to fathom what we're doing in Iraq, then lay the blame at their feet. Their own agendas came before anything else. Maybe they shouldn't have to worry about American safety. And even further (no, this was not how the war started, but it certainly is a reason that our troops keep going day after day now), perhaps they think their own agendas are more important than the treatment of the Iraqis.
The UN spun its wheels with Iraq because of a heavy influence by those countries involved in wrongful deals with Saddam. America went and did what was thought to be necessary.
I say that it is not our place to apologize to them for liberating a people and deposing a killer. And making the world a safer place for it.
You say what the media says. "He bungled our foreign relations." No, he protected America. And when the world wises up, they'll agree with what he did. It's very honorable to look first to yourself when there's a conflict that needs to be fixed. But it is not wrong to say that sometimes the change that needs be made is not in us, but in others.
I don't agree on abortion, and I doubt I ever will. As much as I am a more positive person, nothing--I think--will ever convince me that human life is THAT sacred. It's a conciet based on the fact that that we can think in the abstract.
As Steven Wright said, "I had a dream where all the babies prevented by the pill came back. They were mad."
Life, when broken down, is the stuggle of various contructs to seed their environment with copies of themselves. Bacteria are winning, by numbers.
I don't like death, or willfully decideing to end lives, but they are facts of life (that struggle to seed the environment with copies of the self). We're up to near seven billion copies of this particular brand, and in danger of losing realestate to global warming. We have to, as cold as it sounds, start thinking in practical terms.
I thought about expressing my opinion on this before, but chose not too. My opinion is faily harsh and highly analytical. But I've decided I should lay it out as an answer to Heather's question "why don't all agnostics/aetheists oppose abortion?"
If look at my reasoning, you see the key. The question is no basic enough. The real question is "Do agnotics/aetheists define life in the same way and do they all place the same level of value on it?" The answer is, "no".
It's those value judgements that make up the abortion question, and those judgements are based on metaphysis or religion in most cases. There simply isn't enough information to make a scientific judgement on the value and nature of life, or question of when a zygote becomes a human being. It's all a matter of personal faith.
I personally believe the government has no business mucking about in matters of personal faith. It's in the constitution, I believe.
In this way, people can "vote" with their actions. If this world where even the young can act responsible should ever come to pass, the question of abortion for convience will become moot.
I am, however glad to see that someone out there realizes, inspite of all the hype, that the president was damned in the court of world opinion no matter what he did, post Sept 11. I'm one of the few people who remembers the EU's reaction to the effectiveness and speed with which US Forces toppled that country. They were afraid. Not because they could be next, but because they looked at their own war faighting abilit and found themselves lacking.
US Forces could do things they cannot, much of our equipment was equal to their newest generation of systems, and we were planning even newer weapons.
The US government is just plain unpopular. Being the only superpower in the free world for half a century does that. We were unpopular before the war and we're unpopular since. It'll be that way until we cease to be on top. Most Americans don't like our government. How do we expect other's to feel differently?
Sam
I'd like to reply again, I guess, to clarify my point on abortion. I touched on this in my former post, and I figured that'd be enough to put forth my stance, but just in case it wasn't, here I go again.
I don't like abortion. We took away the right for a man to shoot another man in the head without any trouble coming his way, but because a woman gets herself pregnant (more cases than not, it's stupid planning that brings people to the clinic) she's allowed to pull the trigger on the child inside. I'm for women's rights, but I'm for men's rights too - should that child turn out to be a boy.
But now for the clarification. I don't think that abortion will ever be illegal. I don't think it could be, and honestly I don't think it should be. The mother could die, the infant could be a product of rape, yadda yadda. I've heard those same excuses all the time, and yes, they do apply on the rare occasion. Of course, we're once again forgetting the life inside at these times. In society these days, it's all too easy to only believe what you can see in, even if you know that sticking your hand in the trash disposal is going to hurt like a bitch.
But okay. Abortion is never going to go away, and it shouldn't. What I don't like is that it's so popular, and used so much when it really shouldn't be. It's become an easy out, a backup plan for fucking around when it isn't necessarily the safest thing to do. It was once disgraceful to be pregnant out of wedlock. I don't think that should ever surface again, but that does not mean we have to go to the polar extreme and embrace abortion the way many today have done.
I am for cutting down on abortion, not by lawmaking, but by leaving it as an option but promoting abstinence and safer sex. I am for teaching the youth to be responsible for their bodies rather than just assuming youth cannot be responsible for themselves. We taught the youth that abortion was okay if they accidentally got pregnant. Now lets teach them not to get pregnant.
I have a lot of faith in our kids. They're going to be better and smarter than all of us. Not just because of conservatism, but because of liberalism. Because of all that embodies America and makes America great.
You say that not all America should have to suffer from laws made by those of us that are religious. But should all of America and our future generations have to learn to accept abortion, just as you have come to do? I reiterate. I am not for aboloshing abortion. In a perfect world, I'd like to see it gone. But in our world, it will never be gone.
But why can't we move forward as not only a community of different religions but as a country made up of differeng people and groups towards a world where abortion truly IS a "last resort" and not an option to consider before you drop your pants and let the man in?
And though this has not yet been mentioned, kids uneducated about sexual intercourse and the possible results are not only prone to get pregnant, but to get sexual diseases. Not to mention the mental strain on our young children when they think sex is the way to become popular and loved.
You may not think the lives of unborn children are sacred, and I can accept that. But the lives of those children already born and going through the difficult stages of growing up could be more harm than good to the world about them if we do not do something to help nurture that responsibility in them that you blatantly noted is generally lacking.
As for Mari's comment on welfare - I don't believe anyone has suggested just dropping welfare and any other aids that mothers with children might be receiving. And Heather's comment on sterilization was meant to impart that you could choose yourself to become sterile, should you think it was in your best interests.
The way to change the United States into a more pro-life country is not to destroy abortion and cut welfare. We have to take care of today's children, and prepare them to responsibly raise the children of tomorrow.
Christian or agnostic, black or white, rich or poor, we all are bound by our nationality. We are all Americans, and Americans take care of each other. Everybody has seen the Mob and the FBI join together in The Rocketeer to fight back the Nazis. Everyone has seen the Democrats and Republicans unite when the terrorists attacked our country. No matter our differing beliefs, we believe in the betterment of mankind and of the world we live in.
Abortion ties into all of this. It isn't time to abolish it. It's time to step up and teach our children not to be having 5-7 kids while living on welfare. Finishing High School, finishing college. Finding solid jobs and living the American Dream. Safe sex when you aren't prepared to have children. And should one come along, options to aid you in raising it, or more accessable adoption agencies so that abortion isn't necessary.
You may not believe that unborn children are yet living children, Sam, and I don't mind that you are of that opinion. But the other factors involved, such as finally lessening the spreading of HIV and other STDs among foolish sexual partners could indeed be a good step forward for our country. In the end, everyone wins. It's sad that children have to come into a world where their own parents aren't prepared to raise them. But why fix this problem by eliminating the children? Why not just raise those parents so that they won't have the kids until they actually are ready?
-AJ
AJ triple posted there, and it was a lot to scroll past, so I removed two of them ;D
Thanks for all the comments, everybody. I may respond again later. I really need to get back to writing...kind of losing myself at the moment, not sure of where I'm going. (In the book.)
Post a Comment