OK, so I've been a little absent. I overloaded my brain and my circuits had to reset. Been reading Miss Manners instead of anything political for a bit.
So yesterday was midterm elections day, and if you didn't know that...have you been living under a rock or something? Sheesh. I can't say I'm sad that all the mud-slingy ads are gone. Ye gods, that got crazy.
As it stands, Republicans control the House, 239-185 at my last info. Democrats retained the Senate, 51 seats to 46. Most of the races, nationwide, were in the 55/45 kind of range. There were a few that were more like 60/40, but I can't think of any race that I saw results for that were a complete walk away.
Grayson in FL lost, for which thank goodness. He took mudslinging to a whole new level of "Lying Bastard". Angle in NV lost, which I kind of couldn't believe, but whatever. I don't have to live with Reid. Brown won in CA, and Boxer kept her seat.
But the huge Republican wave is just crazy! I have seen many blog and/or FB posts today that have been rather upset, ranging from sad to angry and everything in between. And I gotta say that I really don't get it. I don't get the name-calling and I don't get the assumption that "OMG Republicans won, women are going to lose the right to vote and blacks are going to be forced back into slavery and gays will be strung up on street corners!" Why?
And that's not entirely a rhetorical question. I really want to know why lefties label righties evil and scary. Some are, sure, the extreme ones. They don't speak for all. The same way the extreme lefties don't speak for all.
Here in AZ there was almost a Republican sweep. Brewer is still in as governor, McCain in the Senate. Ben Quayle won his Congressional bid. Am still waiting to see what's happening in Tucson, where Ruth McClung challenged the incumbent Raul Grijalva. He's held that seat for a long time but the last thing I saw had him ahead by only aboaut 3000 votes.
I'm hoping that all this shift will result in some good things happening. I know the left wants to blame Bush for...oh, everything, apparently, but wasn't the Congress in Democratic control since 2006? Surely they had something to do with it. Bush didn't have supreme power or anything, did he?
Anyway, I'm sure there are changes ahead. I think I'm going to back this blog up a bit, go through the Constitution one amendment at a time. Instead of flailing about. I'll get the hang of this eventually.
03 November 2010
21 October 2010
Islam - Required Reading
Well, I think so, anyway.
I'm still sticking rather to the shallow end of the swimming pool, but inching deeper.
I read these three books about a year ago, give or take. The author is Jean Sasson, writing for Princess "Sultana", who lives in Saudi Arabia. If the things she writes about do not hurt your brain and make you want to cry, I'm going to suspect you of not being human.
Also, I picked up "The Caged Virgin" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali at the library the other day. She was born in Somalia, lived in the Netherlands under a death threat, and is currently living in the US. She works for the emancipation of Muslim women and had this to say (in 2005) about Islamic reform which she feels is hugely necessary:
"I am optimistic, and I normally would have looked to the West for help in reforming Islam, from secular liberals, Westerners who are traditionally opposed to the enforcement of religious beliefs and customs. In certain countries, "left-wing," secular liberals have stimulated my critical thinking and that of other Muslims. But these same liberals in Western politics have the strange habit of blaming themselves for the ills of the world, while seeing the rest of the world as victims. To them, victims are to be pitied, and they lump together all pitiable and suppressed people, such as Muslims, and consider them good people who should be cherished and supported so that they can overcome their disadvantages. The adherents to the gospel of multiculturalism refuse to criticize people whom they see as victims. Some Western critics disapprove of United States policies and attitudes but do not criticize the Islamic world, just as, in the first part of the twentieth century, Western socialist apologists did not dare criticize the Soviet labor camps. Along the same lines, some Western intellectuals criticize Israel, but they will not criticize Palestine because Israel belongs to the West, which they consider fair game, but they feel sorry for the Palestinians, and for the Islamic world in general, which is not as powerful as the West. They are critical of the native white majority in Western countries but not of Islamic minorities. Criticism of the Islamic world, of Palestinians, and of Islamic minorities is regarded as Islamophobia and xenophobia.
I cannot emphasize enough how wrongheaded this is. Withholding criticism and ignoring differences are racism in its purest form. Yet these cultural experts fail to notice that, through their anxious avoidance of criticizing non-Western countries, they trap the people who represent these cultures in a state of backwardness. The experts may have the best of intentions, but as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
I still have more to read. I was going to check out a copy of the Koran and read it, but chickened out due to OMG HUGE. I did find a book called "The Essential Koran" so am going to read that one.
Inching deeper, but still holding on to the side....
I'm still sticking rather to the shallow end of the swimming pool, but inching deeper.
I read these three books about a year ago, give or take. The author is Jean Sasson, writing for Princess "Sultana", who lives in Saudi Arabia. If the things she writes about do not hurt your brain and make you want to cry, I'm going to suspect you of not being human.
Also, I picked up "The Caged Virgin" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali at the library the other day. She was born in Somalia, lived in the Netherlands under a death threat, and is currently living in the US. She works for the emancipation of Muslim women and had this to say (in 2005) about Islamic reform which she feels is hugely necessary:
"I am optimistic, and I normally would have looked to the West for help in reforming Islam, from secular liberals, Westerners who are traditionally opposed to the enforcement of religious beliefs and customs. In certain countries, "left-wing," secular liberals have stimulated my critical thinking and that of other Muslims. But these same liberals in Western politics have the strange habit of blaming themselves for the ills of the world, while seeing the rest of the world as victims. To them, victims are to be pitied, and they lump together all pitiable and suppressed people, such as Muslims, and consider them good people who should be cherished and supported so that they can overcome their disadvantages. The adherents to the gospel of multiculturalism refuse to criticize people whom they see as victims. Some Western critics disapprove of United States policies and attitudes but do not criticize the Islamic world, just as, in the first part of the twentieth century, Western socialist apologists did not dare criticize the Soviet labor camps. Along the same lines, some Western intellectuals criticize Israel, but they will not criticize Palestine because Israel belongs to the West, which they consider fair game, but they feel sorry for the Palestinians, and for the Islamic world in general, which is not as powerful as the West. They are critical of the native white majority in Western countries but not of Islamic minorities. Criticism of the Islamic world, of Palestinians, and of Islamic minorities is regarded as Islamophobia and xenophobia.
I cannot emphasize enough how wrongheaded this is. Withholding criticism and ignoring differences are racism in its purest form. Yet these cultural experts fail to notice that, through their anxious avoidance of criticizing non-Western countries, they trap the people who represent these cultures in a state of backwardness. The experts may have the best of intentions, but as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
I still have more to read. I was going to check out a copy of the Koran and read it, but chickened out due to OMG HUGE. I did find a book called "The Essential Koran" so am going to read that one.
Inching deeper, but still holding on to the side....
19 October 2010
Islam "edit"
Only not really an "edit" per se. More like an addition.
A friend posted a link in the comments of my other post, and after checking it out I wanted to post it here as well. Walid Shoebat is a former PLO terrorist who has since...well...come to his senses and now speaks out against the Muslim extremists/terrorists.
Check it out.
A friend posted a link in the comments of my other post, and after checking it out I wanted to post it here as well. Walid Shoebat is a former PLO terrorist who has since...well...come to his senses and now speaks out against the Muslim extremists/terrorists.
Check it out.
18 October 2010
Islam
DISCLAIMER: I have a ton of reading to do before I can even claim to be decently informed about Islam. This post is just a beginning.
I know that there are Muslim people that were NOT joyful at the sights and sounds of 9/11. I know that there are those who think the extremists are wrong. I know that there are some that do not agree that all infidels must be either converted or killed. Why won't they speak? Because THEY will be killed.
I read this series of books, about a princess in Saudi Arabia, told in her own words to the author. The horrible way that women are treated under Shari'ah (spelling?) Law is criminal, at least to this Semi Privileged White Girl who grew up in America. Men are everything, women are nothing. There is an anecdote in one of the books - Sultana had a couple of friends who were sneaking off to meet men. Not for sex, they didn't go that far, but for the 'sin' of being alone with men they weren't related to, one of the girls was drowned by her own father. The other was bricked into a room and no one was allowed to talk to her ever again.
Christianity has grown and shifted and expanded as the culture has changed. Islam has not changed since the beginning, at least not in any appreciable way - in fact, REFUSES to change. The Koran, which I have not personally read, so see again the disclaimer at the top, tells true believers of Islam that all unbelievers shall be either converted or killed. I found the following quotes here.
"The Prophet said: 'I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and they establish prostration prayer, and pay Zakat. If they do it, their blood and property are protected.'"
"Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
"Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah."
"Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace."
They obviously haven't gotten the memo regarding the fact that this is the 21st century. Many Muslims, including those in power, have seen and been exposed to Western ways and thoughts, and still return to hardcore Islam. So it can't be said that ignorance of other ways is all it is. Is it fear? Is it determination to stay in charge? Is it simply hate? Lots of people claim that Islam is, in fact, a peaceful religion. I believe that there are those Muslims who ARE peaceful, but they seem to be rather few and far between.
So far, everything I've read and everything I've seen in the news tells me that they are out to take over the world. Not in some goofy "Pinky & The Brain" style insanity, but really and truly take over. Many areas of the world have Muslim "enclaves" where Shari'ah Law rules. They have fought and argued for the right to have these enclaves to themselves, where Western society is expunged, disallowed, and kept out. Here is an article from 2008, which states that it is already happening here in the US. It's also happening in various parts of Europe - the Netherlands have been in the news several times, as has France.
And we have done it to ourselves. Diversity is wonderful and allowing people to live the way they wish is one of the best things about the world now. However, this diversity is also a back door for these Muslims to easily slide through and begin to take over. How do we stop it? And is it already too late to do so?
Gotta hit the library this week to get more info. This isn't the last from me on this subject. Later.
I know that there are Muslim people that were NOT joyful at the sights and sounds of 9/11. I know that there are those who think the extremists are wrong. I know that there are some that do not agree that all infidels must be either converted or killed. Why won't they speak? Because THEY will be killed.
I read this series of books, about a princess in Saudi Arabia, told in her own words to the author. The horrible way that women are treated under Shari'ah (spelling?) Law is criminal, at least to this Semi Privileged White Girl who grew up in America. Men are everything, women are nothing. There is an anecdote in one of the books - Sultana had a couple of friends who were sneaking off to meet men. Not for sex, they didn't go that far, but for the 'sin' of being alone with men they weren't related to, one of the girls was drowned by her own father. The other was bricked into a room and no one was allowed to talk to her ever again.
Christianity has grown and shifted and expanded as the culture has changed. Islam has not changed since the beginning, at least not in any appreciable way - in fact, REFUSES to change. The Koran, which I have not personally read, so see again the disclaimer at the top, tells true believers of Islam that all unbelievers shall be either converted or killed. I found the following quotes here.
"The Prophet said: 'I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and they establish prostration prayer, and pay Zakat. If they do it, their blood and property are protected.'"
"Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
"Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah."
"Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace."
They obviously haven't gotten the memo regarding the fact that this is the 21st century. Many Muslims, including those in power, have seen and been exposed to Western ways and thoughts, and still return to hardcore Islam. So it can't be said that ignorance of other ways is all it is. Is it fear? Is it determination to stay in charge? Is it simply hate? Lots of people claim that Islam is, in fact, a peaceful religion. I believe that there are those Muslims who ARE peaceful, but they seem to be rather few and far between.
So far, everything I've read and everything I've seen in the news tells me that they are out to take over the world. Not in some goofy "Pinky & The Brain" style insanity, but really and truly take over. Many areas of the world have Muslim "enclaves" where Shari'ah Law rules. They have fought and argued for the right to have these enclaves to themselves, where Western society is expunged, disallowed, and kept out. Here is an article from 2008, which states that it is already happening here in the US. It's also happening in various parts of Europe - the Netherlands have been in the news several times, as has France.
And we have done it to ourselves. Diversity is wonderful and allowing people to live the way they wish is one of the best things about the world now. However, this diversity is also a back door for these Muslims to easily slide through and begin to take over. How do we stop it? And is it already too late to do so?
Gotta hit the library this week to get more info. This isn't the last from me on this subject. Later.
12 October 2010
Ism's....
That may or may not be a word, but I like it, so it stays. You know...racism, sexism, ageism, sizeism, all those copious ism's that people judge others by. They all suck and I'm pretty sure just about everyone agrees with me on that one.
Being a female type, I have run into sexism once in a while. Nothing terribly drastic, but I have seen it. Heard/read tons of stories. Sizeism, too, since I'm a big girl. I hate airplanes.
I'd actually like to talk about racism. I fully realize and acknowledge that I am coming from the POV of a Semi-Privileged White Chick (tm) and hence can never fully understand the awfulness that is true racism. I also confess that I (like most everyone) have some unconscious racist thoughts, though I do try to mentally whack myself upside the head when I think them.
rac·ism –noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
I have had friends of just about every race, creed, and sexual orientation. They were not my friends because of or in spite of their differences from me, they were just my friends. Besides, kids don't think things like "I'll go be friends with the (insert difference here) person, that proves I'm not judgmental and racist!" Except that it proves exactly that, when you are friendly to someone for that reason.
Anyway, I believe that there are truly racist actions and speech. I also believe that some people claim others are being racist when they are no such thing. F'r instance, someone who happens to be black goes into a store for a refund but has no receipt and whatever it is has obviously been worn/used to the point of unsellable. When told "sorry, can't do it" - is that racist? No. Claiming it's because the clerk is racist waters down the actual racism that does still exist.
Or the brouhaha over SB 1070 here in AZ. There are many claims that it is racist or will result in racial profiling. Nowhere in the relatively short bill does it mention a specific race, but the simple fact is that AZ shares a border with Mexico and there are huge numbers of Hispanics in the US illegally. AZ doesn't exactly have a problem with illegal Asians or Canadians or whatever. I mean, I can see where it might feel racist, but it isn't. At least not in my opinion. Again, I may be wrong, see disclaimer re: "semi privileged white girl" status.
I've just finished reading Obama's "Dreams From My Father", in which he talks about being a community organizer in Chicago, trying to get things changed in the projects. Fact #1 - the projects are mostly black neighborhoods. Fact #2 - they do get shafted in regards to businesses/industry opening in the area. Fact # 3 - gangs and drugs do start to take over the poorer neighborhoods.
SPWG question - why don't the people in the neighborhoods stand together and do something? I understand that despair and such can lead people to give up. Truly, I get that.
And why are successful black people sometimes called "Uncle Tom" and accused of selling out to "The Man"? Can you only be a real black person if you live in poverty and squalor? Or is it more like how dare they make something of themselves, hence making the ones who DON'T manage it look bad?
I really truly do want to know. I know the stuff I've just written will probably make some people mad. I don't mean it in such a way. I wonder similar things about white people who don't even try.
One more question - when whites discriminate against anyone, it is racism. Why, pray tell, when whites are on the receiving end of discrimination (and it does happen) is it called "reverse racism"? Isn't it still just racism? I don't see anything in that definition up top about white people always being the bad guys.
Confused, truly.
Being a female type, I have run into sexism once in a while. Nothing terribly drastic, but I have seen it. Heard/read tons of stories. Sizeism, too, since I'm a big girl. I hate airplanes.
I'd actually like to talk about racism. I fully realize and acknowledge that I am coming from the POV of a Semi-Privileged White Chick (tm) and hence can never fully understand the awfulness that is true racism. I also confess that I (like most everyone) have some unconscious racist thoughts, though I do try to mentally whack myself upside the head when I think them.
rac·ism –noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
I have had friends of just about every race, creed, and sexual orientation. They were not my friends because of or in spite of their differences from me, they were just my friends. Besides, kids don't think things like "I'll go be friends with the (insert difference here) person, that proves I'm not judgmental and racist!" Except that it proves exactly that, when you are friendly to someone for that reason.
Anyway, I believe that there are truly racist actions and speech. I also believe that some people claim others are being racist when they are no such thing. F'r instance, someone who happens to be black goes into a store for a refund but has no receipt and whatever it is has obviously been worn/used to the point of unsellable. When told "sorry, can't do it" - is that racist? No. Claiming it's because the clerk is racist waters down the actual racism that does still exist.
Or the brouhaha over SB 1070 here in AZ. There are many claims that it is racist or will result in racial profiling. Nowhere in the relatively short bill does it mention a specific race, but the simple fact is that AZ shares a border with Mexico and there are huge numbers of Hispanics in the US illegally. AZ doesn't exactly have a problem with illegal Asians or Canadians or whatever. I mean, I can see where it might feel racist, but it isn't. At least not in my opinion. Again, I may be wrong, see disclaimer re: "semi privileged white girl" status.
I've just finished reading Obama's "Dreams From My Father", in which he talks about being a community organizer in Chicago, trying to get things changed in the projects. Fact #1 - the projects are mostly black neighborhoods. Fact #2 - they do get shafted in regards to businesses/industry opening in the area. Fact # 3 - gangs and drugs do start to take over the poorer neighborhoods.
SPWG question - why don't the people in the neighborhoods stand together and do something? I understand that despair and such can lead people to give up. Truly, I get that.
And why are successful black people sometimes called "Uncle Tom" and accused of selling out to "The Man"? Can you only be a real black person if you live in poverty and squalor? Or is it more like how dare they make something of themselves, hence making the ones who DON'T manage it look bad?
I really truly do want to know. I know the stuff I've just written will probably make some people mad. I don't mean it in such a way. I wonder similar things about white people who don't even try.
One more question - when whites discriminate against anyone, it is racism. Why, pray tell, when whites are on the receiving end of discrimination (and it does happen) is it called "reverse racism"? Isn't it still just racism? I don't see anything in that definition up top about white people always being the bad guys.
Confused, truly.
08 October 2010
Freedom of Speech
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
These freedoms are exceedingly important and should never EVER be taken for granted. Sadly, some people use them for their own gain/agenda and get away with it. Where can you draw a line?
A good example I heard used freedom of religion - you have the right to practice whatever religion you want, right up till you infringe on someone else's rights. So human sacrifice is out.
The impetus for this being about freedom of speech, specifically, is this fiasco with the Westboro Baptist "Church", who I am NOT going to link to. Wanna know how hateful they are? Go find them yourself. I'm sure it isn't difficult.
Don't know what I'm talking about? They "protested" at the funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq. His name was Matthew Snyder and he was 20 years old. They followed all the rules, stayed however far away they are supposed to, didn't approach anyone, etc. In advance, though, they alerted tons of media and the local law with a letter showing the soldier's pic above a pic of a military coffin and the statement "Burial of an ass". At the funeral itself they held signs saying horrible things. It is far from the only one.
I'm relatively sure I'm preaching to the choir here.
This was in 2006. Matthew's father sued the "Church" for emotional distress and harassment and won...for a minute. A court of appeals not only overturned that decision, but promptly ordered Mr. Snyder to pay court costs. He has taken it to the Supreme Court, where they heard oral arguments this past Wednesday.
So where does freedom of speech become harassment? Where can the courts say "No, this is wrong and all you're doing is being hateful"?
I almost feel bad for Fred Phelps, having to live in his own head with all this insanity, and then I think of all the people he has tried to hurt and suddenly I just kind of want him to go away. Or have an epiphany of "My goodness, I surely have been an ass, haven't I?"
He seems to be missing some essential elements. Compassion. Empathy. Plus most of America thinks he's a nutjob. Me included. How can someone be so hateful in the name of God?
There is a website with all the info regarding this case.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
These freedoms are exceedingly important and should never EVER be taken for granted. Sadly, some people use them for their own gain/agenda and get away with it. Where can you draw a line?
A good example I heard used freedom of religion - you have the right to practice whatever religion you want, right up till you infringe on someone else's rights. So human sacrifice is out.
The impetus for this being about freedom of speech, specifically, is this fiasco with the Westboro Baptist "Church", who I am NOT going to link to. Wanna know how hateful they are? Go find them yourself. I'm sure it isn't difficult.
Don't know what I'm talking about? They "protested" at the funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq. His name was Matthew Snyder and he was 20 years old. They followed all the rules, stayed however far away they are supposed to, didn't approach anyone, etc. In advance, though, they alerted tons of media and the local law with a letter showing the soldier's pic above a pic of a military coffin and the statement "Burial of an ass". At the funeral itself they held signs saying horrible things. It is far from the only one.
I'm relatively sure I'm preaching to the choir here.
This was in 2006. Matthew's father sued the "Church" for emotional distress and harassment and won...for a minute. A court of appeals not only overturned that decision, but promptly ordered Mr. Snyder to pay court costs. He has taken it to the Supreme Court, where they heard oral arguments this past Wednesday.
So where does freedom of speech become harassment? Where can the courts say "No, this is wrong and all you're doing is being hateful"?
I almost feel bad for Fred Phelps, having to live in his own head with all this insanity, and then I think of all the people he has tried to hurt and suddenly I just kind of want him to go away. Or have an epiphany of "My goodness, I surely have been an ass, haven't I?"
He seems to be missing some essential elements. Compassion. Empathy. Plus most of America thinks he's a nutjob. Me included. How can someone be so hateful in the name of God?
There is a website with all the info regarding this case.
07 October 2010
Etiquette and manners
I can already hear you....what does etiquette have to do with politics? Or with anything REAL for that matter? Etiquette is just for stuffy people! It's just pretending! Besides, I don't know which fork to use!
Hogwash.
First of all, yes, there is etiquette in politics (or at least there should be). Second of all, I'm taking a teensy break from thinking mainly about politics, as my brain hurts a little. So I'm going to blog on etiquette and manners, a subject near and dear to my (possibly very weird) heart.
Confession first: I collect etiquette books. Miss Manners (aka Judith Martin) is my favorite, but I also have Letitia Baldrige, Amy Vanderbilt, and Emily Post. I also have (treasure!) 2 books that are circa 1900. I love my books.
It's amazing to me that there are so many people who disregard not only etiquette, which is the "rules", but slough off manners completely....until someone is rude to them. Then look out! They will rant and rail about the loss of manners in society, not being aware that those who DO practice good manners are noticing their rudeness and ignoring it so as not to compound the problem.
Emily Post has this to say: "Manners are a sensitive awareness of the feelings of others. If you have that awareness, you have good manners, no matter what fork you use."
There's that pesky fork again. Let's get that out of the way. If you should ever have occasion to sit down at a formal dinner (happening less and less these days), there are two things to remember. One, there should not be more than 3 forks on the table. No, truly, you will never ever see 5 or 6 or some other unwieldy number on a properly set table. Two, all you do is use the fork that is furthest to the left. It leaves the table at the end of the course you used it on and look! Only 2 forks left! Which one do you use now? That's correct, the one furthest to the left. Then it leaves and your choice is easy. Only one!
Why do people pick on the poor forks? They just want to be helpful!
I say we bring back manners. If only there were a way to force it on people - well, people other than the ones we give birth to. Them you can force all you want. It's a start, I suppose.
Personally, I'm doing my best to raise well-mannered children. They're not perfect, of course, since they ARE kids, but I'm trying. And they're doing pretty well.
As evidence - a hugely proud moment for me, and I wasn't even there. My kids were visiting my mom last summer, and she took the three of them (ages 9, 12, and 14 at the time) to a resort for a weekend. They were joined for dinner one night by my sis and her two kids (2.5 and 1 at the time), and they all went to the somewhat fancy restaurant in the resort. About halfway through dinner, 2 older ladies that had been sitting near them got up to leave and stopped to talk to my mother. She was told that when all the kids came in, the ladies were dismayed to be seated near them, assuming that the kids would be loud and horrid, as most kids are. They stopped, however, to compliment all the kids on their lovely manners and to say how pleased they were that there are still some polite children in the world. I busted buttons, I tell you.
Now, I'm not bragging (well, not much!), but I would like to use that story to point out that it IS possible to teach children manners without "stifling their creativity" or some such bushwah that basically means "I let my children walk all over me".
What's that? Learning manners is hard? Obviously you've never tried. Now, I will grant that the more formal rules of ETIQUETTE can sometimes be tough. But manners is simply "not being a jerk". That's not hard. It is, however, contagious. Smile at one person instead of snarling and it's amazing...they will go on to smile at one or two or a dozen people...and eventually, with a little bit of luck, the world is a nicer place. At least for a minute.
Try it. Join me. I promise to not pull out the shrimp forks and strawberry forks and demitasse spoons and fish knives and.....
Hogwash.
First of all, yes, there is etiquette in politics (or at least there should be). Second of all, I'm taking a teensy break from thinking mainly about politics, as my brain hurts a little. So I'm going to blog on etiquette and manners, a subject near and dear to my (possibly very weird) heart.
Confession first: I collect etiquette books. Miss Manners (aka Judith Martin) is my favorite, but I also have Letitia Baldrige, Amy Vanderbilt, and Emily Post. I also have (treasure!) 2 books that are circa 1900. I love my books.
It's amazing to me that there are so many people who disregard not only etiquette, which is the "rules", but slough off manners completely....until someone is rude to them. Then look out! They will rant and rail about the loss of manners in society, not being aware that those who DO practice good manners are noticing their rudeness and ignoring it so as not to compound the problem.
Emily Post has this to say: "Manners are a sensitive awareness of the feelings of others. If you have that awareness, you have good manners, no matter what fork you use."
There's that pesky fork again. Let's get that out of the way. If you should ever have occasion to sit down at a formal dinner (happening less and less these days), there are two things to remember. One, there should not be more than 3 forks on the table. No, truly, you will never ever see 5 or 6 or some other unwieldy number on a properly set table. Two, all you do is use the fork that is furthest to the left. It leaves the table at the end of the course you used it on and look! Only 2 forks left! Which one do you use now? That's correct, the one furthest to the left. Then it leaves and your choice is easy. Only one!
Why do people pick on the poor forks? They just want to be helpful!
I say we bring back manners. If only there were a way to force it on people - well, people other than the ones we give birth to. Them you can force all you want. It's a start, I suppose.
Personally, I'm doing my best to raise well-mannered children. They're not perfect, of course, since they ARE kids, but I'm trying. And they're doing pretty well.
As evidence - a hugely proud moment for me, and I wasn't even there. My kids were visiting my mom last summer, and she took the three of them (ages 9, 12, and 14 at the time) to a resort for a weekend. They were joined for dinner one night by my sis and her two kids (2.5 and 1 at the time), and they all went to the somewhat fancy restaurant in the resort. About halfway through dinner, 2 older ladies that had been sitting near them got up to leave and stopped to talk to my mother. She was told that when all the kids came in, the ladies were dismayed to be seated near them, assuming that the kids would be loud and horrid, as most kids are. They stopped, however, to compliment all the kids on their lovely manners and to say how pleased they were that there are still some polite children in the world. I busted buttons, I tell you.
Now, I'm not bragging (well, not much!), but I would like to use that story to point out that it IS possible to teach children manners without "stifling their creativity" or some such bushwah that basically means "I let my children walk all over me".
What's that? Learning manners is hard? Obviously you've never tried. Now, I will grant that the more formal rules of ETIQUETTE can sometimes be tough. But manners is simply "not being a jerk". That's not hard. It is, however, contagious. Smile at one person instead of snarling and it's amazing...they will go on to smile at one or two or a dozen people...and eventually, with a little bit of luck, the world is a nicer place. At least for a minute.
Try it. Join me. I promise to not pull out the shrimp forks and strawberry forks and demitasse spoons and fish knives and.....
06 October 2010
Alright, damnit.
I'm going to get this to work, this religion/politics intersection. I am. Maybe.
I'm going to try, anyway. And this one is posting, even if it doesn't go exactly like I think. At least I'll have said SOMETHING, and that gives me something to edit or whatever. Right? Right.
There are tendencies that people follow, usually from their religion to their politics, though sometimes the other way around. Hence there are stereotypes that are believed.
Right wing - Catholic, Lutheran, Jew, Baptist, Mormon, most of the other Christian flavors.
Left wing - Buddhist, Hindu, various pagan flavors, agnostics/atheists.
And if you don't fit where you "should"? If you're a conservative pagan or a liberal Mormon? Wow. People kinda flip out.
I'm starting to run into this personally. Like I said at the beginning of this, I was Democrat for a long time and Independent the last 5 or 6 years. And now, with my self-education and actual thinking brain, I'm starting to lean more right of center. Not on everything, but I'm pretty sure a conservative label would stick at this point. As a pagan, this makes other pagans sometimes look at me funny. And there are some that have gotten positively strident - not at me (yet), but at a pagan friend who has been conservative a lot longer than I have. *waves at T*. Which is weird, considering that most pagans (even those strident ones) claim to be exceedingly tolerant. Unless you're right-wing/conservative/whatever label you prefer.
OK, so where am I going with this? Assumptions, stereotypes, tendencies...and sometimes they go haywire. When this happens, you get people wanting to force religion-based rulings down your throat, or people who want religion to be kept far far away and quote the "Constitutional right to a separation of church and state". Which of course makes me laugh, as that is NOT in the Constitution (read it yourself, there's a link at the bottom of this page!). The reference comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802.
Both angles are wrong. You don't get to decide my moral values for me. And I promise that a Nativity scene on city property does not mean you are going to be frogmarched to the nearest church and forced to be baptized.
The simple fact that some people miss is that YES, this country was founded on basic Judeo-Christian principles and that J-C still holds a majority of people (I believe). The founders worked very hard, though, to make sure that there would BE no forcing, no state religion. This does NOT mean that politicians are meant to check their religion at the door. You have to expect some sort of crossover. Most Catholics are going to vote against abortion. Most atheists are going to vote for...I don't know...liquor stores to be open on Sunday. Whatever. What we SHOULD expect is for them to be able to keep the Constitutional laws separate from their religion. As long as they can do that, I'm willing to entertain them voting for other things along their moral lines.
I hope that all makes sense. I'm not sure I made a decent point, but my house is chaos at the moment and I can't hammer at it any more. So there.
I'm going to try, anyway. And this one is posting, even if it doesn't go exactly like I think. At least I'll have said SOMETHING, and that gives me something to edit or whatever. Right? Right.
There are tendencies that people follow, usually from their religion to their politics, though sometimes the other way around. Hence there are stereotypes that are believed.
Right wing - Catholic, Lutheran, Jew, Baptist, Mormon, most of the other Christian flavors.
Left wing - Buddhist, Hindu, various pagan flavors, agnostics/atheists.
And if you don't fit where you "should"? If you're a conservative pagan or a liberal Mormon? Wow. People kinda flip out.
I'm starting to run into this personally. Like I said at the beginning of this, I was Democrat for a long time and Independent the last 5 or 6 years. And now, with my self-education and actual thinking brain, I'm starting to lean more right of center. Not on everything, but I'm pretty sure a conservative label would stick at this point. As a pagan, this makes other pagans sometimes look at me funny. And there are some that have gotten positively strident - not at me (yet), but at a pagan friend who has been conservative a lot longer than I have. *waves at T*. Which is weird, considering that most pagans (even those strident ones) claim to be exceedingly tolerant. Unless you're right-wing/conservative/whatever label you prefer.
OK, so where am I going with this? Assumptions, stereotypes, tendencies...and sometimes they go haywire. When this happens, you get people wanting to force religion-based rulings down your throat, or people who want religion to be kept far far away and quote the "Constitutional right to a separation of church and state". Which of course makes me laugh, as that is NOT in the Constitution (read it yourself, there's a link at the bottom of this page!). The reference comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802.
Both angles are wrong. You don't get to decide my moral values for me. And I promise that a Nativity scene on city property does not mean you are going to be frogmarched to the nearest church and forced to be baptized.
The simple fact that some people miss is that YES, this country was founded on basic Judeo-Christian principles and that J-C still holds a majority of people (I believe). The founders worked very hard, though, to make sure that there would BE no forcing, no state religion. This does NOT mean that politicians are meant to check their religion at the door. You have to expect some sort of crossover. Most Catholics are going to vote against abortion. Most atheists are going to vote for...I don't know...liquor stores to be open on Sunday. Whatever. What we SHOULD expect is for them to be able to keep the Constitutional laws separate from their religion. As long as they can do that, I'm willing to entertain them voting for other things along their moral lines.
I hope that all makes sense. I'm not sure I made a decent point, but my house is chaos at the moment and I can't hammer at it any more. So there.
05 October 2010
Hypocrisy
I tried and tried...yesterday?...to write an entry on the intersection between religion and politics, but I couldn't get it to gel, no matter how many times I deleted and started over. It kept getting way more personal than I wanted it to and got very jumbled. So apparently I need to let it stew in my brain a little longer and try something else.
How about hypocrisy? It's everywhere - you know that and I know that. But it is getting worse and worse. Everyone has a touch of it here and there, depending on the topic. There's that tendency, for instance, for people to complain the most about traits in others that they dislike in themselves. Most people, though, are at least a little ashamed when hypocritical actions are pointed out to them.
Like the ultra-religious, foaming-at-the-mouth, anti-gay preachers or politicians who get caught hiring rentboys. Wow for dumb.
But for what inspired this post, I have a link with pictures. Back info...
Glenn Beck threw a rally type thing on the Mall in D.C. on 8/28. The theme was "Faith, Hope, and Charity", all good things that I can totally get behind. He asked people to not bring signs and to please follow all the rules that the Mall has. No glass and things like that. Pictures from after the rally show a lovely and clean area. People picked up their own crap. Which yay.
This past weekend, there was a counter rally called "One Nation Working Together". They say it wasn't a counter rally, you be the judge, I really haven't the foggiest idea though I do have my opinion. It was sponsored by 400 different groups, with a large percentage of union groups, Democratic Socialists of (Wherever), and the Communist Party USA. Endorsed by Obama. There were even various environmental groups listed on the sponsor page, like The Green Party, which makes what I'm about to post even more ironically horrible.
Photographic evidence here. There are pictures and videos and tons of comments. There are even links in a couple of the comments to MORE pictures. Frankly, this makes me sick. Isn't hardcore environmentalism supposed to be one of the standards of the left-wing model?
And did any of this make the regular news ANYWHERE? Not that I caught. If I'm wrong, please post me some info, but I only saw ONE article in the local paper on the day after the rally. There were no pictures with it.
This hypocritical trend leads me to ONE thought. Just one. If people would stop being jerks to each other, and would stop looking out for only their own selfish garbage, the world would be a lot better place.
How about hypocrisy? It's everywhere - you know that and I know that. But it is getting worse and worse. Everyone has a touch of it here and there, depending on the topic. There's that tendency, for instance, for people to complain the most about traits in others that they dislike in themselves. Most people, though, are at least a little ashamed when hypocritical actions are pointed out to them.
Like the ultra-religious, foaming-at-the-mouth, anti-gay preachers or politicians who get caught hiring rentboys. Wow for dumb.
But for what inspired this post, I have a link with pictures. Back info...
Glenn Beck threw a rally type thing on the Mall in D.C. on 8/28. The theme was "Faith, Hope, and Charity", all good things that I can totally get behind. He asked people to not bring signs and to please follow all the rules that the Mall has. No glass and things like that. Pictures from after the rally show a lovely and clean area. People picked up their own crap. Which yay.
This past weekend, there was a counter rally called "One Nation Working Together". They say it wasn't a counter rally, you be the judge, I really haven't the foggiest idea though I do have my opinion. It was sponsored by 400 different groups, with a large percentage of union groups, Democratic Socialists of (Wherever), and the Communist Party USA. Endorsed by Obama. There were even various environmental groups listed on the sponsor page, like The Green Party, which makes what I'm about to post even more ironically horrible.
Photographic evidence here. There are pictures and videos and tons of comments. There are even links in a couple of the comments to MORE pictures. Frankly, this makes me sick. Isn't hardcore environmentalism supposed to be one of the standards of the left-wing model?
And did any of this make the regular news ANYWHERE? Not that I caught. If I'm wrong, please post me some info, but I only saw ONE article in the local paper on the day after the rally. There were no pictures with it.
This hypocritical trend leads me to ONE thought. Just one. If people would stop being jerks to each other, and would stop looking out for only their own selfish garbage, the world would be a lot better place.
02 October 2010
Random question
Maybe one of you can tell me....
Why, when a conservative and a liberal disagree (frequent, I know), does the conservative tend to say/think something like "Damn, that liberal is being stubborn and stupid" and the liberal tends to say/think something more like "That evil conservative is trying to steal my soul!"
Really. Think about it.
Why, when a conservative and a liberal disagree (frequent, I know), does the conservative tend to say/think something like "Damn, that liberal is being stubborn and stupid" and the liberal tends to say/think something more like "That evil conservative is trying to steal my soul!"
Really. Think about it.
01 October 2010
Bias in media
Here it is, not only FRIDAY (yay!), but the 1st of a new month. And my sister's birthday! Happy Birthday, Rachel! It's actually starting to be autumnal here in OMGHOT Arizona, which is nice. Kids are thrilled that trick or treating will likely not even involve a jacket, much less a parka like it did in Idaho. I've informed them that I went t-n-t barefoot here once and they are very excited.
Anyway, today's subject is something I've been thinking about for a couple of weeks now, and that is bias in the media. People get all freaked out about Fox News being "ultra-conservative", etc, and I've come to the conclusion that this reaction is silly.
Now, wait, hear me out.
Yes, Fox tends toward conservative hosted news shows. Couple points - news "shows". Not hard news. Opinion/entertainment/analyst shows. Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. They are not news, though they do talk about politics and other things that ARE the news. They also have liberal guests, etc, that usually are allowed to have their say without being shouted down. In fact, O'Reilly over this past year actually had MORE liberal guests than conservatives. I don't mean his usual commentators, I mean guest speakers.
Here's the other side of the spectrum. Regular hard news and newspapers have a heavy bias left. They claim to be "middle-of-the-road" and blame Fox for being too far right, when in fact all that is going on is that they are ALL left, hence see it as the norm.
Anyway, today's subject is something I've been thinking about for a couple of weeks now, and that is bias in the media. People get all freaked out about Fox News being "ultra-conservative", etc, and I've come to the conclusion that this reaction is silly.
Now, wait, hear me out.
Yes, Fox tends toward conservative hosted news shows. Couple points - news "shows". Not hard news. Opinion/entertainment/analyst shows. Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. They are not news, though they do talk about politics and other things that ARE the news. They also have liberal guests, etc, that usually are allowed to have their say without being shouted down. In fact, O'Reilly over this past year actually had MORE liberal guests than conservatives. I don't mean his usual commentators, I mean guest speakers.
Here's the other side of the spectrum. Regular hard news and newspapers have a heavy bias left. They claim to be "middle-of-the-road" and blame Fox for being too far right, when in fact all that is going on is that they are ALL left, hence see it as the norm.
So check this out-based on a wide variety of polls and studies, here is how journalists in general have voted, going back 40 years....
- In 1968, 86 percent of journalists voted for the Dem, Hubert Humphrey, over the Rep, Richard Nixon.
- In 1972, 81 percent of journalists voted for Dem George McGovern over incumbent Richard Nixon.
- In 1980, twice as many journalists voted for Jimmy Carter than for Ronald Reagan.
- In 1984, 58 percent of journalists supported Dem Walter Mondale, who lost to Ronald Reagan in the biggest landslide in presidential election history.
- In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services voted for Dem Michael Dukakis over Rep George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12 to 1.
- In 1992, Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents supported Bill Clinton over incumbent George Bush 89 percent to 9 percent.
- In 2004, a poll of campaign journalists based outside of Washington, D.C., showed they supported the Dem candidate, John Kerry, over the Rep George W. Bush by a ratio of 3 to 1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a ratio of 12 to 1.
- In 2008, a study by Investor's Business Daily put the campaign donation ratio of journalists at more than 11 to 1 in favor of Democrats.
"But so what, " some people say. "So the journalists lean left! That doesn't mean the NEWS does! That is their personal feelings!"
This assumes that they keep their personal feelings out of it, to which I cry "Au contraire! They do no such thing!"
To wit: the executive summary of an extensive study done by the Media Research Center of media coverage of Barack Obama from the time of his debut on the national stage up through his victory in the Democratic primaries. This is only an example and I am NOT picking on Obama specifically, ok? Don't get all silly.
These are the key findings of the MRC's exhaustive analysis of ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news coverage of Barack Obama - every story, every sound bite, every mention - from his first appearance on a network broadcast in May 2000 through the end of the Democratic primaries in June 2008, a total of 1,365 stories. MRC analysts found that the networks' coverage - particularly prior to the formal start of Obama's presidential campaign - bordered on giddy celebration of a political "rock star" rather than objective newsgathering.
Key Findings:
- The three broadcast networks treated Obama to nearly seven times more good press than bad — 462 positive stories (34% of the total), compared with only 70 stories (just 5%) that were critical.
- NBC Nightly News was the most lopsided, with 179 pro-Obama reports (37%), more than ten times the number of anti-Obama stories (17, or 3%). The CBS Evening News was nearly as skewed, with 156 stories spun in favor of Obama (38%), compared to a mere 21 anti-Obama reports (5%). ABC’s World News was the least slanted, but still tilted roughly four-to-one in Obama’s favor (127 stories to 32, or 27% to 7%).
- Barack Obama received his best press when it mattered most, as he debuted on the national scene. All of the networks lavished him with praise when he was keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and did not produce a single negative story about Obama (out of 81 total reports) prior to the start of his presidential campaign in early 2007.
- The networks downplayed or ignored major Obama gaffes and scandals. Obama’s relationship with convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko was the subject of only two full reports (one each on ABC and NBC) and mentioned in just 15 other stories. CBS and NBC also initially downplayed controversial statements from Obama’s longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright, but heavily praised Obama’s March 18 speech on race relations.
- While Obama’s worst media coverage came during the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, even then the networks offered two positive stories for every one that carried a negative spin (21% to 9%). Obama’s best press of the year came after he won the North Carolina primary on May 6 — after that, 43 percent of stories were favorable to Obama, compared to just one percent that were critical.
- The networks minimized Obama’s liberal ideology, only referring to him as a "liberal" 14 times in four years. In contrast, reporters found twice as many occasions (29) to refer to Obama as either a "rock star," "rising star" or "superstar" during the same period.
- In covering the campaign, network reporters highlighted voters who offered favorable opinions about Obama. Of 147 average citizens who expressed an on-camera opinion about Obama, 114 (78%) were pro-Obama, compared to just 28 (19%) that had a negative view, with the remaining five offering a mixed opinion.
Perhaps if he had faced serious journalistic scrutiny instead of media cheerleading, Barack Obama might still have won his party’s nomination. But the tremendously positive coverage that the networks bestowed upon his campaign was of incalculable value. The early celebrity coverage helped make Obama a nationally-known figure with a near-perfect media image. The protectiveness that reporters showed during the early primaries made it difficult for his rivals to effectively criticize him. And when it came to controversies such as the Wright affair, network reporters acted more as defenders than as journalists in an adversarial relationship. If the media did not actually win the Democratic nomination for Barack Obama, they surely made it a whole lot easier. (source: A Slobbering Love Affair by Bernard Goldberg and http://www.mrc.org/)
Now, lest you think I am picking on the president, I'm not. The MRC is a watchdog group that has a huge archive of anti-conservative media action. And by "anti" I mean "flaming, flailing, frothing at the mouth type of 'against'". The general vibe from a huge portion of the media, whether it's newspapers or tv, is "How dare you be right-wing???" Even if you're only a half-step right of center, HOW BLOODY DARE YOU. Why is this ok? Why was it ok for Obama to sidestep questions about Rev. Wright and his association with Bill Ayers, while the media slammed Sarah Palin all over the mat for her wardrobe during the campaign, a wardrobe she didn't pick out and then gave back when the elections were over?
You tell me.
The press has constitutional protections for only one reason: to keep watch over a powerful government. It is THEIR JOB to look out for the American people, to call politicians on their crap, to keep us informed of what is being messed with on Capitol Hill.
Thomas Jefferson said, "I would much rather have newspapers without a government than a government without newspapers."
What happens when the news starts shilling for one angle of government or the other? Corruption starts to take over and we are SCREWED.
Have a great weekend everyone...I hope you can sleep. Not sure I can.
30 September 2010
More intro-y stuff
Welcome to the swimmin' hole. Dip your toes or dive right in, have a good time, just don't pee in the pool, the rest of us want to swim, too.
To continue from yesterday...
I registered as a Democrat as soon as I was legal to do so. I said yesterday that from that point I promptly ignored politics. The translation of this is not that I didn't VOTE, cuz I did. But I didn't pay very much actual attention to stuff. Mostly I picked up on whatever commercials I saw and things my friends said. Oh, and sometimes, with judges and the like, I voted by whether I liked their NAMES. Yes, I was ridiculous. I didn't read anything about anyone or any propositions. I was a follower, parroting what my friends said/did...and since most of my friends were/are liberals, everything I did went that way.
THAT was the bad plan. Not that the friends are liberal, but that I followed unquestioningly.
I started noticing a few years ago that I tended to not be especially right or left, more middle ground with leanings in both directions, depending on the topic in question. I do tend slightly more left than right, though. So I switched my registration to Independent. I have come to the conclusion, however, that most "party affiliations" don't mean much, except to decide which shindig you get invited to.
So about....oh, 6 months ago, I decided I was fed up with not knowing anything. Part of the impetus for this was the simple fact that I couldn't debate any politics with my husband, since I couldn't refute anything he said. His leanings tend to be similar to mine, except mostly right leanings. As such, a lot of his....blame?...I guess, for want of a better word, since it's early....lands squarely on Democrats and "bleeding-heart liberals". I told him he had to stop saying that, as I used to be one and it kinda felt like he was blaming me.
Which is dumb, but whatever. After any ranting is over, he will usually agree with me that neither side is completely to blame or completely blameless and that most politicians are only in it for the power, no matter what ideals they tout.
This kind of thing, plus the fact that I actually felt like being an adult finally, led me to start reading more and listening to various points of view. Also, having moved back to Arizona puts me back in more regular contact with my family (hi, guys!), who tend rather more right leaning. This gives me both POV, mostly left from my friends and mostly right from my family.
Of course, this causes me to be more confused than ever, as both "sides" have rather a tendency to insist that the other side is wrong wrong WRONG and why are you reading/watching THAT???? Don't get me wrong, I'm completely open to honest discourse/debate/conversation, but when it gets vitriolic I get irritated and walk away.
Hey, check me out, it's 8 a.m. and I can use words like "discourse" and "vitriolic" properly.
Anyway, since I've been back here, I've mostly been researching "right", as my "left" info has been predominant whilst I lived elsewhere.
I've been reading Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly and watching their shows with my dad. I even read Sarah Palin's book "Going Rogue" - damn, did she get shafted by her own campaign people. I have learned a lot of things that have disturbed me. And no, just so you know, I'm not just parroting them now. I am looking stuff up on my own and hitting the library ALOT. Research is what I DO, after all. I learned how for SCA and it carries over nicely.
That's all for today, I think. I'm not sure where to go next with this, so I have to mull it over some. Also...I'm going to the library. :-)
No links today - I have a ton but I have to check them out first. Ain't nothin' gonna be posted here until it's been personally checked.
Wanna hand me that towel? I got things to do.
To continue from yesterday...
I registered as a Democrat as soon as I was legal to do so. I said yesterday that from that point I promptly ignored politics. The translation of this is not that I didn't VOTE, cuz I did. But I didn't pay very much actual attention to stuff. Mostly I picked up on whatever commercials I saw and things my friends said. Oh, and sometimes, with judges and the like, I voted by whether I liked their NAMES. Yes, I was ridiculous. I didn't read anything about anyone or any propositions. I was a follower, parroting what my friends said/did...and since most of my friends were/are liberals, everything I did went that way.
THAT was the bad plan. Not that the friends are liberal, but that I followed unquestioningly.
I started noticing a few years ago that I tended to not be especially right or left, more middle ground with leanings in both directions, depending on the topic in question. I do tend slightly more left than right, though. So I switched my registration to Independent. I have come to the conclusion, however, that most "party affiliations" don't mean much, except to decide which shindig you get invited to.
So about....oh, 6 months ago, I decided I was fed up with not knowing anything. Part of the impetus for this was the simple fact that I couldn't debate any politics with my husband, since I couldn't refute anything he said. His leanings tend to be similar to mine, except mostly right leanings. As such, a lot of his....blame?...I guess, for want of a better word, since it's early....lands squarely on Democrats and "bleeding-heart liberals". I told him he had to stop saying that, as I used to be one and it kinda felt like he was blaming me.
Which is dumb, but whatever. After any ranting is over, he will usually agree with me that neither side is completely to blame or completely blameless and that most politicians are only in it for the power, no matter what ideals they tout.
This kind of thing, plus the fact that I actually felt like being an adult finally, led me to start reading more and listening to various points of view. Also, having moved back to Arizona puts me back in more regular contact with my family (hi, guys!), who tend rather more right leaning. This gives me both POV, mostly left from my friends and mostly right from my family.
Of course, this causes me to be more confused than ever, as both "sides" have rather a tendency to insist that the other side is wrong wrong WRONG and why are you reading/watching THAT???? Don't get me wrong, I'm completely open to honest discourse/debate/conversation, but when it gets vitriolic I get irritated and walk away.
Hey, check me out, it's 8 a.m. and I can use words like "discourse" and "vitriolic" properly.
Anyway, since I've been back here, I've mostly been researching "right", as my "left" info has been predominant whilst I lived elsewhere.
I've been reading Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly and watching their shows with my dad. I even read Sarah Palin's book "Going Rogue" - damn, did she get shafted by her own campaign people. I have learned a lot of things that have disturbed me. And no, just so you know, I'm not just parroting them now. I am looking stuff up on my own and hitting the library ALOT. Research is what I DO, after all. I learned how for SCA and it carries over nicely.
That's all for today, I think. I'm not sure where to go next with this, so I have to mull it over some. Also...I'm going to the library. :-)
No links today - I have a ton but I have to check them out first. Ain't nothin' gonna be posted here until it's been personally checked.
Wanna hand me that towel? I got things to do.
29 September 2010
Here we go....
I guess first there should be some sort of introduction post, right? Right.
My name is Natalie and I live in Arizona. It's hot here. Bright side of that is picnics in the park on New Year's Day, which is pretty awesome. I was born in Chicago, moved here with my parents and sibs when I was six. Moved to Idaho in 1999, then to Oregon in 2007, and have just moved back here with my husband and three daughters.
Let's see...I am a history geek extraordinaire and a voracious reader. I love to sing and hang out with my kids.
Whatever. Stuff. Anyway...
I grew up in a kinda conservative family and attended a church-based (Lutheran) grade school. I hit high school and discovered that not everyone thought the same way. Partly due to my friends and partly for the whole "rebellion" thing, I promptly registered as a Democrat when I turned 18. At that point I kinda decided that politics was boring and I was going to ignore it. This was a bad plan.
A couple of years after that, I started doing some religious exploring and found paganism/witchcraft. This has worked for me since and was not a bad plan, contrary to what some people in my life think. No, I am not ragging on anyone in particular and if you feel that comment was directed at you, I don't mean it in a horribly negative way.
The aforementioned bad plan was only really discovered earlier this year - and I have set about to educate myself. The first thing I learned was that most politicians are only in it for the power, no matter how much they talk about taking care of "the people". The second thing I learned was that religion or lack thereof seems to be way more tied into politics than I have wanted to believe.
From those two things my brain has started whirling in circles, trying to find the right place to land. My oldest daughter has been very helpful, by loaning me the workbook her 5th grade class used (5 years ago now, she's a soph) when they did a section on the Constitution. It's written at just the level I needed!
This blog is going to be used to straighten out my fevered thoughts regarding politics and religion and things attached to them. I do have another blog that is my life in general, but it's locked to friends only and I want this one 1) more focussed and 2) available to people who don't read the other one.
So that's my intro. And now, in an effort to NOT make this post one giant wall of text, I leave you with a couple of links. First, The Constitution, and second, The Declaration of Independence. Who knew they were posted right there online? Surprise! Go. Read them. No, really.
I mean it, what are you waiting for?
My name is Natalie and I live in Arizona. It's hot here. Bright side of that is picnics in the park on New Year's Day, which is pretty awesome. I was born in Chicago, moved here with my parents and sibs when I was six. Moved to Idaho in 1999, then to Oregon in 2007, and have just moved back here with my husband and three daughters.
Let's see...I am a history geek extraordinaire and a voracious reader. I love to sing and hang out with my kids.
Whatever. Stuff. Anyway...
I grew up in a kinda conservative family and attended a church-based (Lutheran) grade school. I hit high school and discovered that not everyone thought the same way. Partly due to my friends and partly for the whole "rebellion" thing, I promptly registered as a Democrat when I turned 18. At that point I kinda decided that politics was boring and I was going to ignore it. This was a bad plan.
A couple of years after that, I started doing some religious exploring and found paganism/witchcraft. This has worked for me since and was not a bad plan, contrary to what some people in my life think. No, I am not ragging on anyone in particular and if you feel that comment was directed at you, I don't mean it in a horribly negative way.
The aforementioned bad plan was only really discovered earlier this year - and I have set about to educate myself. The first thing I learned was that most politicians are only in it for the power, no matter how much they talk about taking care of "the people". The second thing I learned was that religion or lack thereof seems to be way more tied into politics than I have wanted to believe.
From those two things my brain has started whirling in circles, trying to find the right place to land. My oldest daughter has been very helpful, by loaning me the workbook her 5th grade class used (5 years ago now, she's a soph) when they did a section on the Constitution. It's written at just the level I needed!
This blog is going to be used to straighten out my fevered thoughts regarding politics and religion and things attached to them. I do have another blog that is my life in general, but it's locked to friends only and I want this one 1) more focussed and 2) available to people who don't read the other one.
So that's my intro. And now, in an effort to NOT make this post one giant wall of text, I leave you with a couple of links. First, The Constitution, and second, The Declaration of Independence. Who knew they were posted right there online? Surprise! Go. Read them. No, really.
I mean it, what are you waiting for?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)