I like politics and I like healthy debate. However, I try my very best to avoid political discussions on my friends' Facebook walls. I don't steer clear because I am uninformed or because I can't get my point across (some may well say that I'm a little too pointed), but I generally try to restrain myself from participating because it has become abundantly clear to me that political Facebook statuses are meant to become a circle jerk of like-minded believers. That is, dissent is not usually appreciated or tolerated.
Why not participate? I mean, we are all adults and we should be quite aware that the entire world doesn't share our viewpoints. Besides, learning about and hearing other ideas and thoughts is one of the ways that we achieve personal growth as individuals. In an ideal world, both preceeding statements would be true. In the real world, we appear to be stuck in obstinate toddlerhood when it comes to politics - we want to oppose, but we can't truly handle opposition from anyone else.
Put simply I try to avoid commenting on these statuses because, at best, I alienate a friend. At worst, I end up learning that a friend is too cowardly to let their thoughts (and others') remain and they make active use of their delete button. I've already blogged about how I feel about trying to erase thoughts as it relates to blogging and I feel the same about people, friends or otherwise, doing it on Facebook. It doesn't mean that I won't be friends with them any longer because I'm an adult and I accept my friends as they are, perceived flaws and all, but it is disappointing when it happens.
Ordinarily, I wouldn't care if someone is so narrow-minded that they can't handle reading a difference of opinion. I certainly do care when someone who I care about is off-the-charts judgemental and mean-spirited toward those with different political persuasions. Those "different" people would be those who share my political thoughts and ideals. I have to say that I even find it hurtful to some extent because engaging in and condoning name calling against "those" people is the same as doing it to me. Get it? What is said about "them" is being said about me.
I don't exactly wear my heart on my sleeve so, my personal feelings aside, I'm more disturbed when I see that someone I care about is whole-heartedly approving outright fallacies and falsehoods. Seeing a friend spreading and applauding fallacious arguments and outright falsehoods feels like it did when you found out that a friend was behind the vicious rumors about you in high school and it's very much the same thing your Facebook friend is doing now. "I don't get her or her way of thinking so she must be fill-in-the-blank." I've actually seen that "blank" filled in with words not based on any facts, but solely designed to incite a violent reaction (verbal or otherwise): racist, misogynistic, @sshole, stupid, unpatriotic, Rethuglican, Dumbicrat, etc.
I respectfully submit that it's intentionally ignorant to ascribe a negative name toward someone when you aren't even interested in hearing why they believe the way they do. This childish name calling is essentially the internet way of putting your hands over your ears and saying, "la, la, la - I can't hear you!" Even worse is that it's not that they can't hear, it's that they won't hear and there is a huge difference between the two. Who knows, maybe they have been so conditioned to have an "us vs them" mentality that they really can't hear. If that's the case, I find it profoundly sad that they've been so brainwashed to have tunnel thoughts. . .like tunnel vision, but infinitely more detrimental.
I have written some controversial blog posts. I have shared some controversial content on Facebook. I have sometimes stirred up an entire hornet's nest of venomous activity. One thing I haven't done, and will not do, is talk sh*t about friends who think differently than I do. And I surely will not be chickensh*t about it and phrase poisonous ideas about "those" people. It's not about "you," it's about "them!" Yeah, keep telling yourself that and perhaps someone will eventually believe it.
Another thing I won't do is delete comments that aren't in perfect lockstep with my own thoughts. See, I may be an unpatriotic, racist, misogynistic @sshole (all that would be news to me and, I hope, to those who know me - well, except the @sshole part!), but I am not a coward and I am not afraid of people who think differently than I do. As one who loves freedom, I sure as heck am not willing to censor other people who are flexing their own freedom to share their thoughts.
I love Facebook because it's a great tool to keep in touch with people who I don't often see or have an opportunity to chat with, but sometimes I can really do without the things I learn about friends and family. Of course, the flip side is that those friends and family members are probably thinking the same thing about me.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Someone's Getting Re-elected
Trot this news out at every opportunity and the President will most definitely serve a second term.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Restrictions Rooted in Racism
My son was vomiting through much of the early morning hours today and I thought I'd quickly toss out this post so I can care for him. I drafted this post right after the election, but chose not to publish it because I didn't want to take the time to complete the research. For the record, I do not and will not smoke pot whether or not it's legal.
The California voters are darn near impossible to understand. We are a state who consistently favors liberal politicians (indeed, true conservatives stand no chance and that's why we end up with a Democrat or a squishy Republican In Name Only), but we inexplicably also voted to outlaw same sex marriages. Half of the state wants every tax-payer funded social program and heavily subsidized transportation boondoggle under the sun, but the other half (the ones who fund unicorns and rainbows it would seem) will not stand for paying any more in taxes than we already do. There is one thing that California is fairly consistent about and that is creating and keeping worthless legislation.
I blogged about Prop 19 back in September and my feelings haven't changed on the matter. The electorate disagreed, however, and Prop 19 was defeated on November 2. Many years ago, the voters of this state approved marijuana usage for medicinal purposes. Though a 20-year old who suffers "migraines" can choose to use pot instead of a medication actually designed and proved to relieve migraines, virtually no one has a problem with medical mary jane.
Why do people have a problem with just getting high because it's a day that ends in Y? It might be that we like wasting tax dollars arresting, prosecuting (and defending!), and housing potheads and petty dealers. It could also be that we like dictating what substances other consenting adults can choose to use. A big part of it is that we vote against whatever it is that we don't do - think of motorcycle helmet laws and even the cigarette legislation of the 90s: "I don't smoke/ride motorcycles, so I don't care." See, we have to save others from themselves. I think a little bit of all of the above is correct, but I'll toss in that although we claim to want change, we fear change.
Who were the main groups against Prop 19?
The deep pockets of the liquor lobby for one. I guess this isn't shocking since some might choose to smoke weed instead of drink booze if there were no legal risks. I think that most drinkers aren't going to become smokers, but young adults might be likely to choose one over the other. Though both impair brain function, modern marijuana is damn near hallucinogenic, it doesn't taste good, and you tend to pass out after just a couple of hours. I like to party, therefore, I drink.
Hypocrites who may have smoked at one time or who currently do smoke weed were also against Prop 19. These people have no problem indulging in the very thing that is supposed to be so dangerous, but they want to restrict your access to the fun. These also tend to be people who are concerned, "for the children," but that excuse is disingenuous. After all, we have age restrictions and advertising restrictions on alcohol and cigarettes and there is no reason to believe that this legislation-happy state wouldn't do the same thing for pot.
At first glance, it seems bizarre that current pot growers were against outright legalization. Okay, so these peaceful hippies don't want to comply with excessive regulations. As if any business does like government oversight, but the reason it isn't really that easy and it is far more despicable. The current pot producers in this state are selfish pricks who would rather risk criminalizing themselves and their users than risk messing with their bottom line. Keep pot illegal keeps more money in their pockets. Funny, they sound just as bad as Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Whatever-Industry-We're-Supposed-to-Hate-Today. . .only looking out for their own interests, even if that means flouting laws and injuring consumers. Peaceful hippies, my foot. More like the greedy capitalists everyone detests and blames for everything these days, eh?
I was watching an interesting program the other night about cocaine and how the first widespread drug prohibitions against it were racially motivated. It's laughably stupid today, but the specific theory was that black men would get coked up and attack white women. Oh, Lawdy, not that! The show was fascinating and I wonder how many other laws are passed or defeated thanks to bad intentions.
Did some people vote down Prop 19 because they carry the mistaken belief that only other races succumb to drug use? There is definitely a racist root in cocaine restrictions, is there one for marijuana too? And, if there wasn't a racist element at work when the pot laws were first established, is there one now?
The California voters are darn near impossible to understand. We are a state who consistently favors liberal politicians (indeed, true conservatives stand no chance and that's why we end up with a Democrat or a squishy Republican In Name Only), but we inexplicably also voted to outlaw same sex marriages. Half of the state wants every tax-payer funded social program and heavily subsidized transportation boondoggle under the sun, but the other half (the ones who fund unicorns and rainbows it would seem) will not stand for paying any more in taxes than we already do. There is one thing that California is fairly consistent about and that is creating and keeping worthless legislation.
I blogged about Prop 19 back in September and my feelings haven't changed on the matter. The electorate disagreed, however, and Prop 19 was defeated on November 2. Many years ago, the voters of this state approved marijuana usage for medicinal purposes. Though a 20-year old who suffers "migraines" can choose to use pot instead of a medication actually designed and proved to relieve migraines, virtually no one has a problem with medical mary jane.
Why do people have a problem with just getting high because it's a day that ends in Y? It might be that we like wasting tax dollars arresting, prosecuting (and defending!), and housing potheads and petty dealers. It could also be that we like dictating what substances other consenting adults can choose to use. A big part of it is that we vote against whatever it is that we don't do - think of motorcycle helmet laws and even the cigarette legislation of the 90s: "I don't smoke/ride motorcycles, so I don't care." See, we have to save others from themselves. I think a little bit of all of the above is correct, but I'll toss in that although we claim to want change, we fear change.
Who were the main groups against Prop 19?
The deep pockets of the liquor lobby for one. I guess this isn't shocking since some might choose to smoke weed instead of drink booze if there were no legal risks. I think that most drinkers aren't going to become smokers, but young adults might be likely to choose one over the other. Though both impair brain function, modern marijuana is damn near hallucinogenic, it doesn't taste good, and you tend to pass out after just a couple of hours. I like to party, therefore, I drink.
Hypocrites who may have smoked at one time or who currently do smoke weed were also against Prop 19. These people have no problem indulging in the very thing that is supposed to be so dangerous, but they want to restrict your access to the fun. These also tend to be people who are concerned, "for the children," but that excuse is disingenuous. After all, we have age restrictions and advertising restrictions on alcohol and cigarettes and there is no reason to believe that this legislation-happy state wouldn't do the same thing for pot.
At first glance, it seems bizarre that current pot growers were against outright legalization. Okay, so these peaceful hippies don't want to comply with excessive regulations. As if any business does like government oversight, but the reason it isn't really that easy and it is far more despicable. The current pot producers in this state are selfish pricks who would rather risk criminalizing themselves and their users than risk messing with their bottom line. Keep pot illegal keeps more money in their pockets. Funny, they sound just as bad as Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Whatever-Industry-We're-Supposed-to-Hate-Today. . .only looking out for their own interests, even if that means flouting laws and injuring consumers. Peaceful hippies, my foot. More like the greedy capitalists everyone detests and blames for everything these days, eh?
* * *
I was watching an interesting program the other night about cocaine and how the first widespread drug prohibitions against it were racially motivated. It's laughably stupid today, but the specific theory was that black men would get coked up and attack white women. Oh, Lawdy, not that! The show was fascinating and I wonder how many other laws are passed or defeated thanks to bad intentions.
Did some people vote down Prop 19 because they carry the mistaken belief that only other races succumb to drug use? There is definitely a racist root in cocaine restrictions, is there one for marijuana too? And, if there wasn't a racist element at work when the pot laws were first established, is there one now?
Friday, November 12, 2010
Politics Can Be Civil
I had an interesting volley with my Aunt the other day on Facebook. We have a difference of opinion on most political topics, but we remained respectful toward each other and thoughtful of the other person's political philosophy. How refreshing!
I'm not a master debater (heh!) though I do enjoy hearing other viewpoints and sharing my own. Calling the other person names does nothing to strengthen your position and it often only serves to make you sound immature and inarticulate. Sure, sometimes we all get hot under the collar and call the other person a big poopy-pants, but this is a poor way to debate.
I feel this rude style is far more common when debating over the internet and I suspect that it's because we enjoy relative anonymity while on-line. Do you agree or disagree? Share your thoughts below!
I think the ability to enjoy a debate, even spirited debates, without resorting to personal attacks is becoming a lost art. I suspect that's because most people don't have a very good reason for their beliefs so they have to belittle the other person in an attempt to make themselves feel superior. This isn't a very effective method of educating or enlightening others about your message, but it does seem to be the way that most people engage in political discourse on-line.
I'm not a master debater (heh!) though I do enjoy hearing other viewpoints and sharing my own. Calling the other person names does nothing to strengthen your position and it often only serves to make you sound immature and inarticulate. Sure, sometimes we all get hot under the collar and call the other person a big poopy-pants, but this is a poor way to debate.
I feel this rude style is far more common when debating over the internet and I suspect that it's because we enjoy relative anonymity while on-line. Do you agree or disagree? Share your thoughts below!
Sunday, November 7, 2010
The Good Ol' Days, Really?
I actually meant to post this before the election, but I forgot that I had it ready to go. Oh well, I hope it's thought provoking anyway.
Nostalgia is a funny thing, right? We often look back on the past with great fondness. We remember our youth and young adulthood as a simpler time. We tend to only recall the good things, but never the shameful episodes of yesteryear.
What is defined as "the good ol' days" depends on your age. My parents were born in the 1940s and they feel that the 50s were the good ol' days. My husband was born in the 1950s and he came of age in the 70s. I was born at some point in the last century (ha!) and I feel that the 80s and even parts of the 90s were the good ol' days.
How is it possible that the 1950s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s were all "the good ol' days?" It's really in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? I think that the good ol' days were when I was young and carefree. . .don't we all feel the same? But were the good ol' days really all that great? I humbly submit that they might have been good for you, but they sucked for someone else.
My parents tend to idealize the 1950s. Though shows like "Leave it to Beaver" or "The Donna Reed Show" depicted a highly idealized version of that decade, I think the 50s sound like they sucked for a lot of people. It was still a segregated world. Whites fraternized with whites, hispanics with hispanics, blacks with blacks, asians with asians, and so on. That homogenized existence sounds incredibly boring to me and, when I consider that segregation was actively enforced, I think it sounds painfully sad too.
My husband came of age in the 1970s. Segregation, though forced, had already occurred. It was believed that the worst case of VD (this is what we used to call STDs for you young 'uns out there!) you could possibly catch was easily cured with a quick, if embarrassing, trip to the doctor. Sex was fairly free, but AIDS (of course, this term hadn't even been coined yet) was quietly simmering, unnoticed by society, because it was only killing gays and IV drug users. Did you catch what I just said? Since only gays and druggies were sick, no one cared. Indeed, the general public didn't pay much attention to AIDS at all until the 80s when Rock Hudson admitted his diagnosis and the Surgeon General indicated that it would also start voraciously killing those in the heterosexual, non-drug using community.
I long for the simpler times of the 1980s and 90s. Civil rights struggles were already like ancient history and AIDS has been a part of my vocabulary since well before my tenth birthday so two of society's ills that I mentioned have been addressed with varying degrees of effectiveness. The 80s and 90s were a time where political correctness began to run amok, yet it inexplicably was also a time where it was socially acceptable to abort babies who had Down's Syndrome or other so-called defects. So you couldn't say someone was a "retard" because it's not PC, but it would have been okay to stop their beating heart in utero. This not only still occurs today, but I'd even go so far as to suggest that society expects mothers to abort "defective" children.
I guess my point is that no matter how fondly you might recall a certain period of time, there is always someone who was wounded or injured by society during that same period. Think about who might be marginalized in your community, in your state, in your country. Consider what you might be able to do to improve their existence.
Americans are blessed with the right to vote and we are doubly blessed that we don't have to fear violence or other repercussions when exercising that right. Use your vote wisely and stand up against racism, bigotry, and evil. If you can't manage to get down to the polls, you can always start to use absentee ballots and never miss another election again. No matter who wins on November 2nd, let's be happy and hopeful for this country's future!
Nostalgia is a funny thing, right? We often look back on the past with great fondness. We remember our youth and young adulthood as a simpler time. We tend to only recall the good things, but never the shameful episodes of yesteryear.
What is defined as "the good ol' days" depends on your age. My parents were born in the 1940s and they feel that the 50s were the good ol' days. My husband was born in the 1950s and he came of age in the 70s. I was born at some point in the last century (ha!) and I feel that the 80s and even parts of the 90s were the good ol' days.
How is it possible that the 1950s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s were all "the good ol' days?" It's really in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? I think that the good ol' days were when I was young and carefree. . .don't we all feel the same? But were the good ol' days really all that great? I humbly submit that they might have been good for you, but they sucked for someone else.
My parents tend to idealize the 1950s. Though shows like "Leave it to Beaver" or "The Donna Reed Show" depicted a highly idealized version of that decade, I think the 50s sound like they sucked for a lot of people. It was still a segregated world. Whites fraternized with whites, hispanics with hispanics, blacks with blacks, asians with asians, and so on. That homogenized existence sounds incredibly boring to me and, when I consider that segregation was actively enforced, I think it sounds painfully sad too.
My husband came of age in the 1970s. Segregation, though forced, had already occurred. It was believed that the worst case of VD (this is what we used to call STDs for you young 'uns out there!) you could possibly catch was easily cured with a quick, if embarrassing, trip to the doctor. Sex was fairly free, but AIDS (of course, this term hadn't even been coined yet) was quietly simmering, unnoticed by society, because it was only killing gays and IV drug users. Did you catch what I just said? Since only gays and druggies were sick, no one cared. Indeed, the general public didn't pay much attention to AIDS at all until the 80s when Rock Hudson admitted his diagnosis and the Surgeon General indicated that it would also start voraciously killing those in the heterosexual, non-drug using community.
I long for the simpler times of the 1980s and 90s. Civil rights struggles were already like ancient history and AIDS has been a part of my vocabulary since well before my tenth birthday so two of society's ills that I mentioned have been addressed with varying degrees of effectiveness. The 80s and 90s were a time where political correctness began to run amok, yet it inexplicably was also a time where it was socially acceptable to abort babies who had Down's Syndrome or other so-called defects. So you couldn't say someone was a "retard" because it's not PC, but it would have been okay to stop their beating heart in utero. This not only still occurs today, but I'd even go so far as to suggest that society expects mothers to abort "defective" children.
I guess my point is that no matter how fondly you might recall a certain period of time, there is always someone who was wounded or injured by society during that same period. Think about who might be marginalized in your community, in your state, in your country. Consider what you might be able to do to improve their existence.
Americans are blessed with the right to vote and we are doubly blessed that we don't have to fear violence or other repercussions when exercising that right. Use your vote wisely and stand up against racism, bigotry, and evil. If you can't manage to get down to the polls, you can always start to use absentee ballots and never miss another election again. No matter who wins on November 2nd, let's be happy and hopeful for this country's future!
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Shall We Spark a Doob on November 2?
What has me all up in arms over politics right now? Well, besides the racist attack Loretta Sanchez made against Van Tran and the other Vietnamese immigrants who reside in her district? Prop 19, of course.
Proposition 19, for my non-Californian friends, is going to legalize marijuana in this state. Yeah, I've only voted Republican since I was 18-years old. . .save once when I could not bring myself to vote for either candidate. Yeah, I more closely align myself with conservative versus liberal values. Yeah, I'm middle-aged, middle-class, and a mother. I'm married to Captain freaking America and I'm Ms. Law & freaking Order. How do you assume I feel about Prop 19?
I probably don't feel the way you think I do.
I'll get to that in a moment, but I will assume that we all can agree that prohibitions do not work with much success. That is, they do not stop the populace from wanting the prohibited product. Indeed, prohibitions often simply serve to criminalize large swaths of the population.
Based on the numerous lame Propositions that Californians have approved, the voters of this state seem like they aren't worthy of the right to vote. However, that's merely my opinion. . .apparently this broke-ass state really does require light rail from LA to San Francisco. It's not like you can fly, take Amtrak, or (worst case scenario) drive their own vehicle, right? And let's not even start with the gay marriage stuff.
Back to the topic at hand, I say legalize it. I say legalize all so-called "drugs." I say let the populace be adults and decide what substances they want to use recreationally. But I also say to tax and restrict it's use and sell, much like alcohol and tobacco are taxed and restricted. That means restrict where it can be used, who it can be sold to, and who can sell it.
For the record, I don't have any problem with consenting adults choosing to use alcohol or cigarettes either. But I do support restrictions of use based on age. I would also support such a restriction on weed or any other controlled substance. I realize that age restrictions do not stop all usage by minors, but I do think usage is somewhat limited by such restrictions. I'm not going to be all sanctimonious here, I had a lot of "fun" with recreational drugs at one time, but developing bodies probably should not be abused by mind-altering substances.
What does legalization do? Legalization removes much of the black market and crime associated with prohibition. As a bonus, it would also free up "valuable" space in our incarceration facilities. Legalization stimulates the economy. Legalization increases tax revenue.
Keeping it illegal would do what exactly? I'm waiting for a valid answer. . .
I don't smoke pot. I don't snort coke. I sure as heck don't shoot heroin. But I don't really give a rip if some other adult wants to. I do what I want to do with my body and you can do what you want to do with yours.
I know, I know, the GOP will revoke my voter registration. . .actually, I'm guessing that they'll take a vote wherever they think they can get it these days!! So what do you think? Am I right on or totally off-base? What are your opinions on this issue?
Proposition 19, for my non-Californian friends, is going to legalize marijuana in this state. Yeah, I've only voted Republican since I was 18-years old. . .save once when I could not bring myself to vote for either candidate. Yeah, I more closely align myself with conservative versus liberal values. Yeah, I'm middle-aged, middle-class, and a mother. I'm married to Captain freaking America and I'm Ms. Law & freaking Order. How do you assume I feel about Prop 19?
I probably don't feel the way you think I do.
I'll get to that in a moment, but I will assume that we all can agree that prohibitions do not work with much success. That is, they do not stop the populace from wanting the prohibited product. Indeed, prohibitions often simply serve to criminalize large swaths of the population.
Based on the numerous lame Propositions that Californians have approved, the voters of this state seem like they aren't worthy of the right to vote. However, that's merely my opinion. . .apparently this broke-ass state really does require light rail from LA to San Francisco. It's not like you can fly, take Amtrak, or (worst case scenario) drive their own vehicle, right? And let's not even start with the gay marriage stuff.
Back to the topic at hand, I say legalize it. I say legalize all so-called "drugs." I say let the populace be adults and decide what substances they want to use recreationally. But I also say to tax and restrict it's use and sell, much like alcohol and tobacco are taxed and restricted. That means restrict where it can be used, who it can be sold to, and who can sell it.
For the record, I don't have any problem with consenting adults choosing to use alcohol or cigarettes either. But I do support restrictions of use based on age. I would also support such a restriction on weed or any other controlled substance. I realize that age restrictions do not stop all usage by minors, but I do think usage is somewhat limited by such restrictions. I'm not going to be all sanctimonious here, I had a lot of "fun" with recreational drugs at one time, but developing bodies probably should not be abused by mind-altering substances.
What does legalization do? Legalization removes much of the black market and crime associated with prohibition. As a bonus, it would also free up "valuable" space in our incarceration facilities. Legalization stimulates the economy. Legalization increases tax revenue.
Keeping it illegal would do what exactly? I'm waiting for a valid answer. . .
I don't smoke pot. I don't snort coke. I sure as heck don't shoot heroin. But I don't really give a rip if some other adult wants to. I do what I want to do with my body and you can do what you want to do with yours.
I know, I know, the GOP will revoke my voter registration. . .actually, I'm guessing that they'll take a vote wherever they think they can get it these days!! So what do you think? Am I right on or totally off-base? What are your opinions on this issue?
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Feelin' the Plastic Love
You know, that title actually sounds like I'll be extolling the virtues of a good vibrator or dildo. Sadly, it really isn't a sexy post at all.
First we were told that the paper shopping bags were killing the planet. Of course, this was back when global cooling was the great feardistracting sweeping throughout humanity, so there you go. As a result of the environmental fear-mongering, we switched to plastic shopping bags. Now we are being told that plastic shopping bags are killing the planet. So we are not-so-subtly being directed to purchase reusable fabric shopping bags. How about that!
When will we be told that reusable fabric shopping bags are killing the planet (or being manufactured by exploited third-world labor or some such evil) and we need to use something else? What will we use to carry our groceries when that day comes? Will our own hands and arms still be okay? Should we hire professional grocery-carriers? Perhaps we'll just have to walk home with our shopping cart, unload, and return the shopping cart back to the store? I wrote the last line in jest, but it might actually be closer to the future. After all, driving is evil and we should be walking/taking public transport/biking/blah, blah, blah. Amidoingthisright?
I freaking hate those reusable shopping bags for a few reasons and I prefer to use plastic shopping bags when I do my marketing. When presented with a choice, I very rarely choose paper over plastic. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I love plastic bags, but I use them for so many different things that it's hard not to love them.
I'm fairly certain that my stance on this issue will seem surprising to some readers of this blog, but I'm happy to report that California actually got something right. They did not choose to penalize users of plastic shopping bags. For those of you not in the know, our esteemed legislators have been looking at a bill that would have banned plastic shopping bags or (possibly) required a surcharge to use said bags. Our idiot Assembly passed this tripe back in June and the Senate voted it down yesterday. I guess it is true that a stopped clock is correct at least twice each day.
Assemblywoman Brownley, D-Santa Monica (of course!), the person responsible for introducing this bill, likes to use inflammatory language to advance her agenda. She says that plastic shopping bags are a "single use" item and she even goes so far as to call them "urban tumbleweeds." Does this mean that most people only use these bags to carry in their groceries and then toss them in the garbage? Really? Where in the heck is Brownley hanging out that plastic bags are freely blowing around in the breeze? I can't say that I've seen them in my neck of the woods, but perhaps it's a plastic bag-slinger's paradise in The People's Republic of Santa Monica? I guess it must be all tenants from rent-controlled units. . .hm.
I find it unintentionally hilarious that she said yesterday was, "a sad day for California." Interestingly enough, I think it would have been a far sadder day to have added yet another layer of legislation that restricts freedom of choice. I might be something of a hippie and I might generally vote Republican, but I always will side with freedom. Don't use plastic grocery sacks if you don't want to. I might make the sharp point that no one is trying to restrict your right to purchase a reusable woven shopping bag for toting your groceries.
Look, I do some pretty environmentally-friendly things, but I also cherish my freedom of choice in many areas of daily life - even if my choice doesn't fit an environmental-driven agenda. I prefer reusable items to manage my menses, I choose to use cloth towels instead of paper towels, and I only use cloth napkins rather than paper napkins. Guess what? I also want to use plastic grocery bags.
Why is it that certain groups want to force others to make the same choices that they do? Actually, that's not exactly true because being forced to do something isn't really a choice at all. Now is it?
My choices may not be your choices. I'm okay with that and it doesn't really bother me if someone else doesn't want to make the same decisions that I make. Freedom of choice, baby, I'm always going to side with freedom of choice.
First we were told that the paper shopping bags were killing the planet. Of course, this was back when global cooling was the great fear
When will we be told that reusable fabric shopping bags are killing the planet (or being manufactured by exploited third-world labor or some such evil) and we need to use something else? What will we use to carry our groceries when that day comes? Will our own hands and arms still be okay? Should we hire professional grocery-carriers? Perhaps we'll just have to walk home with our shopping cart, unload, and return the shopping cart back to the store? I wrote the last line in jest, but it might actually be closer to the future. After all, driving is evil and we should be walking/taking public transport/biking/blah, blah, blah. Amidoingthisright?
I freaking hate those reusable shopping bags for a few reasons and I prefer to use plastic shopping bags when I do my marketing. When presented with a choice, I very rarely choose paper over plastic. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I love plastic bags, but I use them for so many different things that it's hard not to love them.
I'm fairly certain that my stance on this issue will seem surprising to some readers of this blog, but I'm happy to report that California actually got something right. They did not choose to penalize users of plastic shopping bags. For those of you not in the know, our esteemed legislators have been looking at a bill that would have banned plastic shopping bags or (possibly) required a surcharge to use said bags. Our idiot Assembly passed this tripe back in June and the Senate voted it down yesterday. I guess it is true that a stopped clock is correct at least twice each day.
Assemblywoman Brownley, D-Santa Monica (of course!), the person responsible for introducing this bill, likes to use inflammatory language to advance her agenda. She says that plastic shopping bags are a "single use" item and she even goes so far as to call them "urban tumbleweeds." Does this mean that most people only use these bags to carry in their groceries and then toss them in the garbage? Really? Where in the heck is Brownley hanging out that plastic bags are freely blowing around in the breeze? I can't say that I've seen them in my neck of the woods, but perhaps it's a plastic bag-slinger's paradise in The People's Republic of Santa Monica? I guess it must be all tenants from rent-controlled units. . .hm.
I find it unintentionally hilarious that she said yesterday was, "a sad day for California." Interestingly enough, I think it would have been a far sadder day to have added yet another layer of legislation that restricts freedom of choice. I might be something of a hippie and I might generally vote Republican, but I always will side with freedom. Don't use plastic grocery sacks if you don't want to. I might make the sharp point that no one is trying to restrict your right to purchase a reusable woven shopping bag for toting your groceries.
Look, I do some pretty environmentally-friendly things, but I also cherish my freedom of choice in many areas of daily life - even if my choice doesn't fit an environmental-driven agenda. I prefer reusable items to manage my menses, I choose to use cloth towels instead of paper towels, and I only use cloth napkins rather than paper napkins. Guess what? I also want to use plastic grocery bags.
Why is it that certain groups want to force others to make the same choices that they do? Actually, that's not exactly true because being forced to do something isn't really a choice at all. Now is it?
My choices may not be your choices. I'm okay with that and it doesn't really bother me if someone else doesn't want to make the same decisions that I make. Freedom of choice, baby, I'm always going to side with freedom of choice.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Personal Wealth is Not an Indicator of Personal Character
I really wanted to spend some time writing this post, but I am totally beat tonight so I'll be impossibly brief.
I've heard many complain that Meg Whitman spent tens of millions of her own personal dollars to win the Republican primary for California Governor. I've heard many complain that her personal money could have or should have been put to better use for the greater good than to run an effective political campaign. I've also heard many imply that she can't possibly be a good candidate/politician (that's an oxymoron, right??) because she is fantastically wealthy.
I've read that the current President of the United States, President Obama, ran a campaign that is estimated to have cost $2.4 billion in 2008. That's BILLION with a B. Kinda makes Meg's millions look like chump change, doesn't it? I do consider personal funds and raised funds to be the same because a dollar is a dollar is a dollar. That and another dollar might get you a cup of coffee. Seriously though, does it really matter where the funds came from? It doesn't to me. Frankly, I think that spending personal funds is a way of literally putting your money where your mouth is.
Could $90 million be put to better use than running a successful political campaign? Perhaps - I think it depends. Would $90 million fix any number of problems that California is facing? No. It wouldn't fill the black hole that is our public education system. It wouldn't fix all of our roads and transportation woes. It wouldn't solve negotiations with our public employee unions. $90 million might sound like a lot of money for your personal household, but it is a minuscule drop in the ocean that represents California's budget.
Is it socially acceptable for me to say that poor people have poor moral fiber? That they are plagued with character flaws? That they are untrustworthy because they are poor? No, of course it isn't acceptable to say such ugly things. So why is it socially acceptable to say all of the above about the so-called "rich?" It shouldn't be, but I find that it seems to be. What motivates this type of thinking? I'm inclined to dismiss it as good ol' class envy, but that seems so simple and pathetic.
I don't want to burst any bubbles, but politics is like a popularity contest. A popularity contest that you have to be hella rich to win. The richer you are, the greater your chances. And if you weren't rich going in, you sure as heck are coming out.
Why am I writing this? Why am I concerned with Meg Whitman and those who despise her? I don't give a rip about Meg Whitman. I don't even know very much about her politics (though I heartily suspect that she's a total RINO), but I do know about Jerry Brown. I'm afraid that I already know who will get my vote based on that reason alone.
I've heard many complain that Meg Whitman spent tens of millions of her own personal dollars to win the Republican primary for California Governor. I've heard many complain that her personal money could have or should have been put to better use for the greater good than to run an effective political campaign. I've also heard many imply that she can't possibly be a good candidate/politician (that's an oxymoron, right??) because she is fantastically wealthy.
I've read that the current President of the United States, President Obama, ran a campaign that is estimated to have cost $2.4 billion in 2008. That's BILLION with a B. Kinda makes Meg's millions look like chump change, doesn't it? I do consider personal funds and raised funds to be the same because a dollar is a dollar is a dollar. That and another dollar might get you a cup of coffee. Seriously though, does it really matter where the funds came from? It doesn't to me. Frankly, I think that spending personal funds is a way of literally putting your money where your mouth is.
Could $90 million be put to better use than running a successful political campaign? Perhaps - I think it depends. Would $90 million fix any number of problems that California is facing? No. It wouldn't fill the black hole that is our public education system. It wouldn't fix all of our roads and transportation woes. It wouldn't solve negotiations with our public employee unions. $90 million might sound like a lot of money for your personal household, but it is a minuscule drop in the ocean that represents California's budget.
Is it socially acceptable for me to say that poor people have poor moral fiber? That they are plagued with character flaws? That they are untrustworthy because they are poor? No, of course it isn't acceptable to say such ugly things. So why is it socially acceptable to say all of the above about the so-called "rich?" It shouldn't be, but I find that it seems to be. What motivates this type of thinking? I'm inclined to dismiss it as good ol' class envy, but that seems so simple and pathetic.
I don't want to burst any bubbles, but politics is like a popularity contest. A popularity contest that you have to be hella rich to win. The richer you are, the greater your chances. And if you weren't rich going in, you sure as heck are coming out.
Why am I writing this? Why am I concerned with Meg Whitman and those who despise her? I don't give a rip about Meg Whitman. I don't even know very much about her politics (though I heartily suspect that she's a total RINO), but I do know about Jerry Brown. I'm afraid that I already know who will get my vote based on that reason alone.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Health Care is NOT the Same as The Civil Rights Movement
And it is so GD offensive to say that it is. I'll get back to that in a moment, but for the moment, know that our esteemed leaders have passed a bill(s) that puts the government in control of a significant portion of our economy.
Here are the highlights of this oh-so-wonderful legislation: Adults who don't want to purchase health coverage will be forced to purchase it under threat of financial penalty. Seniors who use Medicare Advantage will no longer be able to keep their existing coverage. Insurance companies (who aren't charities, for the record) will not be able to deny coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions - conditions that are likely to cost the insurance company a lot of money over time. Insurers will be obligated to allow 26-year old, ahem, children to stay on the parent's plan. That's not a typo, folks. I've purchased my own health insurance since I was 21-years old, but apparently kids today just can't get their shit together and buy insurance if it's important to them. And if it's not important to them, as it often isn't to young adults, they will still be forced to purchase insurance - see first point.
Yes, Congress has passed that POS health care bill.
As a libertarian, I am firmly opposed to the government monkeying around with much of anything and I sure as heck am opposed to them expanding any further than they already have in the last several years. Unfortunately, this is the type of stuff that happens when two of our three branches of government are controlled by the same party. Abuse of power is much easier when no one is going to stop you, see? And, in case you think I'm giving a free pass to the abuses of power that occurred during the Bush years with a Republican-controlled Congress, I am absolutely not because they sickened me as well. But those guys were yesterday's news and today's news involves Obama & Co.
Among other atrocities contained in the legislation: Families earning up to $88,000 apparently need help to pay health insurance premiums and they'll get it. Tax increases and Medicare cuts. Childless adults will be eligible for Medicaid in 2014. Individuals earning over $200K (and couples earning over $250K) will be hit with a new Medicare payroll tax. Individuals fortunate enough to have a so-called "Cadillac-plan" for health coverage will have the privilege of paying a new excise tax for their good fortune. Of course, this last bit was scaled back significantly because union thugs opposed it and goodness knows that anyone with a "D" behind their name will walk in lock-step with their union benefactors.
All of this is disturbing enough to me, but the following quote has me seeing red:
"This is the civil rights act of the 21st century."
That verbal excrement was uttered by Representative Jim Clyburn of South Carolina. Rep. Clyburn is a ranking member of the House. A very high-ranking black member of the House. And he had the nerve to say that this health care tripe is akin to securing civil rights for all Americans.
Look, think what you will about the need for health care reform. Think what you will about the civil rights struggle. But understand that they are fundamentally different on the most base level.
Groups of Americans suffered from discrimination, even SCOTUS-sanctioned discrimination. Think about that for a moment. Americans suffered legally-sanctioned discrimination. That was wrong and it is a part of America's shameful past that we shouldn't forget, lest we are doomed to repeat it with another group of Americans. No, I'm not going there. But I probably will at some point in a future post.
Of course, comparing health care to civil rights implies that those who oppose another bloated social problem would also be opposed to securing civil rights for all Americans. You know, the health care opposition are just a bunch rednecks. And, let's face it, in this day and age, there is nothing worse to be painted with the racist brush. I mean, you'll have to go to rehab if you are - a la any number of lame-ass celebrities.
Make no mistake: Health care and civil rights have nothing in common! Rep. Clyburn should be ashamed of using such hyperbole to assuage his own conscience over his vote.
Health care is nothing even close to civil rights. And, if it is, what's the next right we will demand as Americans? Shall we demand that the government provide us a home that meets our standards? Shall we demand that the government provide us with our own vehicles? Shall we demand that the government provide us with our education, up to and including graduate school? Shall we demand that the government raise our children? Shall we demand that the government provide us everything and make all of our decisions? Hyperbole works both ways, Rep. Clyburn.
I'll leave with this gem, "A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything you have. . ."
Here are the highlights of this oh-so-wonderful legislation: Adults who don't want to purchase health coverage will be forced to purchase it under threat of financial penalty. Seniors who use Medicare Advantage will no longer be able to keep their existing coverage. Insurance companies (who aren't charities, for the record) will not be able to deny coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions - conditions that are likely to cost the insurance company a lot of money over time. Insurers will be obligated to allow 26-year old, ahem, children to stay on the parent's plan. That's not a typo, folks. I've purchased my own health insurance since I was 21-years old, but apparently kids today just can't get their shit together and buy insurance if it's important to them. And if it's not important to them, as it often isn't to young adults, they will still be forced to purchase insurance - see first point.
Yes, Congress has passed that POS health care bill.
As a libertarian, I am firmly opposed to the government monkeying around with much of anything and I sure as heck am opposed to them expanding any further than they already have in the last several years. Unfortunately, this is the type of stuff that happens when two of our three branches of government are controlled by the same party. Abuse of power is much easier when no one is going to stop you, see? And, in case you think I'm giving a free pass to the abuses of power that occurred during the Bush years with a Republican-controlled Congress, I am absolutely not because they sickened me as well. But those guys were yesterday's news and today's news involves Obama & Co.
Among other atrocities contained in the legislation: Families earning up to $88,000 apparently need help to pay health insurance premiums and they'll get it. Tax increases and Medicare cuts. Childless adults will be eligible for Medicaid in 2014. Individuals earning over $200K (and couples earning over $250K) will be hit with a new Medicare payroll tax. Individuals fortunate enough to have a so-called "Cadillac-plan" for health coverage will have the privilege of paying a new excise tax for their good fortune. Of course, this last bit was scaled back significantly because union thugs opposed it and goodness knows that anyone with a "D" behind their name will walk in lock-step with their union benefactors.
All of this is disturbing enough to me, but the following quote has me seeing red:
"This is the civil rights act of the 21st century."
That verbal excrement was uttered by Representative Jim Clyburn of South Carolina. Rep. Clyburn is a ranking member of the House. A very high-ranking black member of the House. And he had the nerve to say that this health care tripe is akin to securing civil rights for all Americans.
Look, think what you will about the need for health care reform. Think what you will about the civil rights struggle. But understand that they are fundamentally different on the most base level.
Groups of Americans suffered from discrimination, even SCOTUS-sanctioned discrimination. Think about that for a moment. Americans suffered legally-sanctioned discrimination. That was wrong and it is a part of America's shameful past that we shouldn't forget, lest we are doomed to repeat it with another group of Americans. No, I'm not going there. But I probably will at some point in a future post.
Of course, comparing health care to civil rights implies that those who oppose another bloated social problem would also be opposed to securing civil rights for all Americans. You know, the health care opposition are just a bunch rednecks. And, let's face it, in this day and age, there is nothing worse to be painted with the racist brush. I mean, you'll have to go to rehab if you are - a la any number of lame-ass celebrities.
Make no mistake: Health care and civil rights have nothing in common! Rep. Clyburn should be ashamed of using such hyperbole to assuage his own conscience over his vote.
Health care is nothing even close to civil rights. And, if it is, what's the next right we will demand as Americans? Shall we demand that the government provide us a home that meets our standards? Shall we demand that the government provide us with our own vehicles? Shall we demand that the government provide us with our education, up to and including graduate school? Shall we demand that the government raise our children? Shall we demand that the government provide us everything and make all of our decisions? Hyperbole works both ways, Rep. Clyburn.
I'll leave with this gem, "A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything you have. . ."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)