A friend and I were at the beach one day. We were maybe 11-ish. In the water, she would get under me and throw me upward, then I'd flail through the air before splashing clamorously into the water. Then I would throw her. Soon we heard a boy yelling, "Again! Again! Do it again!" He was having a good time, and we were having a good time. He was older than we were. After a while, we asked him what his name was. Every one of his sentences had an exclamation point.
"Charles!!" he said. "Do it again!"
We threw each other. All three of us were laughing. Throwing someone the same size as you are gets tiring in a hurry.
"Again! Again!"
"We can't, Charles."
"Again! Please! Again!"
I don't recall it clearly enough to know if we picked on him. I'm not sure when exactly I realized that he might be a little off. I do remember asking him if he was normal.
"I'm smart!!" he yelled, losing neither his verve nor his grin. His chin pointed into the air, and he weaved back and forth, making little splashes with his hands. The sun was bright enough to make us all squint.
"Who says so?" asked my friend.
"My mummy!"
This boy was older than we were, maybe 13. We thought it was funny to see a 13-year-old boy yelling so joyfully about how smart his mummy thought he was. We repeated, "My mummy!" and jumped stiffly making little splashes with our hands, as Charles had.
And it wasn't long before a sunburned fat man with a bushy black beard yelled at my friend and me. I didn't know if I'd done anything harmful, but this grown up seemed to think I had. Maybe he was right, but I'm really still not sure. Charles didn't seem to feel he'd been wronged. My friend and I were learning, I suppose.
Charles, if I hurt you, I'm sorry.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Opinions? Shrug.
I just watched a movie with Kevin Costner where the election of the next US president came down to just his vote, and he didn't really give a flying hoot. Both politicians changed their entire platform trying to impress this nonchalant man who had a handful of half-formed, ill-expressed, non-sound-bite-friendly opinions if he had them at all.
Here are some things I either don't care about one way or the other, or can easily see both sides:
1. Public displays of the Ten Thingies. I can't bring myself to call them commandments, at least not all of them. Maybe 6 or 7 are commandments. If my daughter's school wants to put up a sign that says, "Let's not kill each other, let's not steal each other's stuff, let's not be all jealous of each other, and let's not tattle tale," that'd be ok with me. They can leave the God stuff off though.
2. Who wins at the next big sports event. Meh.
3. Population growth. We are natural organisms who live here. We didn't ask to be born, but we're generally glad we were. Life's been going on here for a very long time; we aren't so powerful that we're going to kill the world. The worst we could do is cause a massive extinction, but life has hit the reset button here before. I'm anthropocentric enough to not want people to starve and suffer, and I think helpful innovations are amazing and fabulous. Life is a wild ride, and the idea that NYC may well be ocean floor before I die is pretty interesting. I don't know how it's going to go, but I don't count myself worrying about it so much as plain wondering.
4. Whether Pluto is a planet or not. It is what it is. A rose is a blah blah blah.
5. Genetically Modified Organisms. I heard a guy on the bus a few weeks ago characterize people who make GMOs as munny-grubbing azzholes. I took it personally. They may not be going about it in a way that is satisfactory to all, but people who make GMOs are trying to feed people. They're trying to help, in their way. But I don't think of myself as an advocate for GMOs. There may be gene products we can't anticipate, that we dont' want to eat. Things that wouldn't be helpful in the wild. I think they need more testing.
Here are some things I either don't care about one way or the other, or can easily see both sides:
1. Public displays of the Ten Thingies. I can't bring myself to call them commandments, at least not all of them. Maybe 6 or 7 are commandments. If my daughter's school wants to put up a sign that says, "Let's not kill each other, let's not steal each other's stuff, let's not be all jealous of each other, and let's not tattle tale," that'd be ok with me. They can leave the God stuff off though.
2. Who wins at the next big sports event. Meh.
3. Population growth. We are natural organisms who live here. We didn't ask to be born, but we're generally glad we were. Life's been going on here for a very long time; we aren't so powerful that we're going to kill the world. The worst we could do is cause a massive extinction, but life has hit the reset button here before. I'm anthropocentric enough to not want people to starve and suffer, and I think helpful innovations are amazing and fabulous. Life is a wild ride, and the idea that NYC may well be ocean floor before I die is pretty interesting. I don't know how it's going to go, but I don't count myself worrying about it so much as plain wondering.
4. Whether Pluto is a planet or not. It is what it is. A rose is a blah blah blah.
5. Genetically Modified Organisms. I heard a guy on the bus a few weeks ago characterize people who make GMOs as munny-grubbing azzholes. I took it personally. They may not be going about it in a way that is satisfactory to all, but people who make GMOs are trying to feed people. They're trying to help, in their way. But I don't think of myself as an advocate for GMOs. There may be gene products we can't anticipate, that we dont' want to eat. Things that wouldn't be helpful in the wild. I think they need more testing.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
I love crows, and this time of year is when they seem to caw their way into my consciousness.
My friend Greg and I wrote this together a while ago:
Caw Cool Crow
Now that you’ve stolen
Fonzi’s coat
Let us go then, you and I,
and steal his white t-shirt too, for they are a pair,
and I in the one, and you in the other,
will don upside down crows' feet
and stomp peace signs up and down the black
volcanic beach mud of Guatemala,
while the sun sits on top of the horizon
like a fat bird on a wire
eyeing your navel with envy.
We'll sing songs of brotherhood,
until they stick in our craw
and we remember the upper room
where the women come and go
carrying the bacon.
Oh, do not ask "what's for breakfast?"
Let us rather go and cook up a mess.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yesterday the people on the bus were all talking with each other while I watched the sky catch fire. The crows were flying in it, and some sat like someone had thrown a bucket of spare commas into the trees. I also saw cranberry trees when we went through the college, their limbs so trimmed and perfectly bony. There was just enough light to see the darkened color of the berries, hanging there reminiscent of the crows. It just occurred to me that I might be the only one noticing that sky when a man sitting across from me said, "How you can see something like that and not feel warm?" and a woman who I once heard talk about how her mother used to switch her legs bloody said, "That's a Michelangelo sunset." And the chatter on the bus hushed for a moment.
Monday, January 26, 2009
I stole this Post
My friend Jack wrote everything below this line, except the stuff he quotes:
_________________________________
Leonard wrote in "Book of Mercy"
As a Canadian I want our fair share of the guilt for what has been going on in Gaza. A little bitter searching has led to the following:
Prior to the establishment of Israel in Palestine, the most reasonable, fair and intelligent minds in the world were opposed to the creation of a Jewish state that involved the stealing of land. This was especially true of the Jews who didn't want to be given a land that they only owned 6% of. Jews like Judah Magnes and Martin Buber used the words that Leonard echoed in his poem. They pleaded : "Do not make us thieves of holiness"
Judah Magnes was at the time the most well respected American Jew who had emigrated to Palestine and Martin Buber was the most respected Jewish Bible scholar among other religions. Other Jews who shared this opposition to a Jewish state included Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt.
In 1946 a Committee was formed to make a recommendation to the United Nations on what should be the fate of Palestine. It was called the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry. After hearing the concern of all sides they proposed the establishment of a bi-national country. The land shared by Jews and Arabs with the claims of both sides taken seriously. Harry Truman, the president of the US, told Judah Magnes that he considered the document created by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry to be of such importance that he kept it in a drawer that he had reserved for his copy of the American Declaration of Independence.
It was considered by the wise as the right thing to do although the politicians of both sides as in the Jewish Agency and the Arab League opposed it and it was well understood that for it to work the land of Palestine would need to remain under trusteeship for a considerable period of time. It was accepted that the job would fall to either England or the US. Truman said that the US would be willing if they did not have to do it alone. No other country came forward.
In May of 1947 the United Nations formed a committee called The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) that was to make the final recommendation for what was to be the fate of Palestine. Their committee was less knowledgeable than the American-Anglo committee but it contained the members of 11 United Nation member countries.
Canada was one of them.
This committee in turn heard testimony from all interested parties. I consider myself reasonably intelligent and in reading through some of the testimony presented to to UNSCOP and how those hearing it responded that it would be obvious that they would see that Palestine should become a bi-national state and that partitioning the land would lead to decades and decades of violence between Jews and Arabs. This was made absolutely clear to them.
In the early deliberations of the committee the leaning was toward a land shared but then the Canadian involved made his move.
The Canadian was a lawyer named Ivan Rand who became a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On August 6, 1947, Rand prepared his own memorandum for a solution to the problems in Palestine, advocating partition and the establishment of an independent Jewish state. Over the next three weeks, he gradually convinced a majority of the committee members to adopt this position and to give control over the Negev to the Jewish state.
Justice Ivan Rand never wrote an autobiography but from his personal papers which are kept at the University of Western Ontario we learn what influenced his decision. Unlike other members of the committee who tried not to be personally influenced outside of the proceedings, Ivan Rand opened himself to Jewish hospitality and accepted a large number of social invitations by the Jewish community. He wrote often of how well he was being treated by the Jews in Palestine. As far as I know he never mentioned similar contacts with Arabs.
Of specific note was the contact he had with a Rev. William L. Hull who was the only Canadian who he was made aware of that was living in Palestine at the time and who was considered his unofficial advisor. Rev. William L. Hull was a protestant fundamentalist who , if I can borrow Leonard's term, was "swaggering in the immunity of superstition". Rev. William L. Hull was a strong believer in the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and to my thinking suits well Leonard's phrase "bloated on their scraps of destiny" To emphasize the influence that Hull might have had on Justice Ivan Rand here is a quote from a forward to Rev. Hull's books that Ivan wrote:
I can't help but wonder how Justice Rand would have voted if he didn't expose himself to a one sided influence. During the proceedings he often brought forward the Canadian experience of french and english living together in a Commonwealth in Canada.
The final vote was 7 to 4 for the partition of palestine and the establishment of an independent state of Israel. The 4 were for a bi-national state.
Who knows how history will see things? Maybe one day people around the world will honour Justice Ivan Rand as the Canadian who made the state of Israel possible. I can't help but consider the words of Martin Buber when in 1967 he responded to the cries of joy at the success of Israel's army with saying that there will come a day when what we celebrate today will be seen as a very sad detour on the road to humanity.
_________________________________
Leonard wrote in "Book of Mercy"
Israel, and you who call yourself Israel, the Church that calls itself Israel, and the revolt that calls itself Israel, and every nation chosen to be a nation – none of these lands is yours, all of you are thieves of holiness, all of you at war with Mercy. Who will say it? Will America say, We have stolen it, or France step down? Will Russia confess, or Poland say, We have sinned? All bloated on their scraps of destiny, all swaggering in the immunity of superstition.
As a Canadian I want our fair share of the guilt for what has been going on in Gaza. A little bitter searching has led to the following:
Prior to the establishment of Israel in Palestine, the most reasonable, fair and intelligent minds in the world were opposed to the creation of a Jewish state that involved the stealing of land. This was especially true of the Jews who didn't want to be given a land that they only owned 6% of. Jews like Judah Magnes and Martin Buber used the words that Leonard echoed in his poem. They pleaded : "Do not make us thieves of holiness"
Judah Magnes was at the time the most well respected American Jew who had emigrated to Palestine and Martin Buber was the most respected Jewish Bible scholar among other religions. Other Jews who shared this opposition to a Jewish state included Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt.
In 1946 a Committee was formed to make a recommendation to the United Nations on what should be the fate of Palestine. It was called the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry. After hearing the concern of all sides they proposed the establishment of a bi-national country. The land shared by Jews and Arabs with the claims of both sides taken seriously. Harry Truman, the president of the US, told Judah Magnes that he considered the document created by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry to be of such importance that he kept it in a drawer that he had reserved for his copy of the American Declaration of Independence.
It was considered by the wise as the right thing to do although the politicians of both sides as in the Jewish Agency and the Arab League opposed it and it was well understood that for it to work the land of Palestine would need to remain under trusteeship for a considerable period of time. It was accepted that the job would fall to either England or the US. Truman said that the US would be willing if they did not have to do it alone. No other country came forward.
In May of 1947 the United Nations formed a committee called The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) that was to make the final recommendation for what was to be the fate of Palestine. Their committee was less knowledgeable than the American-Anglo committee but it contained the members of 11 United Nation member countries.
Canada was one of them.
This committee in turn heard testimony from all interested parties. I consider myself reasonably intelligent and in reading through some of the testimony presented to to UNSCOP and how those hearing it responded that it would be obvious that they would see that Palestine should become a bi-national state and that partitioning the land would lead to decades and decades of violence between Jews and Arabs. This was made absolutely clear to them.
In the early deliberations of the committee the leaning was toward a land shared but then the Canadian involved made his move.
The Canadian was a lawyer named Ivan Rand who became a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On August 6, 1947, Rand prepared his own memorandum for a solution to the problems in Palestine, advocating partition and the establishment of an independent Jewish state. Over the next three weeks, he gradually convinced a majority of the committee members to adopt this position and to give control over the Negev to the Jewish state.
Justice Ivan Rand never wrote an autobiography but from his personal papers which are kept at the University of Western Ontario we learn what influenced his decision. Unlike other members of the committee who tried not to be personally influenced outside of the proceedings, Ivan Rand opened himself to Jewish hospitality and accepted a large number of social invitations by the Jewish community. He wrote often of how well he was being treated by the Jews in Palestine. As far as I know he never mentioned similar contacts with Arabs.
Of specific note was the contact he had with a Rev. William L. Hull who was the only Canadian who he was made aware of that was living in Palestine at the time and who was considered his unofficial advisor. Rev. William L. Hull was a protestant fundamentalist who , if I can borrow Leonard's term, was "swaggering in the immunity of superstition". Rev. William L. Hull was a strong believer in the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and to my thinking suits well Leonard's phrase "bloated on their scraps of destiny" To emphasize the influence that Hull might have had on Justice Ivan Rand here is a quote from a forward to Rev. Hull's books that Ivan wrote:
It was a relief, then, when shortly after my arrival I had the good fortune to meet the author of this book. Here he was, a Canadian,... a clergyman,… a man of goodwill, well known to and knowing the many religious and racial groups in that amazing galaxy of rivalries and antagonisms. Whatever might be said of the soundness of his judgments, here, I thought, was one whom I could trust to express himself with honesty and frankness. Somewhat to my surprise, I listened to words of high admiration of the Jewish people, their standards of life and tremendous work they had done since returning to their ancient homeland.
I can't help but wonder how Justice Rand would have voted if he didn't expose himself to a one sided influence. During the proceedings he often brought forward the Canadian experience of french and english living together in a Commonwealth in Canada.
The final vote was 7 to 4 for the partition of palestine and the establishment of an independent state of Israel. The 4 were for a bi-national state.
Who knows how history will see things? Maybe one day people around the world will honour Justice Ivan Rand as the Canadian who made the state of Israel possible. I can't help but consider the words of Martin Buber when in 1967 he responded to the cries of joy at the success of Israel's army with saying that there will come a day when what we celebrate today will be seen as a very sad detour on the road to humanity.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
cry if you want to
My sister has been pregnant recently, but upon entering the second trimester, she received the most horrible news a pregnant woman can receive. The baby had died. It doesn't make sense; entering the second trimester is usually a time of rejoicing because the most likely time for a miscarriage is in the first trimester. She had felt the child move, thought it would be a boy, and was considering the name Leo. And then on the sonogram screen, she saw the little face, but heard no slushy little heartbeat. Because of the lack of the number of doctors who know how to care for such circumstances, she had to travel for appropriate treatment. However, though it is invasive surgery, and the procedure takes 2 days to complete, and the chance of infection is relatively high, she was not admitted to the hospital.
Some dope decided it was an outpatient procedure.
I told Beth she should send the hotel bill to her insurance company. They won't likely pay it, I know, but she should do it out of spite. And she should have ordered blueberry pancakes for breakfast from room service, and sent that bill to her insurance company too.
My friend Jerry has a daughter whose first pregnancy also did not go well. In something like 1 out of 10,000 pregnancies, the baby develops without a brain. When Jerry was telling me the story, he said without thinking at one point, "She had to have an abortion; it was a no-brainer." I didn't notice the joke until Jerry put his hand on his eyes said, "Oh God... I didn't... it's not a joke. I didn't even realize what I was saying."
I talked with my mom today. The evening Beth returned home, she had pain all over her torso, intensified by that vital activity - drawing a breath. At the E.R., they couldn't figure out what was wrong with her, so after 8 hours, they sent her home. Great idea, eh? Hmm, duh, we dunno, hope you're not, like, dyin' or sump'n. Bye. She called the doctor who had treated her for the abortion. He said that it could be a rare reaction to the anesthesia they gave her, and that if it got worse, she should go back to the E.R., and have them call him so he could talk them through the treatment.
I asked Mom how Beth was doing. She's messed up. You might expect her to be emotionally messed up, but she is physically messed up too. They're doing lots of tests. Her electrolytes are off, and I don't know what all. Mom said Beth looked pale.
I'm worried. I'm afraid she has some kind of systemic infection.
I was with Beth for the afternoon between the first part of the treatment and the second part. She & her husband couldn't check in to their hotel until 3:00, so we went shopping and we went to a movie. When I looked at her, I knew there were times when we were both aware of what couldn't be put down. But somehow our conversation about it remained mostly technical. We were in a public place, and there was much subtle communication in looks and body language. And she was on drugs for the cramping, and somewhat distant from it. I want to be near her, but I also want to give her as much emotional room as she needs. How do you satisfy that?
Some dope decided it was an outpatient procedure.
I told Beth she should send the hotel bill to her insurance company. They won't likely pay it, I know, but she should do it out of spite. And she should have ordered blueberry pancakes for breakfast from room service, and sent that bill to her insurance company too.
My friend Jerry has a daughter whose first pregnancy also did not go well. In something like 1 out of 10,000 pregnancies, the baby develops without a brain. When Jerry was telling me the story, he said without thinking at one point, "She had to have an abortion; it was a no-brainer." I didn't notice the joke until Jerry put his hand on his eyes said, "Oh God... I didn't... it's not a joke. I didn't even realize what I was saying."
I talked with my mom today. The evening Beth returned home, she had pain all over her torso, intensified by that vital activity - drawing a breath. At the E.R., they couldn't figure out what was wrong with her, so after 8 hours, they sent her home. Great idea, eh? Hmm, duh, we dunno, hope you're not, like, dyin' or sump'n. Bye. She called the doctor who had treated her for the abortion. He said that it could be a rare reaction to the anesthesia they gave her, and that if it got worse, she should go back to the E.R., and have them call him so he could talk them through the treatment.
I asked Mom how Beth was doing. She's messed up. You might expect her to be emotionally messed up, but she is physically messed up too. They're doing lots of tests. Her electrolytes are off, and I don't know what all. Mom said Beth looked pale.
I'm worried. I'm afraid she has some kind of systemic infection.
I was with Beth for the afternoon between the first part of the treatment and the second part. She & her husband couldn't check in to their hotel until 3:00, so we went shopping and we went to a movie. When I looked at her, I knew there were times when we were both aware of what couldn't be put down. But somehow our conversation about it remained mostly technical. We were in a public place, and there was much subtle communication in looks and body language. And she was on drugs for the cramping, and somewhat distant from it. I want to be near her, but I also want to give her as much emotional room as she needs. How do you satisfy that?
Monday, November 3, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Answer to an email that I can't answer:
HIM: It is amazing that this election has gotten as far as it has with the hidden facts that keep getting buried. It amazes me what people are willing to overlook in a President of this country. A man that won't salute our country flag, who is so "morally" fit according to your poll that he believe is late term abortions/partial birth abortions, wants to us give up our parental rights to know and approve of our children that we are supporting under our roofs. WOW truly amazing. The fact that everyone is so afraid to confront anything that comes up on Obama for fear they will be labeled a racist just shows me that there are some real issues in this country. PUT MASKS ON ALL THE CANDIDATES THEN WE MIGHT HAVE A TRUE RACE FOR THE PRESIDENCY. Where we aren't judging the clothes a person is wearing, the sex, color, heritage or anything but their past track record and what they are really capable of "CHANGING".
On the abortion thing - I think most times when a teenager gets pregnant, she will tell her parents. How it's handled will and should be a family affair. But you have to consider the situation that is less than happy: the teenager who is abused at home, the one who will be thrown out of her parents' home if they know she is pregnant, the one who'll be beaten, the one who got pregnant by her own daddy. We should have laws in place that protect these young women. I would like it to be that whenever a young person gets pregnant, her family can rejoice, but you can't legislate that!!!! You just can't. It doesn't work. In my own life, I'd like to think that even if I get pregnant by a rape, that I will go through with the pregnancy. But I am in an incredibly loving and supportive environment, and I don't know what every woman's situation is. I don't have their perspective. A woman has a right to value her own life more than that of a developing feotus. What happens between my legs and in my belly is my ultimate business, and I will share it with whom I choose. IT IS NOT OPEN TO LEGISLATION. And to me, just because a young woman has not achieved the arbitrary threshhold of 18 trips around old Bright Eye, doesn't change that the situation is first, foremost and ultimately hers.
On the masks-on-candidates thing - I heard a Republican talking about this very thing. He was very surprised, and even ashamed to learn that he had been holding Obama's colour against him. No one wants to think of himself as racist, and people will go to great lengths to hide their racist tendancies from others and from themselves. On issues, Obama and Hilary were considerably more alike than Clinton and McCain. Yet a certain group of people who supported Hilary are now planning on voting McCain. Why? They "don't trust" Obama. They think he's a "Muslim." (Of course, he's not, but so what anyway?) But no, they're not racists.
HIM: It is hard to stay civil in this election, with so much at stake. The Democratic Party has, especially for the past 6 years, waged an underhanded assault on the American people. Aided by celebrities with a large gullible audience and by the mainstream news outlets (with Fox News being the only one not prostrating itself at the Democrat's altar), they have used lies, innuendo, and misdirection to turn "popular opinion" against first the President and then the Republican Party.
ME: I don't know if you realise, but that is very much how lefties feel about the Republicans, their underhanded approach to subvert the will of the people, their lies & misrepresentations.
"Clean Air Act" - allows for MORE pollution,
"Saving Social Security" - the privatization & dismantling of Social Security,
"War on Terror" - war to garner control of the world's oil supply
"No Child Left Behind" - undermines public education, paves roads for privatization of education
"Right to Work" - undermining the right to assemble & the right to organize
The Republicans have these think tanks that design the way they talk about things for them. Have you noticed how they ALL use the same words when they have an issue? Sometimes the exact same SENTENCES! Now that's scary, and it sounds like a shiny designed dishonesty to me.
Like "Tax Relief" for instance. Look at the word relief. It insinuates that taxes are your burden. Something that an oppressive government forces you to pay so they can redistribute your hard earned cash as they see fit, those controlling bastards! But if you can think of the government as an organising body that you are a part of, then you have more control. Taxes are the dues you pay to get to live in this great country! And what makes this country great if not the things we get to do together? The things we pay for with our taxes? We have the best research facilities in the world, and most are government-funded. We have a strong infrastructure, and the world's finest military. Aren't these things worth paying for together? We should be proud to pay our taxes and take part in paying for the things that make this country so wonderful!
How do you feel about giving money to your church? Now why is that different?
ME: I don't know if you realise, but that is very much how lefties feel about the Republicans, their underhanded approach to subvert the will of the people, their lies & misrepresentations.
"Clean Air Act" - allows for MORE pollution,
"Saving Social Security" - the privatization & dismantling of Social Security,
"War on Terror" - war to garner control of the world's oil supply
"No Child Left Behind" - undermines public education, paves roads for privatization of education
"Right to Work" - undermining the right to assemble & the right to organize
The Republicans have these think tanks that design the way they talk about things for them. Have you noticed how they ALL use the same words when they have an issue? Sometimes the exact same SENTENCES! Now that's scary, and it sounds like a shiny designed dishonesty to me.
Like "Tax Relief" for instance. Look at the word relief. It insinuates that taxes are your burden. Something that an oppressive government forces you to pay so they can redistribute your hard earned cash as they see fit, those controlling bastards! But if you can think of the government as an organising body that you are a part of, then you have more control. Taxes are the dues you pay to get to live in this great country! And what makes this country great if not the things we get to do together? The things we pay for with our taxes? We have the best research facilities in the world, and most are government-funded. We have a strong infrastructure, and the world's finest military. Aren't these things worth paying for together? We should be proud to pay our taxes and take part in paying for the things that make this country so wonderful!
How do you feel about giving money to your church? Now why is that different?
HIM: For its part, the Republican Party has really botched the entire process, first by throwing the President under the bus and then by not standing up and presenting the truth to the American People. They let subversives like Michael Moore get away with unrefuted propaganda. They failed to educate the public on the TRUE causes of the economic situation. They failed to get the true stories out about terrorism and the wars in the Middle East. They have failed to educate the large minority subgroups about what the Democrats are REALLY doing for them. The should have jumped all over the lies that form the basis for the Obama campaign, but they didn't.
ME: Throwing the lousiest president we've ever had "under the bus" is probably a good thing as far as the rest of the country is concerned. I would also like for people to tell me the truth. I think most lefties are aware that Michael Moore's work is propaganda. It's funny, and I enjoy it, but I take it with a grain of salt. I hope you take right-ist propaganda with a grain of salt as well.
ME: Throwing the lousiest president we've ever had "under the bus" is probably a good thing as far as the rest of the country is concerned. I would also like for people to tell me the truth. I think most lefties are aware that Michael Moore's work is propaganda. It's funny, and I enjoy it, but I take it with a grain of salt. I hope you take right-ist propaganda with a grain of salt as well.
HIM: We find ourselves with no clear choice in this election. The Republican Party sat on its duff for the past 6 years and have defaulted the control of our country to a subversive group of people who will ruin the entire concept and principles upon which our nation was founded.
Ahh, now that is just straight BS. The lefties are not going to "destroy America." That's just serious crazy talk. The Republicans have some good ideas, but they've gone too far to the right. It's time to swing that pendulum back toward civil rights for all, and working for the good of the most rather than the few. They have a long and cherished history of serving corporate interests. Sure, Dems do too, but not quite to the extent of the Reps.
Ahh, now that is just straight BS. The lefties are not going to "destroy America." That's just serious crazy talk. The Republicans have some good ideas, but they've gone too far to the right. It's time to swing that pendulum back toward civil rights for all, and working for the good of the most rather than the few. They have a long and cherished history of serving corporate interests. Sure, Dems do too, but not quite to the extent of the Reps.
HIM: It is hard to remain civil when the very survival of our Nation is threatened. I will support John McCain because he will at least not destroy America; the best we can hope for is a "caretaker presidency." On the other hand, an Obama victory would give control of the Nation's policy to Pelosi/Reid; that is TERRIFYING!
It's fairly well observed that America is already quite destroyed, and now is the time to fix it. Some think that we are nearing American Civil War II. Barack has such a genuine way of uniting people, that I hope this can be avoided. He has treated McCain and the Reps with all due respect, he's said countless times that John McCain is a good man. When people boo John at his rallies, he says, "No, no. We don't need that. We need to vote!" He believes in the common people of America.
It's fairly well observed that America is already quite destroyed, and now is the time to fix it. Some think that we are nearing American Civil War II. Barack has such a genuine way of uniting people, that I hope this can be avoided. He has treated McCain and the Reps with all due respect, he's said countless times that John McCain is a good man. When people boo John at his rallies, he says, "No, no. We don't need that. We need to vote!" He believes in the common people of America.
On the abortion thing - I think most times when a teenager gets pregnant, she will tell her parents. How it's handled will and should be a family affair. But you have to consider the situation that is less than happy: the teenager who is abused at home, the one who will be thrown out of her parents' home if they know she is pregnant, the one who'll be beaten, the one who got pregnant by her own daddy. We should have laws in place that protect these young women. I would like it to be that whenever a young person gets pregnant, her family can rejoice, but you can't legislate that!!!! You just can't. It doesn't work. In my own life, I'd like to think that even if I get pregnant by a rape, that I will go through with the pregnancy. But I am in an incredibly loving and supportive environment, and I don't know what every woman's situation is. I don't have their perspective. A woman has a right to value her own life more than that of a developing feotus. What happens between my legs and in my belly is my ultimate business, and I will share it with whom I choose. IT IS NOT OPEN TO LEGISLATION. And to me, just because a young woman has not achieved the arbitrary threshhold of 18 trips around old Bright Eye, doesn't change that the situation is first, foremost and ultimately hers.
On the masks-on-candidates thing - I heard a Republican talking about this very thing. He was very surprised, and even ashamed to learn that he had been holding Obama's colour against him. No one wants to think of himself as racist, and people will go to great lengths to hide their racist tendancies from others and from themselves. On issues, Obama and Hilary were considerably more alike than Clinton and McCain. Yet a certain group of people who supported Hilary are now planning on voting McCain. Why? They "don't trust" Obama. They think he's a "Muslim." (Of course, he's not, but so what anyway?) But no, they're not racists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)