Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/000899.php on line 91

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/000899.php on line 91
November 05, 2003
Ranting and some headlines

Is Dick Meyer right? Is it personal? Are we, in fact, arguing about issues or is the current state of politics actually a case of, "the jocks vs. the chess club"?

He mentions that the USofA's interest (speaking of the majority) in foreign affairs, so keen right after 9/11, has waned considerably. That's true. He mentions that national elections are always, no matter what else crops up, about the economy. That's true. (The economy sucks, by the way.) He says that the current division is an illusion and that the parties are actually very, very close to each other's positions on most major issues.

That's probably true, but it's an illusion. While it may be (thanks to the idiotic Democratic "leadership" who have dragged the party to the right over the past couple of decades), that there's not much difference between a Democrat and a Republican, two key factors need to be remembered.

First, and as I've said before, most of the current crop of non-participating adult voters identify themselves, when asked, as mostly Democratic or liberal. (And, again, let's all thank the so-called 'leadership' who pushed the Left out of the party). So what passes for a "Democrat" in national politics these days doesn't much match what the majority of liberals in this country define as an actual, you know, Democrat the way the beast used to look.

Second, what may look like insignificant issues to Meyer actually loom rather large in my mind. What's at stake is the future. The country is poised to move one direction or the other, and we have to decide if we're going to regress or move forward.

Conservative or Liberal?

Backwards or forwards? The actual issues, one by one, may not look that significant to a political commentator, but each of them is, I think, key in determining where we're going to be in ten, twenty, or fifty years.

As science turns up more and more evidence that homosexuality could be genetic (i.e., natural) for some people, are we going to open the doors and accept that homosexual people are just people, like anyone else or are we going to preach supernatural hellfire at them and demand that they stay silent and celibate or we'll stone them in the city streets?

As the world becomes an increasingly dangerous place, thanks in large part to the world-wide proliferation of WMD that the USofA significantly financed and even inspired, are we going to make institutional a policy of "pre-emptive self defense" or are we going to work to give the only significant international body, the U.N., the power and the backing to enforce international law?

As the planet we live on becomes ever more polluted by the byproducts of "civilization" are we going to work toward and demand the use of bio-friendly, low-impact technology or we going to leave it to the profit-driven chemical companies and manufacturing plants to voluntarily recreate themselves as "green" institutions?

Gun control? How do you solve the problem of guns in the hands of children? By removing guns from the hands of adults? By banning all but "sporting" guns? By arming teachers? What kind of society do we want to build? A peaceful one, or one where at any moment you could be killed by a stray bullet from a legally armed "defendor"?

Education? Public schools or school vouchers? Do we educate everyone's children more or less the same, living up to the democratic ideals this country was founded on, or do we allow the middle and upper classes to create their own educational enclaves in private schools? Do we just do what has to be done and fund our public schools as though our children were as important to us as a stealth airplane, or do we stockpile a few more bombs, leaving increasingly poorly funded public schools to the bottom 5% of the population that can't even afford the bus fare to a better school district?

The differences between the Right and the Left are significant.

I mean, who's for, and who's against profiteering?

(Okay, that was a cheap shot and unconnected with the rest of my rant. Sorry.)

Ahem. Okay, let's move on.

I don't know why this editorial was published unsigned. I'd like to write a letter of praise to the author.

Bush = Hussein?

Congress funded Bush's war but none of them were willing to go on the record with their support. They're cowards. Most of the sane people in this country totally accept that now that we're in Iraq, we have to finish the job.

WaPo's headline reads, "Democrats: GOP Blocking Drug Bill" on the front page, but when you click the link, the actual story headline reads, Democrats Assail GOP on Drug Bill. Over at The Hill, the double headline reads, "Dems balk at Medicare plan Republicans strive to save endangered drug reform bill."

And is Truth, lies, and the legend of 9/11 paranoiac conspiracy theory or the facts? I can't even tell and I haven't had time to try and research any of the names mentioned.

Let's end on a high note, shall we?

News Item: British intelligence spends days analyzing unusual transmissions, suspecting terrorist or spy traffic, later to determine that a ram was rubbing its horns against the aerial masts of the Scarborough signal station "in between serving ewes."

Good catch.

Almost invaded Iran this time.

From QuickTakes, of course.

(Happy birthday to me!)

Posted by AnneZook at 08:56 AM