But I guess, deep down, I no longer believe we're engaged in a civilization. We're fighting people who have no intention of respecting the rules. They won't stop until they're afraid of us. So while I agree that it's important to "reach out" to the supposed reasonable center, I don't really think there's all that much there any more, and my heart's not in it.
Yes. I used to believe that serious people wearing gray suits on both sides sat down and thought carefully about issues like tax levels, whether it's best to stimulate the economy this way or that way. I didn't always agree with the other side, but I believed they came from a place of basic belief in the system.
Now I think they want to break it, and take all the good of our state, and leave nothing for the rest of us but broken glass.
I'm a pretty good example of Patrick's mentioned market; I want actions to take and support and good feeling from my lefty blogs. I want fireside chats and heroism and hope and snark and even black humor. The last thing I want is someone to try and use argument (especially the sort constructed a la debates where you can't use ethics or morality or even anecdotal observation and must rely on rules of logic) in the face of what I find are increasingly painful truths--my mom's future is in jeopardy, her friend L will lose her life saving meds, the neighbors kids are at greater risk--and so on. Especially if they are (or appear to be) removed.
Brook West asked: And I'm supposed to know his views how?
When my employer hired me, they asked if I could deal fairly with a diverse group of people and similar questions. Then they listened to the answers.
They asked because I am required to follow EO laws when I hire people. I did not consider the questions about my ability to treat people fairly to be "vetting my political beliefs" so much as "can you follow the rules, regulations, and laws."
My job is to hire people who must deal with a diverse population and treat them politely and equally, so I am very familiar with this process. It's really not hard. Any good hiring manual will give you suggestions.
Greg,
I may be confused here, but I think the most important step isn't framing, but action and framing in concert.
Dr. King did talk inclusively, brilliantly. But he also forced people to listen. He removed the possibility of a quiet, well-behaved underclass. That forced the oppposition to make the choice about their own level of force (IIRC, past slave revolts were put down with genocide). His rhetoric gave the opposition an honorable out (be on the side of equality and justice), a new option to the past violent one.
If I was going to form a model of fixing the USA, I'd look for a really big lever. Obama, Dean, Edwards--we've got lots of great inclusive rhetoric IMO.
But levers? Not so much. The formal levers belong to the Republicans--the executive, the legistlative, the judiciary.
Am I the only one secretly worrying about an early morning Nov 2nd "terrorist" bombing?
These guys and their end justifies the means morality make my inner tinfoil hat wearer creep out of the woodwork, I guess.
Thanks for the explanations everyone. Scary.
If anyone needs to get someone registered to vote and runs into any web blocking problems, they can also try the libraries' site:
http://www.yourvotematters.org/ala/
Terry,
I confess I don't understand what the Swiss Soldier thing means. I tried googling but got hits on the Swiss Army knife. Can you explain further?
I'm not sure why ginmar's LJ was censored, but I could make a couple of guesses about Making Light (absolutely no offense intended Teresa). I think it depends on just how dumb their software is.
I suspect the bits about Risk Assesment, Safety, and Patriot Missiles + Troops and What to do in an Emergency are the culprits, if it is software induced. Some filters are set up to screen for any site that "promotes" violence. Due to sheer stupidity, this also axes out almost all prevention sites or even sites that talk about it. I really really hate net nannies. Some of them are also set up by weirdo right winger groups and axe certain sites out of prejudice. (I know this from my library work where net nannies are sometimes used on public computers to stop weirdos from surfing porn sites in front of kids on purpose.) I have no idea if Websense is one of them.
Will, the short version works for me. I like Avram's suggestion, too.
Kos seems to have records of another. Pretty pictures even.
After thinking about the character debate and the issue debate, and all the debates and choices, I decided that what I really want is an ad that has Bush reading My Pet Goat on one side, and pictures of the attack in equal time on the other. The whole seven minutes of it. I know it will not happen, but I do wish for it.
Oh please, please, pretty please will someone ask this in the televised Town Hall debate? (Assuming Mr. Bush attends, which he may not.)
If it was me, every gun purchase would require a background check, registration, waiting period, and proof of the ability to shoot it, unload it safely, etc. I'm sure that will piss some people off. I just don't see it as all that different from cars. I didn't get angry at having to pass my learner's test, then my learner's period, then my driver's test, proof of insurance, and so on. Most everybody manages those steps.
I dunno, but sometimes it seems like the history of an issue stops clearer solutions from emerging.
Not that this will make you feel better, Xopher, but the wording of that amendment was very sly. One of my neighbors voted "yes" for it without even realizing what it was about--if she had realized, she would have voted differently. All it said was that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman. Puzzled by this obvious thing (which is what it is, generally, here) many people clicked "yes" without another thought.
I'm NOT saying they were right. (I sure as heck did not vote for it.) But it didn't say, Ban all same sex marriages. Which is what it was getting at, okay, but unless framed that way, most midwesterners just don't think of other gender options.
It was also very underpublicized. I think so that people would be confused about what the amendment meant.
Mitch, one useful purpose I see with protesting these days is the way it makes the participants feel as though they aren't alone.
Not sure if I'm making the point well, but I lived on the line of the million woman march in Philadelphia and all the women seemed very cheered to see all the other women together as a body in force and not singled out and alone.
Personally, I prefer things like MoveOn ads that actually compell swing state voters.
Thanks, Patrick, for the note about us midwesterners.
It sounds like fun. So much of the protesting stuff can be gloomy and (dare I say it?) borrrrrrring.
Chad,
I can't speak to the biology of human vaccinations, but I can to dog vaccinations. There's been quite an upsurge in certain immune problems and other health problems since vaccination started. Also, there are various kinds of vaccines. Research isn't certain of the tie, but it's suspected.
It's generally considered prudent by the lefties (if I may apply the term to the vet crowd) to vaccinate with dead (aka "killed") vaccines whenever possible and to vaccinate one at a time rather than the big combined vaccines (usually rabies, distemper, kennel cough, parvo etc.). So you'd do rabies in March and Parvo in April and so on.
A new and very cool method is now out there called "titering". Basically, after the dog has been initially vaccinated, you draw blood and see whether or not they still have immunity. If they do have immunity, you skip the vaccinations that year. I only know of one place that does titering (research lab).
Also, at least in my area, the vaccination protocols have changed to use a 3 year rabies vaccine and to vaccinate for the other biggies (like parvo) only every three years because vaccines are now understood to last much longer than previously thought. This is after puppy shots, which are complicated by the whole breast milk mom defense issue.
I have heard of research that suggests vaccines may play a role in human autism, but I have not heard it successfully substantiated.
Personally I think it's best to provide immunity to the big diseases. I'm not a fan of automatic yearly vaccinations if they're not needed (not every state has gotten the news from the universities) and feel better with a more balanced schedule, and as my dog grows elederly will titer so I can avoid stress. However, I would certainly never skip initial vaccinations or not vaccinate a dog whose titers showed he was vulnerable. Nuh-uh, no way.
I don't know if titering is available for children.
I had a nice long post that was eaten by the preview gremlins.
I would like to think that in 2004 we are all too smart to believe that taking on an alias can do much to improve our lives.
I find this approach very sad. You may be happy and satisfied with who you are and who you appear to be and how people address you. Not everyone is.
If using a new name gives a person the courage to speak up, or be listened to, or to try being someone they feel is more true to themselves...
Well, I say that's smart. Wily, adaptable, creative, laudable. Human.
Like fire or any tool, anonymity and aliases can be used for both good and evil. Look at the 1700s version of anonymous blogging: the Federalist Papers. They were written, much like a blog, by several people under one name (Publius). Me, I'm glad they were written. YMMV.
In my own offline world, I have lots of completely anonymous interactions. I'm just the person buying coffee, the person answering a reference question, the person walking the big dog.
I don't see a big disconnect between anonymous posting and being an unidentified latte buyer. And if I had to use an ID to buy a latte, I'd shop elsewhere.
Will,
What you don't seem to see is the catastrophic real world pain caused by your second choice--stepping outside the party and letting Evil win because Good is not Great.
You want the Dems to cater to your beliefs, because their beliefs are too far right for you. Have you forgotten that democracry is the rule of the people? What if the people need to have a more a moderate platform in order to vote for the Dems?
I say, then give it to them. Because the alternative to mediocre is isn't the fabulous Left it's:
Torture
Hidden arrests
No medication from Canada
Insane deficits
War and bloodshed
Death to civil liberties
Shrinking of the middle class
Energy scandals
Rove, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, and Cheney
No matter how much you want it to be a choice of
Good guys, Bad guys, and Great Guys, it isn't. It's a choice of two. That's real.
There are other options for leftists besides hiding ignored in a party and creating a pipe dream. I know because I have taken those other options.
As far as I am concerned, anyone who did not vote for Gore in 2000 is partly to blame for the disastrous state of our country.
As much to blame as Bush himself? Of course not. But partly to blame. You've put him in a position to take away my right to vote. If the Nader campaign didn't take up that dumb Gore and Bush are the same rhetoric, or campaign in Dem sensitive states, or pull that year's young and eager progressives, what might have happened? It's not just Florida, but other states were close, too.
So I hold you partly responsible for the misery I see around me and it irks me to no end that you can't seem to see how harmful the pointless pipe dream of a 3rd party is.
I don't care if the Dems take my vote for granted, I care if the Republican thugs come to my workplace and seize all our patron records and put me under a gag order.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2005 | 3 |
| 2004 | 33 |
| 2003 | 3 |
Total: 39 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by ElizabethVomMarlowe:
Show all comments by ElizabethVomMarlowe.