I am a veteran. I am not a democrat, nor am I a republican. I am not a liberal or a conservative. Like most people would acknowledge, if they look closely enough, I hold certain ideas that are considered liberal (e.g., would love to see universal health care, see no reason to prohibit gay marriage or contraception) and others that are decidedly conservative (e.g., I have no problem with capital punishment and believe in the second amendment). I like being thoughtful enough that I do not need a label to describe my perspective and am adult enough to handle this inconsistency; but, damn, does it lead to a rather chaotic life.
A further indication that many could see me as a conservative; I am a gun owner, licensed to carry a concealed weapon, including a firearm, and I carry a pistol everywhere it is legal for me to do so - as is my right. I do not believe that the solution to gun violence, such as seen at VT or recently in Aurora, is to ban possession of firearms. If a person is inclined to break the law by slaughtering innocent people, do we really believe that a law would prevent them from obtaining and carrying a weapon? I think our most dangerous tendency is to feel a false sense of security, to ever feel that we are truly and absolutely safe, to be oblivious to the dangers around us. In the grand scheme of things, among the general populace, these ideas probably make me sound a bit extreme.
So, what trials and tribulations? As a gun owner I am a member of several Internet gun forums. I enjoy talking and learning all I can about concealed carry and personal defense. Although I was an NRA member, I quite simply could not accept their incessant doomsday rhetoric and scenarios and fear mongering. It all came to a head for me when Wayne LaPierre, said, basically "We know Obama will destroy our second amendment freedoms because he hasn't done so yet". I do not know how you get there from here; this is the stuff of insanity.
So, when trying to read about one of my favorite topics, the use of firearms for personal defense - I am also frequently exposed to rabid, right-wing, Obama is the anti-Christ, a socialist, taking away our freedoms tirades. There is never any real data on this, no one can give much detail on any of it, just the emotional appeal to the tragedy that "Our America" is being taken away. What really amazes me is that most were seemingly all right with the 8 years of GWB, the unnecessary wars paid for on credit and an increase in the deficit fed by foolhardy tax cuts. Why wasn't the deficit a problem then? Most did not seem to mind his executive orders, his signing statements, his encroachments on our freedoms and defiance of the Constitution, yet somehow can quite clearly see those terrible events now coming true.
I have pondered long how it is that 8 yeas of GWB were cool with these freedom-loving Americans, yet 4 of Obama, with no real curtailment of freedoms that I can see, are a sign of the coming apocalypse. Oh, is it a loss of freedom to have a health care plan that provides coverage for all and enforces individual responsibility? Didn't seem so years ago. I see it as enhancing my freedom not to have to pay for the health care of those who are not covered and do not take responsibility for their own care.
I know how people react when you use the term "racism", but I have not been able to find any other explanation for this. None of these freedom-lovers seemed to care about such issues when a white redneck was in office, but are now in complete terror when a black intellectual is in office. Can it be that, just at a time when the census tells us that white Americans are not the majority of births in the country, the election of a black president ignited some primal fear, such a fear that he need only be black to be a threat?
So, I try to read the forums, looking for interesting tips and ideas on how to protect myself and my loved ones in dangerous times. I wish dearly there were a good, second amendment organization that did not push thoughtful gun owners away. I try not to wander into those zones where I realize that I am wading in a cesspool among a bunch of people who ignored 8 years of Bush/Cheney power-grabbing, but now see themselves in a cosmic battle of good v. evil.
It ain't easy!
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Who are these "Real Americans" of which you speak...
So...when Romney Adviser Tara Wall was asked about criticisms of his lack of a detailed Afghanistan policy she noted:
"Unfortunately it’s disappointing that the attacks, these recent attacks on all these issues outside of what the issues are relative to Mitt Romney are diverting away from what real Americans want to talk about. And real Americans want to talk about getting back to work."
Hmmm...perhaps that is what the selfish Americans to whom Romney is trying to appeal want to talk about - what's in it for me - but I do not think that makes them real. It kind of makes them surreal. Caricatures maybe. Evil doppelgangers. Zombie Americans. Bizarro Americans wearing American flag lapel pins.
Does she mean that the millions who have been or will be directly or indirectly impacted by our foray into Afghanistan, and those of us who do care about them and want to hear what this candidate's plans are for them, are not real Americans? Does she think that wars and tax cuts did not contribute to today's' problems? So, when times are hard, real Americans cut their military loose, just give lip-service to the idea of "heroes" but only care about themselves? Not the real Americans I know. I do not think you know what a real American is...you are living in some weird alternate America.
Hello, Mitt. I served my country in the military for 10 years - not in France on a religious mission. I care about what is happening to my active duty brothers and sisters and want to know what your plans will be for them. That's as real as it gets.
"Unfortunately it’s disappointing that the attacks, these recent attacks on all these issues outside of what the issues are relative to Mitt Romney are diverting away from what real Americans want to talk about. And real Americans want to talk about getting back to work."
Hmmm...perhaps that is what the selfish Americans to whom Romney is trying to appeal want to talk about - what's in it for me - but I do not think that makes them real. It kind of makes them surreal. Caricatures maybe. Evil doppelgangers. Zombie Americans. Bizarro Americans wearing American flag lapel pins.
Does she mean that the millions who have been or will be directly or indirectly impacted by our foray into Afghanistan, and those of us who do care about them and want to hear what this candidate's plans are for them, are not real Americans? Does she think that wars and tax cuts did not contribute to today's' problems? So, when times are hard, real Americans cut their military loose, just give lip-service to the idea of "heroes" but only care about themselves? Not the real Americans I know. I do not think you know what a real American is...you are living in some weird alternate America.
Hello, Mitt. I served my country in the military for 10 years - not in France on a religious mission. I care about what is happening to my active duty brothers and sisters and want to know what your plans will be for them. That's as real as it gets.
"You didn't build that..."
Did Mitt Romney, Jack Gilchrist and other business owners build the roads and bridges their products or personnel move on. Did they pay for the education and training of their workers? What the inspectors who ensure that the foods they eat meet some minimum standard? How about the police and fire services that keep them safe, not to mention the military? How about the subsidies for the fuels they use and crops they consume? I am sure they would say, yes, they paid for this in the taxes they pay, but then I helped pay for them, too. Such is the commitment all Americans have made to support the growth, wealth and security of our nation and the free enterprise system.
We all love the idea that we are self-made and self-sufficient, that we need no one and no one helped us, that our success is solely the work of our own hands or those of our ancestors. We romanticize the "Rugged Individualist". But in truth this has always been in the context of "One Nation...indivisible" and "Out of many, one".
Yes, Mr. Gilchrist, his son and father have worked hard to be where they are, the initiative, the ingenuity. Acknowledging that this might not have been possible all on your own, in a country that did not provide a context that promotes and supports such effort, is not to denigrate such accomplishment. It is to suggest that each of us owes at least some debt to the country that supports our efforts. America, as a nation, has worked alongside you, worked hard and sacrificed, contributed to provide the opportunity, the infrastructure needed, to help hard workers like you and many others succeed. It is no denigration of your efforts to suggest that they have been joined by your fellow Americans, by government funded by all of our citizens that arises from the shared will of the people to provide for such opportunity.
That I drive to work on roads that were built by and are owned by all of us, not by a corporation that can say "This is mine" and set an arbitrary toll that I must pay to survive may seem a small thing. That my customers can do the same may seem trivial and easily taken for granted - in a land that has become more and more "All about me". But your employees also enjoy this, as do your products. Yes, I succeed by my own efforts - no one earned my degree for me or the position I hold, but the military benefits I earned and the student loans I used made it possible - and I know that all contribute in support of those. No, they could not succeed for me, but I also know that it would have likely been impossible without them. I did not earn it without help.
Neither did you build it on your own. This selfish, self-centered, "I did this with no help from anyone else" attitude is simply not based on the real world.
We all love the idea that we are self-made and self-sufficient, that we need no one and no one helped us, that our success is solely the work of our own hands or those of our ancestors. We romanticize the "Rugged Individualist". But in truth this has always been in the context of "One Nation...indivisible" and "Out of many, one".
Yes, Mr. Gilchrist, his son and father have worked hard to be where they are, the initiative, the ingenuity. Acknowledging that this might not have been possible all on your own, in a country that did not provide a context that promotes and supports such effort, is not to denigrate such accomplishment. It is to suggest that each of us owes at least some debt to the country that supports our efforts. America, as a nation, has worked alongside you, worked hard and sacrificed, contributed to provide the opportunity, the infrastructure needed, to help hard workers like you and many others succeed. It is no denigration of your efforts to suggest that they have been joined by your fellow Americans, by government funded by all of our citizens that arises from the shared will of the people to provide for such opportunity.
That I drive to work on roads that were built by and are owned by all of us, not by a corporation that can say "This is mine" and set an arbitrary toll that I must pay to survive may seem a small thing. That my customers can do the same may seem trivial and easily taken for granted - in a land that has become more and more "All about me". But your employees also enjoy this, as do your products. Yes, I succeed by my own efforts - no one earned my degree for me or the position I hold, but the military benefits I earned and the student loans I used made it possible - and I know that all contribute in support of those. No, they could not succeed for me, but I also know that it would have likely been impossible without them. I did not earn it without help.
Neither did you build it on your own. This selfish, self-centered, "I did this with no help from anyone else" attitude is simply not based on the real world.
Confirms what I have always thought of her...
Having watched S.E. Cupp on "Real Time" a few times and noticed the typical approach; that is, talk loud, say little, talk constantly and over anyone else who wants to speak, I could not help but think that her only real asset to the media must be the fact that she looks like a slightly under-done Sarah Palin clone. You know, all "mavericky" and stuff...
Alas, the evidence became more clear as S.E. Cupp flexes her idiot for all to see...
This has simply become standard practice...no facts, no data, no thought, no lointendedbuzzwords inteneded to conjure images and emotions (esocialistectivist, cosialist, foreign, unAmerican, etc). No, conservatives are not the only ones to do this, but they are certainly the masters of it and havon itrtainly relied onit for the longest - and it is about time they were outed. I guess the younger ones lack the skill necessary to pull it off.
Alas, the evidence became more clear as S.E. Cupp flexes her idiot for all to see...
This has simply become standard practice...no facts, no data, no thought, no lointendedbuzzwords inteneded to conjure images and emotions (esocialistectivist, cosialist, foreign, unAmerican, etc). No, conservatives are not the only ones to do this, but they are certainly the masters of it and havon itrtainly relied onit for the longest - and it is about time they were outed. I guess the younger ones lack the skill necessary to pull it off.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Health Care Hoopla - The Personal Responsibility Mandate
Most of the time I have discussions with conservatives they are all about personal responsibility. In fact, in Massachusetts, the individual mandate was the "personal responsibility mandate". We know that people who are uninsured get less preventive care, wait longer to seek care when they need it, and often end up in emergency departments being cared for once a problem becomes incapacitating or life-threatening. The seeming role of the mandate is to ensure that those who can afford insurance but do not get it take some responsibility for their health care as opposed to leaving it to the rest of us to foot the bill in either higher taxes or higher health care costs to cover their unfunded care.
If not via the "personal responsibility" mandate, then what is the mechanism? On one hand, conservatives want to enforce individual responsibility - all about rugged individualism - but on the other assert that the government telling you that you must be responsible is "taking away your freedom" - freedom as in "...right to screw up (or screw others)" I suppose. It seems either we require all to pay for care (or pay a penalty that can help support their care) or we enforce responsibility by allowing those who do not buy coverage to die. Obviously, during Republican primary debates earlier this year, the idea of allowing those who are uninsured or cannot afford care to die was a popular notion. We ll know that is not going to happen and I have yet to meet a conservative who thinks it is a good idea when it comes to them or their loved ones; when their mothers and fathers are cared for on Medicare. They hate the "Nanny state" when it takes care of others, but love it when it supports them. I suppose it is an issue of deciding "Who are the freeloaders?" Can't be us!
It would really make a difference in how this process is viewed if people could hold consistent positions. When it becomes clear that they change their positions for purely political purposes, it makes them look foolish and frivolous; Mitt Romney, passed and praised such legislation before he was against it. For most of us it is hard to overlook the lack of integrity; sadly for otehrs it is just a matter of telling them what they want to hear.
If not via the "personal responsibility" mandate, then what is the mechanism? On one hand, conservatives want to enforce individual responsibility - all about rugged individualism - but on the other assert that the government telling you that you must be responsible is "taking away your freedom" - freedom as in "...right to screw up (or screw others)" I suppose. It seems either we require all to pay for care (or pay a penalty that can help support their care) or we enforce responsibility by allowing those who do not buy coverage to die. Obviously, during Republican primary debates earlier this year, the idea of allowing those who are uninsured or cannot afford care to die was a popular notion. We ll know that is not going to happen and I have yet to meet a conservative who thinks it is a good idea when it comes to them or their loved ones; when their mothers and fathers are cared for on Medicare. They hate the "Nanny state" when it takes care of others, but love it when it supports them. I suppose it is an issue of deciding "Who are the freeloaders?" Can't be us!
It would really make a difference in how this process is viewed if people could hold consistent positions. When it becomes clear that they change their positions for purely political purposes, it makes them look foolish and frivolous; Mitt Romney, passed and praised such legislation before he was against it. For most of us it is hard to overlook the lack of integrity; sadly for otehrs it is just a matter of telling them what they want to hear.
Opps, there goes another one!
I guess this is why groups like the Texas Republicans don't want adolescents to think on their own. Great that he has not fallen into the trap of having to adopt a label and be one or the other! I am sure he is next up for the "Roberts treatment". Damn that free thought! It will be fun to see how, when he gave his speech, he was a prodigy, but now, a few years later, he is just a dumb teenager who doesn;lt know anything.
A great example of what Piaget observed - yes, I know there are problems with his theory - as we mature our ability to go beyond simple dichotomies to consider complexities increases.
CPAC's boy wonder swings left
A great example of what Piaget observed - yes, I know there are problems with his theory - as we mature our ability to go beyond simple dichotomies to consider complexities increases.
CPAC's boy wonder swings left
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)