I think as Christmas has become more commercialized, people have become more cynical about the whole thing. Not that I can blame them.
But I must say...
I remember really nice things about Christmas that don't have everything to do with gifts. The associations began in my childhood, and continue today. I LOVE the lights, the scent of pine, the gatherings of friends and family, eggnog and hot chocolate, carols...all of that stuff! I hope Little C remembers it that way too. Of course kids get excited about the big day, with the gifts...I did too...but as an adult I lived through that, and I STILL look forward to the holiday. It didn't ruin me. I did learn to love giving as much as (if not more) than receiving. That was just part of growing up, and gaining a bigger picture of life.
Just about every girlfriend I have ever had has given Christmas the big eye roll. I suppose the fact that stores begin putting crap out right after Halloween now does not help-but that is capitalism! It doesn't take away from the warmth between friends and family, and it doesn't rob Christmas of the unique things that accompany it. I love Christmas carols, but I don't want to hear them in July. I DO want to hear them in December. I KNOW that for some people, Christmas represented a time of family conflict-or negative feelings. That is so counter to what the holiday CAN be. Why perpetuate the cycle? Make new memories and associations!
I was raised Christian, so of course there was the recognition of the religious underpinnings associated with Christmas (hence the NAME)...but the fact that scholars don't believe Jesus was even born in DECEMBER should make it a bit easier to remove the seasonal celebration from the religious aspects, and actually HAVE FUN (God forbid). I mean,really. The tree is pagan?
SO WHAT!?
Hang all kinds of crap on that sucker and let your cats climb it! That will show it!
Think Santa and trees, and lights and snowmen, and let it just be a seasonal celebration. I think God is pro-eggnog and pro smiling and laughing. Why wouldn't she be?
Anyway
Guess I'm done now...
My friend Nurse Ratchet sent me a Carl Sagan quote. Carl Sagan is my hero. Therefore, I must include it.
It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese.
Carl Sagan
To this I might add that George Bush Jr. hasn't even been able to learn English. Maybe we should elect a dolphin. A dolphin would not have gone to Iraq. They are gentle, intelligent creatures.
Merry almost Solstice Day!
And another thing...the REASON people like Bush get elected, is because they come across as "regular folk." Snobbish assholes like John Kerry have nothing in common with common Americans. Doctoral candidates and University granduates are not the mainstream. Old farts with 50 dogs in their houses, and men who have big butt cracks showing when they work on the plumbing, make up America. Can't we have a real person in the White House?
ReplyDeleteBush, X-mas?
ReplyDeleteNot in the same post....have you no decency?
I SAY HAVE YOU NO DECENCY!!!
;)
Guess I sounded condescending, but I was being...well...condescending.
ReplyDeleteI could reach deep down (like it would be difficult) and bash our current president for things like his destructive environmental policy, or fear mongering to gain support for a fabricated war that has taken thousands upon thousands of lives, or being so arrogant as to alienate us in the eyes of otherwise cooperative governments, or his stated desire to exclude millions of Americans from being full members of the human family in terms of rights...
But I did not want to pursue that in my blog (not the purpose of it)-so I did indeed take a potshot at his poor command of the English language. It is symptomatic of a general lack of education. The leader of the free-world SHOULD be a scholar. Scholars are also "regular folk"...who just happen to make an effort to be informed about all that fancy stuff like history, and philosophy, and theology (of the diverse kind), and language...those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it etc.etc.
George Bush Jr. is not exactly "regular folk" now is he? Born with the silver spoon? Or as Ann Richards said, "born on third base, taking credit for a home run..."
So....I stand by my previous statement. I would rather have a dolphin for president.
They call him FLIPPER, FLIPPER, PRESIDENT FLIPPER.........la da dee dah..........I think it could catch on.
ReplyDeleteJust a thought, I heard someone say that President Bush delivers speeches as if the listeners are stupid....not necessarily himself. After I heard that comment, it made sense.......he still sounds ridiculous though.
I never said George Bush is a regular person...I said he APPEARS regular to many people. Apperances and impressions make all the difference at voting time. We elected him twice, for gawdssakes, so apparently he appeals to more of the general population than not.
ReplyDeleteFew, and I do mean FEW presidents have been scholars, and that is precisely what the constitution intended. Our system was DESIGNED to have regular people go in, represent common folk, and move on out to whatever they did before they were president. George Bush is no idiot. Idiots don't graduate from Harvard. We will be done with him in two more years, so just buck up and try to make a difference in whatever way you can, in your own existence. I will let you pay my tax dollars out of your paychecks, to support those millions of "poor illegals." I know you like the size of your paychecks these days, and perhaps you will like them even more when you pay more for people who have no right to be here. I'll call the IRS and make sure they know you are more than eager to give your hard earned dollars for those sucking off the rest of us. I may be poor, but I have to pay too. I would rather support my own son than some illegal alien and the 14 children she is having as fast as she can, in the U.S. But I do realize I am just a redneck and certainly no scholar. Scholars know so much more than regular folk, especially about regular life in this country. Please forgive my ignorant ramblings.
Did I say anything about "poor illegals?" I don't think that illegal immigrants should be supported with public funds. I don't think immigrants who are here illegally should be here at all. Just because I asked you (privately-in a PRIVATE email) some questions designed to point out that it is not quite so simple to have middle class white men be "the decider" in all matters pertaining to citizenship (we all came over on a boat one way or another-yes?)-does NOT mean that I support illegal immigration. It's the Socratic Method...not actual opposition to the argument. In fact, I think that if a coherent policy is not adopted soon, it will be a "grave and deteriorating" situation for our country.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like you have bitterness towards "scholars", although I don't know why. Scholars are TRAINED to think critically as opposed to just biting off every spoon fed pre- digested ideological spin from liberal media OR conservative talk radio. Both are full of shit. Most scholars depend on research and data (with an awareness that stats can be spun too...) as opposed to conventional wisdom (conventional wisdom is WRONG much of the time-right some of the time), or what ma or pa taught 'em. I don't think that is anything to apologize for. I don't think being educated in and of itself is anything to apologize for, and I DO think it lends a certain qualification to those who make public policy. Conventional wisdom and the popular vote would still have people with darker skin drinking from separate fountains, or people with AIDS on some island...those things changed because scholars initiated social policy before Joe six-pack could stomach it...and what is JUST and fair has followed. I would rather have an environmental scholar informing environmental policy than someone who knows nothing about ecosystems, or the atmosphere, and who instead thinks the sun rises and sets on the next profit report or campaign contribution...
Many scholars come from working class backgrounds-as they are "normal people" as well. They have worked for the knowledge that they have. The term "redneck" conjurs up images of racist, ignorant, and willfully illiterate, which is nothing to proudly wave the flag (Rebel or not) at. Those things ARE something to apologize for in my view. "Working class" may be the term more appropriately applied to the folks I think you are referring to...those who get their hands dirty (as if scholars never have) working in occupations that are the backbone of service and industry...many of our Presidents have indeed come from those backgrounds! Working class and scholarship are not mutually exclusive, despite what "Savage Nation" might say. I am familiar with the conservative talk radio rants about the "elitism" of scholarship. Scholarship in and of itself is an ability to read oppositionally, to question, to seek knowledge...There is an academic culture, no doubt (one I personally reject), but I STILL believe that scholarship should be one of several MINIMUM qualifications of the man or woman who represents us in our highest office. I am aware that George Bush has the "University" credential...and a giant history of mediocrity to go with it. He does NOT have my confidence. His actions do NOT have my support (and apparently most of the nation feels similarly at this point). This country, however, does have my support. Intelligence is measured on more than one level. He is lacking in some important areas, obviously. I am sure he is not a total idiot. He was smart enough to surround himself with very smart people...I am hoping people can tell the difference between the ideological emotional pleas that prey on fear ("THEY are threatening what is rightfully yours!" "THEY will take your jobs!" "THEY will bring disease" "THEY are different and less!") and an ability to look at stuff rationally...
The neat thing about Blogs (and conservative talk radio) is that reading or listening is voluntary. I am requesting that this does NOT become some kind of political forum to sarcastically debate. As it is MY blog, I use it to vent-and would like to feel free to do that. I may once in awhile write something inflammatory. I write it for me. If someone doesn't like what I write, it is pretty easy to click on by. Mostly I use this blog to keep family and friends updated. Most of my friends and family are Democrat, and yes-liberal in social matters (thank God)...so I preach to the choir. Where I don't, use the mouse to play through-and send me an email to tell me how I am wrong. Then post on your own blog. K?
I will request that on political matters MY FRIENDS use my private email to debate with me. One of my friends already feels hesitant to post-which PISSES ME OFF. This is a tool that means a lot to me (it is MINE)-and I don't want to hear about how if I post it, it becomes fair game. Maybe to strangers-but I have now ASKED that it not with my friends. I don't mind being disagreed with, but I do mind that some little comment, made as a good natured rib, created this...EMAIL ME if you are a friend...don't make this a hostile environment..
"The only thing more expensive
ReplyDeletethan education is ignorance."
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
First of all I think you should know the true definition of a ‘redneck’…
red·neck
–noun
1. An uneducated white farm laborer, esp. from the South.
2.A bigot or reactionary, esp. from the rural working class.
3.Also, red-necked. Narrow, prejudiced, or reactionary: a redneck attitude.
4.White person regarded as having a provincial, conservative, often bigoted attitude
–Adjective
If you aren’t pro-Bush then why are you defending him? Oh I get it…your against what you call ‘scholars’, which I shall also give you the correct definition of…
schol·ar
–noun
1.A learned or erudite person, esp. one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject.
2.A student; pupil.
3.A student who has been awarded a scholarship.
So you are saying that all past Presidents of the United States or I’m sorry VERY FEW were educated? Very few of them graduated from University and very few were ever students?Excuse me? Do you know nothing of U.S history?
The Founding Fathers WERE the intellectual elite of their time....
I have written a small essay on the FF”s.
The debate continues in regards to our Founding Fathers true political stance, whether they were Libertarians or Federalists. The Federalists Party was a United States political party in the period 1793 to 1816, with remnants lasting into the 1820s. Opposition to Federalist stances led Jefferson and Madison to form the republican pary, eventually becoming the Democratic-Republican Party. The Federalists controlled the federal government until 1801. The party was formed by Alexander Hamilton, who, in about 1792, built a network of supporters in the principal cities to support his fiscal policies. The Federalists were nationalists who wanted a fiscally and militarily strong nation state, and showed little interest in states' rights. The new party advocated a loose construction of the United States Constitution based on the "Elastic Clause". ... Libertarianism is a political philosophy maintaining that every person is the absolute owner of his own life and should be free to do whatever he wishes with his person or property, as long as he respects the liberty of others. In my opinion, after multiple readings, the FF’s were indeed Libertarians. They wanted to maximize freedom, while minimizing the power of government. If they were to see the current size and scope of our current government, and the amount it taxes its citizens, they would probably go straight into cardiac arrest. However, Our "founding parents" were pompous, white, middle-aged farmers, but they were also great men. Because they knew one thing that all great men should know: that they didn't know everything. Sure, they'd make mistakes, but they made sure to leave a way to correct them. The president is not an "elected king," no matter how many bombs he can drop. Why? Because the Constitution doesn't trust him…. That’s why. The founding fathers were afraid of a direct democracy because people in masses are generally stupid. The Electoral College was established to create a republic based of this mistrust of “monocracy” or the theory that ignorant people would decide an election and the newly elected president would run the country into the ground. The judicial branch consists of nine members who retain their positions for life (or good behavior), placed in their office for such a long tenure to counter-act the whims of a current fad in politics. For example, right now conservatism is the driving force in politics, but there are justices in the Supreme Court who are liberal, and these justices will be there for the rest of their lives. The founding fathers, as the intellectual elite of their time, had every right to fear the impulses of those for whom they were creating the constitution. To protect themselves and those like them who would follow, they ensured that there was not only a check on the government itself, but on the governed as well. The 55 delegates who attended the United States Constitutional Convention were a distinguished body of men who represented a cross section of 18th-century American leadership.Uinlike your theory that our Founding Fathers were that of ‘common background’ almost all of them were well-educated men of means who were dominant in their communities and states, and many were also prominent in national affairs. Virtually every one had taken part in the Revolution; at least 29 had served in the Continental forces, most of them in positions of command. The group, as a whole, had extensive political experience. At the time of the convention, four-fifths, or 41 individuals, were or had been members of the Continental Congress. Practically all of the 55 delegates had experience in colonial and state government, and the majority had held county and local offices. Although, the ones who lacked congressional experience were numerous . The delegates practiced a wide range of occupations, and many pursued more than one career simultaneously. Thirty-five were lawyers or had benefited from legal training, though not all of them relied on the profession for a livelihood. Some had also become judges.At the time of the convention, 13 individuals were merchants…. Twelve owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large farms.. Madison also owned slaves as did Franklin who later freed his slaves and became an abolitionist. Nine of the men received a substantial part of their income from public office. Three had retired from active economic endeavors. Franklin and Williamson were scientists, in addition to their other activities. McClurg, McHenry, and Williamson were physicians, and Johnson was a college president. Baldwin had been a minister, and Williamson, Madison, Ellsworth, and possibly others had studied theology but had never been ordained. A few of the delegates were wealthy. Most of the others had financial resources that ranged from good to excellent.Washington and Robert Morris ranked among the nation's most prosperous men. A considerable number of the men were born into leading families:. Others were self-made men who had risen from humble beginnings:
The educational background of the Founding Fathers was diverse. Some, like Franklin, were largely self-taught and had received scant formal training. Others had obtained instruction from private tutors or at academies. About half of the individuals had attended or graduated from college in the British North American colonies or abroad. Some men held advanced and honorary degrees. For the most part, the delegates were a well-educated group.
The Founding Fathers, therefore, WERE NOT common folk, nor did they WANT the leaders of the Republic to be of common heritage, it was essential that the elected leaders be of an eduacted background.
As for the thoughts regarding Presidnet Bush…...one would hope that an individuals beleifs would be more informed…and not stemmed from the rantings of such right-winged conservatives such as Savage, Rush, and my favorite, Ann Coulter.
Back to President Bush…well …………
No other President in the history of this country has held such a low percentage of popularity for a such a contiuous duration of time.... EVER......
Currently it is at a very impressive 27% job approval rating. The CEO of the Wal-Mart franchise would find himself out on his ass if he were in a similar situation as the sitting President....... doesn’t that scare you? well.....it should. Bush himself has an MBA from Yale, so you can see where he would not be kept in such a position if he were a private citizen. As a matter of fact. Bush is failed Businessman..Many times over…but since he has a rich daddy ( very common for an American citizen) he has never had to own up to his professional or personal failures………A cocaine abuser, DUI recipient, Born again Christian who himself believes that God wanted him to invade Iraq and save the Middle East from tyranny "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.”
Moving on………
He was elected twice? By whom? The People? No…the United States Electoral College elected him, the popular vote, however, did not. Bush was a C student at Yale and has been quoted as saying that an individual with an equivalent GPA can too become President. Rather scary if you ask me…. I mean who wouldn’t want an average person controlling the last Super Power on earth? The Romans did… right? O wait maybe it was the Greeks who believed that an average individual should be in control ……….
I know that history has a way of describing leaders of past nations as being average, common, and just like everyone else……….
That’s why they are historic…
When history writes about the current sitting President, the views shared by individuals such as yourself will not be that of the majority. In 2006 a majority of respondents in 18 of 21 countries surveyed around the world were found to hold an unfavorable opinion of Bush. Respondents indicated that they judged his administration as "negative" for world security .A poll taken in mid-September 2006 found that 48 percent of Americans believed the war with Iraq had made the U.S. less safe, while 41 percent believed the war had made the U.S. safer from terrorism. Another poll showed that a majority of Americans, by a margin of 61 to 35 percent, believed that the United States was not better off because of Bush's policies. A poll conducted in Britain placed Bush at the second biggest "threat to world peace" right after Bin Laden, topping North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il. According to a poll taken in November of 2006, Finns, as well as Britons, believed that Bush was the second biggest "threat to the world peace" after Bin Laden. Kim Jong-Il came 3rd in poll and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hassan Nasrallah came joint fourth.
Here are just a few cited facts regarding Bush:
CRONYISM AND CORRUPTION
The Bush Administration awarded a multibillion-dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton--a company that still pays Vice President Cheney hundreds of thousands of dollars in deferred compensation each year (Cheney also has Halliburton stock options). The company then repeatedly overcharged the military for services, accepted kickbacks from subcontractors and served troops dirty food.
The Bush Administration paid Iraqi-exile and neocon darling Ahmad Chalabi $400,000 a month for intelligence, including fabricated claims about Iraqi WMD. It continued to pay him for months after discovering that he was providing inaccurate information.
Source: MSNBC
The Bush Administration installed as top officials more than 100 former lobbyists, attorneys or spokespeople for the industries they oversee.
Source: Source: commondreams.org
President Bush used images of firefighters carrying flag-draped coffins through the rubble of the World Trade Center to score political points in a campaign advertisement.
Source: Washington Post
The Bush Administration relentlessly pushed an energy bill containing $23.5 billion in corporate tax breaks, much of which would have benefited major campaign contributors.
The Bush Administration has spent $7 billion this year--and plans to spend $10 billion next year--for a missile defense system that has never worked in a test that wasn't rigged.
Sources: www.gao.gov/new.items/d04409.pdf, Los Angeles Times
NATIONAL SECURITY
During the Bush Administration, North Korea quadrupled its suspected nuclear arsenal from two to eight weapons.
Source: New York Times
THE ECONOMY
President Bush's top economic adviser, Greg Mankiw, said the outsourcing of American jobs abroad was "a plus for the economy in the long run."
Source: CBS News
The Bush Administration turned a $236 billion surplus into a $422 billion deficit.
Sources: Fortune, dfw.com
The Bush Administration implemented regulations that made millions of workers ineligible for overtime pay.
Source: epinet.org
The Bush Administration has crippled state budgets by under funding federal mandates by $175 billion.
Source: cbpp.org
President Bush is the first President since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss of jobs--around 800,000--over a four-year term.
Source: The Guardian
The Bush Administration gave Accenture a multibillion-dollar border control contract even though the company moved its operations to Bermuda to avoid paying taxes.
Sources: New York Times, cantonrep.com
In 2000, candidate George W. Bush said "the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum." He passed the tax cuts, but the top 20 percent of earners received 68 percent of the benefits.
Sources: cbpp.org, vote-smart.org
In 2000, candidate George W. Bush promised to pay down the national debt to a historically low level. As of September 30, the national debt stood at $7,379,052,696,330.32, a record high.
Sources: www.georgewbush.com , Bureau of the Public Debt
As major corporate scandals rocked the nation's economy, the Bush Administration reduced the enforcement of corporate tax law--conducting fewer audits, imposing fewer penalties, pursuing fewer prosecutions and making virtually no effort to prosecute corporate tax crimes.
Source: iht.com
The Bush Administration increased tax audits for the working poor.
Source: theolympian.com
In 2000, candidate George W. Bush promised to protect the Social Security surplus. As President, he spent all of it.
Sources: georgewbush.com, Congressional Budget Office
The Bush Administration proposed slashing funding for the largest federal public housing program, putting 2 million families in danger of losing their housing.
Source: San Francisco Examiner
The Bush Administration did nothing to prevent the minimum wage from falling to an inflation-adjusted fifty-year low.
Source: Los Angeles Times
EDUCATION
The Bush Administration under funded the No Child Left Behind Act by $9.4 billion.
Source: nwitimes.com
ENVIRONMENT
The Bush Administration gutted clean-air standards for aging power plants, resulting in at least 20,000 premature deaths each year.
Source: cta.policy.net
The Bush Administration eliminated protections on more than 200 million acres of public lands.
Source: calwild.org
President Bush broke his promise to place limits on carbon dioxide emissions, an essential step in combating global warming.
Source: Washington Post
Days after 9/11, the Bush Administration told people living near Ground Zero that the air was safe--even though they knew it wasn't--subjecting hundreds of people to unnecessary, debilitating ailments.
RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES
Since 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft has detained 5,000 foreign nationals in antiterrorism sweeps; none have been convicted of a terrorist crime.
Source: hrwatch.org
The Bush Administration ignored pleas from the International Committee of the Red Cross to stop the abuse of prisoners in US custody.
Source: Wall Street Journal
In violation of international law, the Bush Administration hid prisoners from the Red Cross so the organization couldn't monitor their treatment.
Source: hrwatch.org
The Bush Administration, without ever charging him with a crime, arrested US citizen José Padilla at an airport in Chicago, held him on a naval brig in South Carolina for two years, denied him access to a lawyer and prohibited any contact with his friends and family.
Source: news.findlaw.com
President Bush's top legal adviser wrote a memo to the President advising him that he can legally authorize torture.
Source: news.findlaw.com
At the direction of Bush Administration officials, the FBI went door to door questioning people planning on protesting at the 2004 political conventions.
Source: New York Times
The Bush Administration refuses to support the creation of an independent commission to investigate the abuse of foreign prisoners in American custody. Instead, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld selected the members of a commission to review the conduct of his own department.
Source: humanrightsfirst.org
This president has made it painfully obvious that he has no intention of listening to anyone who doesn't believe that he's going to win in Iraq. He'll march stubbornly onward without any real change of course until high noon on Jan. 20, 2009, when his successor will inherit both the hard decision to pull out of Iraq and the back bills for his reckless, feckless misadventure. The midterm election that handed control of Congress to the Democrats can be ignored. His approval rating in the polls, now at an all-time low of 27 percent - likewise means little or nothing. Only President Bush's definition of reality carries any weight with him and therein lies the tragedy - both his and ours
In response to your comments on illegal immigrants in this country, A country which was FOUNDED ON IMMIGRATION…I thought you would like to know what Bush’s policies are in regards to immigrants.
“In 2006, Bush somewhat shifted focus to re-emphasize immediate and comprehensive immigration reform. Going beyond calls from Republicans and conservatives to secure the border, Bush demanded that Congress create a "temporary guest-worker program" to allow more than 12 million illegal immigrants to obtain legal status. Bush continues to argue that the lack of legal status denies the protections of U.S. laws to millions of people who face dangers of poverty and exploitation, and penalizes employers despite a demand for immigrant labor.”
I would adivce one with such views on the immigration issue to go out and recruit the US citizens in this country that REFUSE to work in the low paying jobs…the slave labor…… that these immigrants are more than eager to take. If you can get US citiizens to clean toilets, pick up litter, pick agriculture, become nannies and the other hundreds of low-paying jobs that these immigrants work at for at an invisible wage, by all means, do it. Americans in this country all but REFUSE clean up after themselves, yet when an individual comes to the LAND OF THE FREE to pursue the American Dream that your own ancestors did ……well throw them out………your tax doallrs are to be spent bombing the thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens that are dying on a daily basis, not to mention the American Armed Forces……those young brave men and women who are coming home in body bags ……..you know………the ones who are fighting for the lie…….I am sure glad that you would prefer to spend the money of the American people to continue in this charade…….I am also very proud ………my fellow American ………that your views would keep out the future American citizens as you feel they are not worthy to live here………yet only 100 yrs ago that was the same thinking in regards to the Irish, Germans, Italians, and Jewish imigrants who BULIT this country from the ground up………the only true Americans are of Native decent, but I am sure you already knew this……….
Before you reply with the typical liberal bashing. Know this…I would rather ……on any day… of any week………. of any yr… be labeled a bleeding heart liberal………a democrat……… an educated ‘scholar’… which is nothing short of being an educated citizen. I would rather be known as an individual with the ability to think critically and look at all sides of an issue than to be a self proclaimed a red-neck………… which is basically saying that your self proclaiming to be… an ignorant racist… a liberal-bashing, confederate-flag-waving, holier-than-thou, hypocrite.
In Layman terms that is the definition of a red-neck….
I looked it up………must be the scholar in me……….
Why would one want to be labeled as such a person?
It is our right to question our elected officals in this country, it is actually a RESPONSIBILITY.......
Not to sit back and wait for the elected official to finish out his/her term...............The United States Constitution is the supreme legal document in the American system, and serves as a social contract between the people of the United States and their government........and as such........ Modern day politics may now be seen as a form of check and balance. The leader of the opposition has the ability to scrutinize the work of the government thus ensuring a further safeguard against any abuse of power by the executive.
Wow...
ReplyDeleteOh my...
I just saw "Happy Feet", and I decided I would rather have a penguin as President.
Right on Nicole!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteRight on Jo!!!!!!!!!
I wanna see "Happy Feet" !
I don't know if I can let go of the idea of the Flipper theme song being adapted for a presidential theme song though...........I'll consider it :)
A final thought about seeking knowledge or wisdom...part of the skill is learning where to seek. If you want to think critically, and perhaps LEARN, it is imperative to include those who oppose what you currently believe. It is dangerous to surround yourself with "yes" men (like Bush apparently does), or with homogenous ideas. For example, you don't go to a white supremist website to get critical information on essentialist beliefs about race.
ReplyDeleteThe SECOND I start believing that I have nothing more to learn, or that my mind cannot be changed, I have willingly given up something very valuable...and this includes my current political, social, economic, and spiritual beliefs. I do indeed tune in conservative talk radio once in a while. As of yet it has not failed to completely astound me-hostile, fear mongering, selective reporting (which happens on both sides of the continuum), appealing to the most base of human instinct, and complete misinformation in some cases.
WHERE statistics come from is of vital importance to understand-as anyone who has taken a methodology course would know. To report a statistic where 4 out of 5 Americans believe such and such...and then find that the "sample" was actually only middle aged white males from North Idaho..is an example. It happens all of the time-including in crime statistic reporting. Look at where the data from the Uniform Crime Reports comes from, and also consider if there may be variables not included in the models... crime and race is an OLD story of misleading reporting to bolster essentialist views on race...when race is controlled for, poverty is actually where the association lies. The race effect all but disappears...
SEEK knowledge where it may actually be found. Otherwise it is an empty exercise!
So Joanna, after reading your original request, and then reading your spouse's long response to ME(?)...and then reading your response and support of her dismissing your original request, am I to believe that we are now "allowed" to continue this debate here? Or, is it that you simply want ME to not discuss political things here, but others (Nicole) may? I am confused. By the way, I had a C average in college, but I have an IQ of 142. Grades are not an indication of intelligence. Also, remember,many of us have been crack addicts or alcoholics, and are no longer anything like we were at that time. Attacking Bush on his past drug abuse is not fair unless we are spotless in that area. And, please remember, I can't STAND George Bush. But, I am a journalist and may not agree with what you have to say, but will defend to the death your right to say it. I am a Libertarian. If Nicole would like to debate politics with me, please give her my email address and we can go from there. This is Joanna's blog, and I was under the impression that I was writing to Joanna. I had no idea that Nicole would want to go at me using this forum. Send her my way and I will refrain from commenting any longer, about anything, as I believe there is unhealed animosity from your end, and ANYTHING I say will be fuel for your rage. I apologize and will disappear from this forum. Redneck is a term used flippantly, and in the same manner as so many of us use other terms flippantly. Picking and choosing what is acceptable one moment, and not the next, based on one's attitude "du jour" of the commenter, is not only not fair, it's petty.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI have decicded to reply to Ginger
ReplyDeleteat my Blog..............
wimp
ReplyDeleteMy wife constructed her response the same day I did...and has since removed the debate to her own blog (respecting my own wishes)...so I am not picking and chosing. I don't want this blog to be the forum for that stuff, really. I think I could tirelessly defend my own views using more than simple bias or unsubstantiated opinion, but if I really wanted to do that I would join a political chat forum.
ReplyDeleteI too support free speech. I will continue to post something politically charged from time to time, and in so doing I would expect that I will draw responses. That's okay. I may just choose to leave it at that.
Beware of saying language is just "flippant", as it is incredibly powerful in shaping our culture, just as it is shaped by our culture. It is definately reciprocal-but people make careers out of spinning language. Redneck conjurs up characteristics I find horrible and dangerous-even though I think you weren't quite meaning it that way...I do get your point...
Whoever posted the "wimp" comment did that anonymously. That is kinda funny. Big silly....
Hey! I juast looked back and saw that a comment was removed. I didn't remove any post from here!
ReplyDeleteDid you do that Coley?
Whassup?
yes I did.......It was a post I had written which I decided to post at my blog
ReplyDelete