You Liberals Think That ...


Blog For Free!


Archives
Home
2006 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 March
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January

My Links
Faces of the American Dead in Iraq
Baghdad Burning - an Iraqi Blog
Common Dreams
American Civil Liberties Union
Polling Report
All About Gilbert
blogactive - Outing Political Homophobes
Party List
Dead People Server

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images


Sponsored
Blog


Life's short,

Laugh often

Bookmark this site!


You Liberals think that …. Part 2
07.31.05 (2:17 pm)   [edit]

 


This is the second installment in what I believe.  As I said before, I’m tired of being told what I believe by people more interested in scoring a point off me than truly interested in having a two-way conversation. 


If you want to know what I believe, ask me.  Don’t just make it up on your own based on whatever criteria you think I ‘should’ believe.


Family Values


‘Family Values’ is a buzzword phrase that has ceased to have any meaning.  With the rise of the Religious Right over the past 15 years, there was first a desire to stop the social liberalism enshrined in the Great Society and the Civil Rights movement and move the country back to the days when things were simpler and more straightforward.


First, there is nothing wrong with advocating a conservative social agenda.  The desire to protect one’s family from the various and sundry influences found in the world is pretty common.  Hell, I want to protect my family from the evils in the world too – it’s just that what I consider evil are men that advocate strict Christian values but are not living the life they are trying to force on everyone else..


However, somewhere along the line, the term ‘family values’ came to mean a specific agenda advocating a single lifestyle as the only acceptable one.  Everything else is bad and wrong and needs to be stamped out.  Worse, it’s an idealized version of how life used to be that never actually existed – it is the desire to make society into the world of 1950’s television.  It’s doomed to failure – especially when the 2000’s television version of the world is as popular or more so in conservative regions as in the more liberal ones.  (look at the ratings for Desperate Housewives in places like Dallas or Birmingham as an example)


In my opinion, this portrait has been put forward by those people, religious or otherwise that are looking to gain money and power all the while knowing that this vision of the world is unobtainable.


American Culture Wars


We hear more and more often about the culture war going on between the Right and the Left here in the US.  While I agree the battle is going on, I think that it is a sham.  It’s a useful distraction used by Corporatists to get the political support to advance their own agenda and has nothing to do with social agendas.


As the Religious Right gained power through its family values based worldview, many Corporatists jumped on the bandwagon.  These are people that are interested in advancing a fiscal agenda that favors corporations and the wealthy.  They feign interest in the social agenda to get the support and votes of the family values social conservatives then toss them one or two bones on their social agenda while focusing most of their time on advancing their fiscal agenda.  (Look at the 2004 elections.  What came out of it on a social level other than making gay marriage more illegal?)


The worst part of that is the fiscal values advocated by these false social conservatives often hurt the very people that support these politicians.


So, there are people getting rich and powerful by advancing the social agenda and there are people who truly believe in the agenda that are getting screwed.


My perspective of a family value is anything that helps to form strong family units (here a family unit would be described as any small group of humans that are financially and emotionally interdependent).  So my family values are made up of earning a living wage, access to healthcare, legal support of this family unit by the courts and by government, and respect for one’s fellow humans and for their families.


Now, what’s wrong with those values?  Don’t they make the family stronger?  Is it necessary to count the number and types of post-pubescent genitalia before one can determine who is and isn’t part of a family?

 
You Liberals think that …. Part 1
07.31.05 (8:46 am)   [edit]

I am sick and tired of social and religious conservatives telling me what I believe.  Given that no one who’s gone down that path has ever asked me, they’re simply making up stuff to make me either play the ‘straight’ man in their conversations with themselves or they’re spouting the opinions given to them by other people that haven’t asked me either.


So, I’m going to tell you what I believe.  If you don’t like my opinions, then you’re free to tell me so.  I don’t have all the answers and I’m not always right, so I’m interested in discussing issues and seeing different perspectives.  If, however, you want me to conform to your pre-conceived notions of what I ‘should’ believe, then piss off – I’m not interested in being pigeon-holed.


This is the first of many parts:


Moral Relativism


(If you want to read up on the concepts behind Moral Relativism, try going here, or here, or here.)


I am not a Moral Relativist nor do I claim to be one.  True Moral Relativism would preclude any standard of behavior as condemning one set of behavior would tend to suggest that one set of morals is superior to another.  Now, I do believe that different people and different cultures have different sets of morals.  I do not believe that these different sets are equally valid – since, being a human, I think mine are more correct than yours.  What I don’t claim are that mine are perfect – I am constantly learning and constantly re-defining my moral position on the world.


Where the difference lies is what is defined as a moral.  There is no Big List of Morals that has been agreed upon by everyone.  There is just the little lists that we create and then pretend are the Big List. 


In some cases, the line is drawn so that what some consider being a moral issue I think is outside the realm of morality and instead falls into other realms, usually religious.  Take homosexuality as an example.  I do not believe that being gay is moral or immoral.  It just is.  It’s like being a brunette or being left-handed.  I will not argue being gay on moral grounds.  Whether or not it’s ‘right’ or ‘against God’ or ‘icky’ are completely different arguments and I will discuss them.


Now, what I do believe to be a moral is that all people deserve to be treated equally and with respect.  Therefore, beating someone up for being gay or taking away their ability to hold a job or live peaceably is immoral.  Likewise, treating members of other ethnic groups or members of other religions as second-class citizens is immoral.


In other cases, I share a moral view that is fairly pan-cultural but am much more absolutist about it.  For example, one common moral is that it is wrong to kill other people.  In abrahamic religions, this is expressed in the Commandment that ‘Thou shalt not kill.”  When it comes to killing, I am quite absolutist.  It is wrong to kill other people, period.  Therefore, murdering someone during a robbery is immoral.  Likewise, executing a murderer is also immoral.


Sometimes, a moral stance conflicts with an immoral one.  For example, protecting the rights of a downtrodden minority is moral.  Killing is immoral.  So, when it’s necessary to kill to protect others, there are both moral and immoral issues in play.  In these instances, given that the perpetrator of the initial crime requiring defense is also acting in an immoral manner, then the morality of the situation outweighs the immorality of it. 


These areas can be a dangerous realm in that many of the ways the defense occurs could lead into greater immorality thereby erasing the moral side.  This can be seen in the US government incarcerating Japanese Americans during WWII.  The US was attacked by Japan so we defended ourselves.  That was a morally justifiable position.  But, to round up all people of Japanese decent in the name of defense was immoral.

 
The Luckiest
07.29.05 (9:40 am)   [edit]

This is another song that just makes the world stop and forces me to listen...


The Luckiest


by Ben Folds


I don't get many things right the first time
In fact, I am told that a lot
Now I know all the wrong turns, the stumbles and falls
Brought me here

And where was I before the day
That I first saw your lovely face?
Now I see it everyday
And I know

That I am
I am
I am
The luckiest

What if I'd been born fifty years before you
In a house on a street where you lived?
Maybe I'd be outside as you passed on your bike
Would I know?

And in a white sea of eyes
I see one pair that I recognize
And I know

That I am
I am
I am
The luckiest

I love you more than I have ever found a way to say to you

Next door there's an old man who lived to his nineties
And one day passed away in his sleep
And his wife; she stayed for a couple of days
And passed away

I'm sorry, I know that's a strange way to tell you that I know we belong
That I know

That I am
I am
I am
The luckiest

 
When is Torture OK?
07.28.05 (11:28 am)   [edit]
I heard a story about this veto on NPR.  I can't believe they would do something that heinous.  So, the question really comes down to, "Do we, as Americans condone or condemn torture?"  This is a government, who, in my name, is trying to have it both ways.  I say that we cannot stand for it.

 

But, since I was one of the millions protesting the war in Iraq before it started, I am only part of a 'focus group' and therefore of no interest to the evil men and women in the Bush Administration.  What about everyone else?  What about the millions that didn't protest?  Do you stand with this Administration in condoning the use of torture? 

 

 

Published on Thursday, July 28, 2005 by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Bush Won't Block Abuse of Detainees by Helen Thomas
 
WASHINGTON -- President Bush, who bills himself as a "compassionate conservative," refuses to rule out cruel, abusive treatment of prisoners of war and detainees.
He has gone so far as to threaten to veto the vital $491 billion defense bill if an amendment barring mistreatment of prisoners is attached.
This is the president who -- along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- was shocked last year when he saw photos of leashed naked prisoners under U.S. guard at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison.
The irony is that Bush's close adviser, Karen Hughes, has just been put in charge of the State Department's public diplomacy division to improve the nation's tattered global image. Millions spent on this effort will go to waste if we do not wipe out the impression that the United States tolerates torture.
There have been a dozen Pentagon investigations of POW abuse -- the latest by Lt. Gen. Randall Schmidt, who recommended that Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, commander of the Guantanamo Bay prison, be reprimanded for failing to supervise the mistreatment of Mohamed al-Kahtani. He admitted to being "the 20th hijacker" for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Schmidt said, but was blocked from entering the United States by an alert immigration agent.
But Gen. Bantz Craddock, commander of the U.S. Southern Command, overruled the recommendation that Miller be punished. Miller has a reputation for aggressive methods in the prisons and for introducing dogs at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, where he was sent to beef up the interrogations.
Al-Kahtani was threatened with dogs and made to "perform a series of dog tricks," according to an unclassified version of Schmidt's report released earlier this month.
Al-Kahtani also had to stand naked in front of female soldiers, and was forced to wear female lingerie and dance with a male interrogator. Also he had his copy of the Quran squatted on by an interrogator.
These revelations did not evoke universal outrage on Capitol Hill. Sen. James Imhofe, R-Okla., was incensed that investigators put so much energy into the inquiries.
"It's hard to see why we're so wrapped up in this investigation," he said. "We have nothing to be ashamed of."
Last week, Bush dispatched no less an emissary than Vice President Dick Cheney to warn members of the Senate Armed Services Committee against any congressional intervention on detainee interrogations.
The White House told Capitol Hill that Bush's advisers would urge him to veto the multibillion-dollar military bill "if legislation is presented that would restrict the president's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice."
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who was a prisoner of war for six years during the Vietnam War, is proposing an amendment that would set uniform standards for interrogating anyone detained by the Defense Department. He would limit the questioning techniques to those along the lines of the Army field manual, which is undergoing revision.
McCain also proposes all foreign nationals held by our military be registered with the International Committee of the Red Cross, which would block the practice of holding "ghost detainees." Unfortunately it would not cover the CIA's practice of "extraordinary rendition" where we send detainees to other countries for possible torture.
McCain's key amendment prohibits the "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of any person in U.S. custody. The amendment was based on the U.N. Convention Against Torture, which the United States has ratified.
The administration says the treaty doesn't apply to foreigners outside the country. The White House opposes any restrictions it thinks would tie the president's hands in wartime.
The sadistic, humiliating treatment of Iraqis, Afghans and others rounded up by U.S. forces has disgraced the country.
But Bush and Rumsfeld have taken no responsibility.
Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, an Army Reserve officer in charge of military police at Abu Ghraib, was demoted and given a written reprimand. But otherwise low-ranking MPs have been forced to take the fall.
It is high time that the Pentagon stopped investigating itself.
Sen. Carl Levin, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, has proposed an amendment to the defense bill to create an independent panel to review the detention and interrogation practices that have led us down this shameful path.
Meantime, consideration of the defense legislation, including the controversial amendments, has been put off until fall. Let's hope wiser and kinder heads prevail by then.


© 2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

 

 


Let me play the race card for a moment:  maybe torture's ok when it's only little brown people being tortured....  How about the religious zealot card:  torture's ok so long as it's only done to non-Christians ...


 
Perfect
07.28.05 (11:09 am)   [edit]

Perfect


by Alanis Morrisette


Sometimes is never quite enough
If you're flawless, then you'll win my love
Don't forget to win first place
Don't forget to keep that smile on your face
Be a good boy
Try a little harder
You've got to measure up
And make me prouder
How long before you screw it up
How many times do I have to tell you to hurry up
With everything I do for you
The least you can do is keep quiet
Be a good girl
You've gotta try a little harder
That simply wasn't good enough
To make us proud
I'll live for you
I'll make you what I never was
If you're the best, then maybe so am I
Compared to him compared to her
I'm doing this for your own damn good
You'll make up for what I blew
What's the problem ...... why are you crying
Be a good boy
Push a little farther now
That wasn't fast enough
To make us happy
We'll love you just the way you are if you're perfect


.... just listened to the song, so I thought I'd print the lyrics ... just another song that always makes the world stop and forces me stop and listen ....

 

All About Geoffrey Snyder

I am a 40yo guy living in Dallas, Texas with my partner of 18 years, Gilbert, and our puppy, Rex. I'm both a fun loving, happy guy in my everyday life and a loud mouthed Progressive.

I love to travel and meet people. My goal in life is to go everywhere and meet everyone.

So, pull up a chair, make yourself at home, enjoy my mental wanderings and feel free to drop me a line to tell me what you think...