Christopher Moore Home Page

The bulletin board is currently closed to new posts. Instead, why not check out Chris' Twitter and Facebook pages?


bbs.chrismoore.com Forum Index -> Blog Comments

the magnificence of the conservative mindset.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
  Author    Thread This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics. This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Tal



Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 1692
Location: Not Massachusetts
 Reply with quote  

Anonymous wrote:

Nope. "Moral values" is a matter of morality and religion. If someone said "I feel it's the right thing to invade Iraq", etc. etc., it classifies under a different category, "Iraq", which is a group that went strongly Kerry (as well as "Economy"). If you feel the war in Iraq was justified, that is a matter of war, not of morality.


Try again. Moral values is knowing right from wrong. This isn't a "uphold the ten commandments sinner!" type of thing that we're discussing. We're talking about knowing it is wrong to steal from a store. That it is right to stop someone else from raping that girl across the street. That it is wrong to keep another human being in slavery. I can be an atheist and still have moral values despite what the Bush campaign used as a slogan to get elected.

Anonymous wrote:
Everyone has morals. But they're all different.


There are amoral people in this world that have no concept of right or wrong. Granted I'm nitpicking your choice of using the term "everyone" but I'm trying to paint that the world does not consist of two colors.

Anonymous wrote:
Morals change as often as the people, so it's not surprising to me that one's morality might oppose someone else's.


Yes. Homosexuality didn't use to be viewed as wrong. Rolling Eyes

Anonymous wrote:
I still do not feel morality is what should determine who our President is (morality in this case includes Bush's faith-based initiative, which held together the Christian base quite nicely; other "Moral issues" include allegations from the RNC that Kerry would "Ban the Bible" if elected, and other moral- and religion-based issues like this, although better ones, because that was part of a smear campaign in the Bible Belt states, of which Bush carried every one).


It's fine taht you should feel this way. What I have a problem with is you decrying it as wrong. Some people will vote for whoever they feel is most like them or from their background. Their thinking is that if the president was raised in the same fashion or belief system as themselves then they will make the "right" decisions when in office. Short sighted? Maybe. Or it could just be that they are voting on their convictions that other parts of the person's platform aligns with their own. Its still a valid reason to cast a vote.

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not putting them down for having different ideals. Am I just reading my post differently from everyone else?


You're not?

Lonely Tylenol wrote:
I would call any idiot that voted for Bush because they wanted "one of their own" or Kerry would "ban the Bible" a conceited imbecile and/or a hypocrite, based on my mood.


Anonymous wrote:
I'm attacking those who voted in Bush because he is "one of their own [a Christian]", because they are showing blatant disregard for policy and consequence altogether and voting for something that, and I will only say this one last time, HAS NO, OR SHOULD NOT HAVE, ANY REFLECTION ON HOW OUR COUNTRY IS RUN!!! Tell me, why should morality and religion have so much of an effect in the state? We are not living in the days of theocracy, people. Policies are what make the President, not faith or scandal! (In reference to 2000, where Gore tried to sway a few last-minute votes by digging up a little dirt on Bush in the form of a drunk driving charge.)

There are people who would go to the polls and vote for their President, not based on environment, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the war in general, or our economy, or our health, or even our future in science, but instead, based on who they feel morally justified to run!

I remember reading over the course of July and August several articles in newspapers about how Bush carries the morality vote, and most of the Christian branches in voter base. A Newsweek one that particularly caught my eye had a rally bassed on a CHURCH that had held a rally for Bush with Ashcroft at it. A woman in the front row of the rally who thanked God "we have one of our own in office!" and called for a prayer that Bush would be elected for four more years.


These folks support Bush because they feel that his beliefs are inline with their own and that based on that belief system the President would make decisions in the best interest of the country. You're also glossing over that many of these voters also agreed with much of the President's platform and in general how he had conducted the business of running this country. You seem incapable of looking beyond the tip of your nose in this matter.

Anonymous wrote:
People are entitled to their opinion, but to VOTE FOR SOMEONE JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE OF THE SAME FAITH AS YOU IS A POLITICAL OUTRAGE! Do they not even realize that if the Church meddles in politics, they become a politically motivated group and their tax-exempt status is revoked? That rally was a threat to the church in general, and for what? To get "one of their own" elected? Gah!


The Church, even individual churches, can show support for a candidate without losing their tax exempt status. Where they would run into trouble is if they were to give money to a particular candidate if I recall correctly. Kennedy was the first Catholic elected President and I'm pretty sure that the Pope supported his campaign...

Anonymous wrote:
By all means, that is exactly what I just said. Nobody attacks Canada because they take a positive view at diplomacy! Nobody has a reason to attack them because Canada is viewed as the peaceckeeper!


Nobody refrains from attacking Canada because of a positive view of diplomacy. Nobody attacks Canada because Canada rarely gets involved. Not because of any outstanding diplomatic policy they have. I will agree with you on the surface that the US shouldn't be as involved in foreign matters. But its also a fallacy to stay completely out of all affairs. Somehow we keep getting dragged back in because we are a World power. (See World War 1, 2, Korean War, and the Vietnam conflict.)

Anonymous wrote:
Similarly, because they don't piss anyone off, they don't [need] to sit on Earth x 4-5 explosives, BECAUSE they don't piss anyone off!

So if America helped foreign countries, did not take a stance as the aggressor, and kept to itself unless necessary, E.G. situations like in Sudan and Rwanda, which should be stopped, by the way, then they would not piss nearly as many people off and would not need to sit on enough explosives to blow up the earth four or five times over, which, by the way, as I stated before, isn't a defense!


I will agree with you that the nuclear stockpile should be reduced but not taken away entirely. I also agree with you that the US should have a more isolationist foreign policy. Unfortunately, our current President seems bent on proving that he's got the largest "set" on the planet at the expense of the US's standing in the world and the blood of our sons and daughters. I do not agree with you however that the nuclear stockpile is not a defense. It is a very valid defense against a conventional attack. Much in the same way as China's huge standing army is a a deterrent to an invasion. Unfortunately, Osama bin Laden didn't attack us with a large standing army, or launch nuclear warheads so our large stockpile and military were helpless to defend against the attack.

Anonymous wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is, we should not NEED enough explosives to blow the Earth 4-5 times over just to keep people from attacking us. Canada is simply an example--They have a miniscule military, much of which is used in peace-keeping missions (they HAVE sent troops to Sudan), they don't have any nuclear weapons and hardly any air force, and still they have no troubles with homeland security because they DON'T piss people off!

Case in point. More later.


Canada sent troops into the Sudan as part of a UN task force. They hardly took the lead on this mission in the peace-keeping. Additonally part of the reason that Canada is secure from attack is her big cousin to the south. The US would defintely feel that any attack on the Canadian sovreignty as a national threat and would help Canada defend her borders. Not to mention Canada's long standing mutual assistance agreements with Great Britain. Again, this isn't to downplay Canada as a nation ut you have to stop comparing a handgun to a Howizter. The US and Canada are not in the same league and you would have more of a leg to stand on if you weren't comparing apples to oranges.
_________________
"Doug's okay." - Deb.

Post Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:25 am   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
palmer



Joined: 30 Mar 2004
Posts: 1324
a few random thoughts on the thread  Reply with quote  

Conservative and Liberal are words that are much used and abused. As someone pointed out somewhere on this board, the terms mean something somewhat different in the U.S. than in Canada, where I live.

I do believe that many people on the left and the right (equally used and abused words) do want the same thing, a better life for everyone, they just disagree on how to achieve it.

Example:

An end to racial discrimination. With few exceptions, we all want it. I believe that there is a Republican Black caucus, yes? I know that I want it, and I am a Canadian conservative.

The left seems to think that affirmative action is the answer. Good for them. I see the logic of their position. But I disagree, and I do not believe that, ultimately, it will produce the result they hope for.

I believe that affirmative action is just another form of discrimination, frequently unfair to people who never did anything wrong, creates resentment, encourages a culture of dependancy, and is insulting to minorities. It is a short term fix that doesn't work. Tempting as it may be to enforce the desired goal, it does address the fundamental problems. Doomed. And a real disservice to racial minorities.

We want the same thing, but we disagree about how to achieve it.

That's why I simply disagree, on many points with a number of liberal policies, but I do not think poorly of those who espouse them.

And Hillary's avatar, as always, is breathtaking.


John Palmer


Last edited by palmer on Thu Nov 18, 2004 10:30 am; edited 1 time in total

Post Thu Nov 18, 2004 9:14 am   View user's profile Send private message
John



Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 521
Location: Massachusetts
Re: a few random thoughts on the thread  Reply with quote  

palmer wrote:

Example:

An end to racial discrimination. With few exceptions, we all want it. I believe that there is a Republican Black caucus, yes? I know that I want it, and I am a Canadian conservative.

The left seems to think that affirmative action is the answer. Good for them. I see the logic of their position. But I disagree, and I do not believe that, ultimately, it will produce the result they hope for.

I believe that affirmative action is just another form of discrimination, frequently unfair to people who never did anything wrong, creates resentment, encourages a culture of dependancy, and is insulting to minorities. It is a short term fix that doesn't work. Tempting as it may be to enforce the desired goal, it does address the fundamental problems. Doomed. And a real disservice to racial minorities.

We want the same thing, but we disagree about how to achieve it.

John Palmer


Not to go off topic too much but I just want to add my thoughts on affirmative action.

I guess I am a liberal but I must say that I agree with most of what John said about affirmative action. It is unfair to people who have done nothing wrong, and it does breed resentment and is a type of discrimination (I refuse to use the term "reverse discrimination". Discrimination is the same no matter what side of the fence you are on.)

That being said, I am 100% for affirmative action. To put it simply, minorities in my country, the U.S., do not get the same chances and oppurtunities as the white majority. It is just a fact. An African American child who was born below the poverty level and went to an inner city public school simply did not get the same kind of education that I did going to suburban public school. He just didn't. I know that there are plenty of white children being brought up below the poverty level, but the proportion just isn't the same as for minorities.

So, in a perfect world I would say that affirmative action is wrong because it is unfair. But it is not a level playing field. We have whole groups of people who start off with a distinct disadvantage and affirmative action helps to level that playing field a little bit. Granted, it does piss people off while doing that, but right now no one has offered up a better solution. So until a better solution comes along I will continue to support affirmative action, despite its many flaws.
_________________
"Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy""

Post Thu Nov 18, 2004 9:58 am   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
conspiracies unlimited



Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Posts: 4281
Location: California
Shiny Things...  Reply with quote  

I like the chocolate pudding post, hillary... Thank you
_________________
You are so whack.Wiggity whack?Nope, just the regular kind.
You can't dust for vomit
This is the Governor's wife. -- You mean she's not the hooker?
It's time to separate the awkwardly feminine from the possibly canadian

Post Thu Nov 18, 2004 12:46 pm   View user's profile Send private message
Lauren



Joined: 07 Mar 2004
Posts: 1582
Location: Massachusetts
 Reply with quote  

I still think that's pudding abuse. I *suppose* logic follows that some lucky guys get to, um, lick it off those girls, but still. Think of the pudding that ends up on the ground. Even those precious drops, wasted. Sigh.
_________________
Well, I guess you left me with some feathers in my hand.

Post Thu Nov 18, 2004 12:48 pm   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address ICQ Number
Hillary



Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1767
 Reply with quote  

pudding ho.

The thing I think is funny is the beer guzzling guys in the background. Real men would have gotten their asses in the pudding.

Carry on with your arguing.

Post Thu Nov 18, 2004 12:50 pm   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
conspiracies unlimited



Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Posts: 4281
Location: California
DaDamn  Reply with quote  

Ok, I've been married too long... my thirst thought was, ""mmmmm pudding"... not, "hmmm, girls covered in pudding"
_________________
You are so whack.Wiggity whack?Nope, just the regular kind.
You can't dust for vomit
This is the Governor's wife. -- You mean she's not the hooker?
It's time to separate the awkwardly feminine from the possibly canadian

Post Thu Nov 18, 2004 1:38 pm   View user's profile Send private message
palmer



Joined: 30 Mar 2004
Posts: 1324
Re: a few random thoughts on the thread  Reply with quote  

John wrote:
palmer wrote:
We want the same thing, but we disagree about how to achieve it. John Palmer


I am 100% for affirmative action. To put it simply, minorities in my country, the U.S., do not get the same chances and oppurtunities as the white majority...


Then that's where the effort should be directed, not at discriminating against equally or more qualified white job candidates.

Quote:
I know that there are plenty of white children being brought up below the poverty level, but the proportion just isn't the same as for minorities.


Then both white and black children below the poverty line sould be given greater access to quality education.

All I'm saying is address the root problem, not create motre inequities by addressing the symptoms.

Post Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:32 am   View user's profile Send private message
John



Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 521
Location: Massachusetts
Re: a few random thoughts on the thread  Reply with quote  

palmer wrote:
John wrote:
palmer wrote:
We want the same thing, but we disagree about how to achieve it. John Palmer


I am 100% for affirmative action. To put it simply, minorities in my country, the U.S., do not get the same chances and oppurtunities as the white majority...


Then that's where the effort should be directed, not at discriminating against equally or more qualified white job candidates.

Quote:
I know that there are plenty of white children being brought up below the poverty level, but the proportion just isn't the same as for minorities.


Then both white and black children below the poverty line sould be given greater access to quality education.

All I'm saying is address the root problem, not create motre inequities by addressing the symptoms.


I agree with you. Affirmative action only treats some of the symptoms and does nothing about the root of the problem.
Again, I wish that there wa a solution to the root problem, but I don't have one, and no one else does as well. So, until some group of people can come up with a way of tackling this enormously complex issue in a constructive and meaningful way I think affirmative action should stay. I feel its positives outweigh its negatives...marginally.
_________________
"Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy""

Post Fri Nov 19, 2004 12:26 pm   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
palmer



Joined: 30 Mar 2004
Posts: 1324
Re: a few random thoughts on the thread  Reply with quote  

[quote="John]I agree with you. Affirmative action only treats some of the symptoms and does nothing about the root of the problem.
Again, I wish that there was a solution to the root problem, but I don't have one, and no one else does as well.[quote]

No? The solution, to racial discrimination, has to be equal opportunity, not racism turned against the supposed perpetrators, especially when they are nothing of the sort.

Quote:
So, until some group of people can come up with a way of tackling this enormously complex issue in a constructive and meaningful way I think affirmative action should stay. I feel its positives outweigh its negatives...marginally.


If, for instance, black kids, aren't getting as good an education, on average, as white kids, then we should see that they do. If some group is not getting equal opportunity in some other area, then we should see that they do.

Not discriminate against, for instance, white people who have done nothing wrong except for being white.

Notwithstanding all of the above, and to get back to my original point, I disagree with your methods, but I see that, like me, you possess the sincere wish to better the situation, thus you and I, as liberal and conservative, respectively, (and, from the sound of it, respectfully), want the same thing.

Which is nice...

Are we thread-jacking?

Post Fri Nov 19, 2004 4:17 pm   View user's profile Send private message
John



Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 521
Location: Massachusetts
Re: a few random thoughts on the thread  Reply with quote  

[quote="palmer"][quote="John]I agree with you. Affirmative action only treats some of the symptoms and does nothing about the root of the problem.
Again, I wish that there was a solution to the root problem, but I don't have one, and no one else does as well.
Quote:


No? The solution, to racial discrimination, has to be equal opportunity, not racism turned against the supposed perpetrators, especially when they are nothing of the sort.

Quote:
So, until some group of people can come up with a way of tackling this enormously complex issue in a constructive and meaningful way I think affirmative action should stay. I feel its positives outweigh its negatives...marginally.


If, for instance, black kids, aren't getting as good an education, on average, as white kids, then we should see that they do. If some group is not getting equal opportunity in some other area, then we should see that they do.

Not discriminate against, for instance, white people who have done nothing wrong except for being white.

Notwithstanding all of the above, and to get back to my original point, I disagree with your methods, but I see that, like me, you possess the sincere wish to better the situation, thus you and I, as liberal and conservative, respectively, (and, from the sound of it, respectfully), want the same thing.

Which is nice...

Are we thread-jacking?


We are beyond thread-jacking. We are no longer in the process of jacking. Consider this thread officially jacked.

You are right, it is nice that we essentially want the same thing even though we can't agree on the methods.

In fact, I feel silly arguing with someone when I agree with every point you have made. However, my opinion comes from the fact that I live in the United States. I don't know how it is in Canada, but I know that the problem of racism in this country is one of those issues that seems insurmountable and unstoppable for most of us here in the U.S. I live in one of the most liberal states in the union (hell, we allow gay marriages) and yet I see instances of racism on a daily basis. For the most part, these instances aren't particularly bad or even malicious on the part of the person doing it but it just demonstrates to me how deep the feelings of racism go in a lot of Americans.

For example, I have a friend who grew up in the south and moved to Boston. He is a great guy with a college education and has friends who are not white. In normal every day interaction with people he would never treat anyone without respect. Yet, when he is relaxed and his guard is down, he has no problem throwing out the N-bomb and other racial slurs. And if he gets upset with someone, for say cutting him off in their car, he will react differently if the person is white than if he was black or peurto rican. If they are non-white the first thing that comes out of his mouth would be a string a racial slurs, whereas he would have called the white person an asshole. I have told him flat out that I really don't approve of that and we had one argument about it but I know I can't change his underlying thought processes overnight. He doesn't use the language around me anymore and I don't bring it up with him anymore.

But, to him, this behavior seems completely normal, and since he doesn't actually say these things to peoples faces he thinks it is harmless. But it tells me a lot about the basic underlying problem of racism in my country. It is rooted in 400 years of oppression and even now resentment is still high both amongst minorities and a lot of whites.

So, again how do you fix it?

It is nice to say "If, for instance, black kids, aren't getting as good an education, on average, as white kids, then we should see that they do. If some group is not getting equal opportunity in some other area, then we should see that they do."

Your right, we should see that they do. But how? How do we implement change when a lot of our elected officials from the areas where racism is at its worst are, themselves, racist. We have senators and congressman who are vehemently racist and only barely try to hide it.

Affirmative Action was introduced by President Johnson in 1965 during one of the worst times of civil strife in our nation's history. It was enacted as a temporary measure to redress discrimination despite newly enacted civil rights laws. Affirmative action was envisioned as a temporary remedy that would end once there was a "level playing field" for all Americans.

We are still waiting for that day. The backlash against Affirmative Action by "angry white men" was enormous. These predominately southern, conservative leaders brought up all the points that you have made (and that I agree with, to a point), along with some not so nice points. Most of these men were for legalized discrimination and some of these "angry white men" are still around. And now their sons are around and in charge.

I admit that significant progress has been made, but not enough. With this country's present political climate, how can we consider getting rid of Affirmative Action when even if law makers did come up with a better system that does address all the points you have made, it would still have almost no chance of ever becoming a law.
_________________
"Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy""

Post Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:46 pm   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
makani



Joined: 04 Jul 2004
Posts: 10
Location: Maui
 Reply with quote  

Makani, hesitantly wades into the fray.

First of all, I'm independent with liberal leanings. Second, I can't help but think that this whole conservative vs liberal, science vs religion, etc. battle is ever going to get society anywhere. We point fingers of blame and launch full frontal assualts at the opposing side. As a liberal, non-religious person, I've often tried to prove to conservative christians one thing or another. You know what? It never works. Attacking the idiot conservative right and showing them objective proof about how stupid and evil "W" is will never convince them. You can't convince a zealot with rationality. There's got to be a better way.

In a desparate attempt to find another way, I've been reading philosopher Ken Wilber. He makes a good point:

"When it comes to human suffering, liberals tend to believe in exterior causes, whereas conservatives tend to believe in interior causes. That is, if an individual is suffering, the typical liberal tends to blame external social institutions (if you are poor it is because you are oppressed by society), wherease the typical conservative tends to blame internal factors (you are poor because you are lazy). Thus liberal recommends exterior social interventions: redistribute the wealth, change social institutions so that they produce fairer outcomes, evenly slice the economic pie, aim for equality among all. The typical conservative recommends that we instill family values, demand that individuals assume more responsibility for themselves, tighten up slack moral standards (often by embracing traditional religious values), encouraging a work ethic, reward achievement, and so on."

So what's the answer? I don't know. I do think though that to raise the level of societal consiousness, we have to find another way other than attacking the other side. Attacking only leads to raised defenses and counter-attacks. Personally, I think a potential model to addressing the rift might be found in the prinicples of the martial art aikido. In aikido, you don't attack and counterattack. Rather, the attackee, harmonizes, or "blends" with the attackers energy and redirects that energy. It doesn't focus on harming the attacker, but on redirecting the energy of the attack in the direction chosen by the attackee. Kind of hard to explain.

Anyway, enough rambling, Just my 2 cents worth.

Post Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:57 pm   View user's profile Send private message
palmer



Joined: 30 Mar 2004
Posts: 1324
Re: a few random thoughts on the thread  Reply with quote  

Quote:

I don't know how it is in Canada...


Different. IWe never had slavery here, for instance. Slaves came here via the underground railroad to be free. It's really hilarious sometimes, listening to people talking about being oppressed by things that never happened her. I tell a balck kid in one of my classes to do something, for instance, and he mutters I'm not your slave, and he's from Etheopia!

[quote]For example, I have a friend who grew up in the south and moved to Boston. He is a great guy with a college education and has friends who are not white. In normal every day interaction with people he would never treat anyone without respect. Yet, when he is relaxed and his guard is down, he has no problem throwing out the N-bomb and other racial slurs. And if he gets upset with someone, for say cutting him off in their car, he will react differently if the person is white than if he was black or peurto rican. If they are non-white the first thing that comes out of his mouth would be a string a racial slurs, whereas he would have called the white person an asshole. [quote]

And if I cut him off, would he say, "Who gave you a licence, four eyes." Yes, I wear glasses. My question is this: Is he revealing underlying racist attitudes, or just latching onto an identifiable characteristic? (Outta my way, shorty!)

By the way, some of the worst and most overt racism I have seen around here is from some of my black students, especially against the Asian kids.

Quote:
So, again how do you fix it?


By being fair, not by being more than fair. I once saw political correctness defined as "good intentions gone berserk."

Quote:
It is nice to say "If, for instance, black kids, aren't getting as good an education, on average, as white kids, then we should see that they do. If some group is not getting equal opportunity in some other area, then we should see that they do."

Your right, we should see that they do. But how?


Adequate funding. If you can legislate affirmative action, you can legislate education reform.

Quote:
Affirmative Action was introduced by President Johnson in 1965 during one of the worst times of civil strife in our nation's history. It was enacted as...temporary...


So was income tax...

Quote:
The backlash against Affirmative Action by "angry white men" was enormous.


In one sense, I am one of them in spirit. I bridle at the thought of being discriminated against solely on the basis of the colour of my skin. And the ends justifying the means arguement puts us on a sloppery slope indeed.

Quote:
With this country's present political climate, how can we consider getting rid of Affirmative Action...


Because it's not fair.

Post Sun Nov 21, 2004 10:19 am   View user's profile Send private message
Guest





 Reply with quote  

http://www.bccns.com/history_slavery.html

Calling them "servants" doesn't mean they aren't slaves.

Post Sun Nov 21, 2004 11:18 am   
Ferrit Leggings



Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Posts: 2658
 Reply with quote  

How do we fix racism and make everyone equal?

I love impossible questions because no matter what you answer there is always someone to top you off with a better answer so I have the best answer to this impossible question. We could make everyone blind and deaf but there will still be racism and inequality. We already know the why’s and the why nots so why not?

People will always find some reason to hate someone else. Our last election is prime example. The Red States, oh how we hate those rednecks, and they hate the blue state people for our elitism. We are just too smart for them. It are these broad sweeping statements that gobble people into the throws of hatred and animosity. The other day I met a Bush voter who had the same affliction toward that leafy plant. It surprised me to meet someone like that. It is not that I thought all Bush voters were redneck-ed hicks but…well…that is how they are portrayed. We can thank CMT, JAG and NASCAR for that. I was watching JAG, the television program, and they showed a man yelling about the war in Iraq to two soldiers. It was all the typical gobbledygook that is spewed from webpage’s like Bloggerheads and the Daily Chaos, spelt differently. One of the soldiers responded with dogma straight from the bowels of Rush and the RNC. Of course you know that 911 was mentioned. That is their mantra just as any democrat will spout off about voter fraud, war for oil and misunderestimations. We seem to look for ways to divide. I have to admit that I do it too. I see someone doing something stupid and I usually say something like, ‘A Bush voter’ and I do it because it is easy and at times funny.

(I was tired that night and wanted nothing more than an hour of stupid time in front of the telly.)

This is all fodder for people like David Chapel, Jon Stewart and Eddie Izzard just the way it was for Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy and Robin Williams. We divide ourselves for anonymity from a group and for a secret longing to belong to a group of people that are like ourselves. We feel in part a need to create bonds and also separate from those ties that bind. It is a double edged sword that cuts no matter what way it is looked at.

Will we ever be completely equal in the eyes of each other? No. There will always be racism and every other ism that comes along with hate. No one is without fault and no one is with out some level of hate toward their fellow man. Sure every once in a while some really good people come along like Martin Luther King, Ghandi, and so on…

What do we do about it? We educate people that yes there are differences but it are those differences that make us who we are. We also point out the inaccuracies of stereotypes and listen and hear people. Conservatives and liberals, black and white, Muslim and Buddhist we have to listen to everyone. There will be times that they say the stupidest things but without one we cannot have the other.

Affirmative action will not change anything. It has been looked at as a form of reverse racism. I would like to see a world where people will get along with each other, not bomb the hell out of one another, get the jobs that they are trained to do not on the basis of a quota but on qualifications but I don’t see it in the near future.

I sound like such a sap.

Ta,
_________________
I feel the same way about disco as I do about herpes. -HST

Post Sun Nov 21, 2004 11:32 am   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
  Display posts from previous:      
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics. This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Last Thread | Next Thread  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 
Templates created by Vereor and Ken