7 posts tagged “politics”

    My husband told me, several months ago, about a woman he works with whose husband fought in Iraq, came home, injured his shoulder during re-training and was unable to return to the front lines.  He and his wife have been struggling for a very long time.  She works incredibly hard while he does his best to care for their children.  For months he fought to be able to get the surgery to repair the tears in his shoulder, and even now he is still fighting to get the disability benefits he needs.
    A few days ago he made the local news, you can see the print story here.
    My husband wrote about it on his blog as well, which can be seen here.  (He has the video of the television broadcast, as well)

    I just don't know what to say about things like this.  I've worked in the medical industry.  Yeah, it was as a receptionist, but I've fielded calls from Medicare and I've been in the breakroom to hear discussions of how the whole system works.  What is happening to that poor soldier is what seems to happen all the time.  First, the government acts like your friend.  Then, they stop returning your calls.  Then something seems to be missing or was filled out wrong, but the paperwork never seems to be on anyone's desk so they can never give you details.

    Stall, stall, stall, until the person who needs the coverage just... gives... up.

    Only this guy isn't giving up, and good for him.

    I really feel like I need to say something.  I've been thinking about it for a long time.  It's one thing to say leave no one behind on the battlefield- but what happens when they come home?  There's been a lot of stories about veterans in homeless shelters and veterans being refused benefits, and somehow people persist in thinking that the only veterans that bad things happen to are, well, bad veterans.  Drunkards, drug addicts, convicts...  Only, that's not the truth.  Sometimes they are good people to whom bad things have happened, and they shouldn't be treated like they are somehow not worthy of our care.
    Part of the expense of waging a war and maintaining an occupation is the expense of properly caring for the engines of war- and in this case the engines are HUMAN BEINGS.  Real people with emotions, needs, families, and bodies that must be kept fit if they are to keep fighting.  These people should not be treated so carelessly.  They should be treated with honor and respect.
    I'm sick and tired of hearing people say that the Democrats don't care for the troops because they want the occupation to end.  That's not true.  The Democrats, like many Republicans, realize that the expense of war does not stop on the battlefield, and the simple truth is there isn't enough money to maintain the troops on the battlefield in the numbers they are now and also care for the ones who are unable to return.  Every day, every month, every year we maintain the occupation more soldiers run the risk of injury.  How will we care for them?  How?
    Things have to change.  The stalling tactics have got to end.  The missing paperwork had better be found.  Here in Indiana, there are three beautiful children who want their daddy to be better and their mommy to not have to feel so tired all the time.
    Lets not forget that people aren't statistics.  They are people.

Today on wordpress:

“Obama would make a great black President.”

As long as we keep making judgments based off of race, we don’t have to ask ourselves if racism still exists.  The fact that racism exists is made obvious in the way we frame our discussions.  As long as there are perfectly coiffed blond women on network news asking breathlessly if Obama’s race will be a factor in people’s consideration of him, it’s being made a factor.

Looking at my blog stats, I find it humbling how many people are apparently reading my blog.  Yikes.  Intellectual content will continue to be on wordpress and plugged here, because, honestly, if I could make a couple of dollars a week blogging I'd be a happy little housewife.  :)

Have I mentioned, perhaps, how into politics I am?  I could be showering right now (which is badly needed and deserved) but instead I'm googling news articles about yesterdays primaries.

I find it interesting that Ron Paul pulled about the same percentage of votes, while Huckabee and Thompson are floundering.  I wish John Edwards was doing better, but there's time.

    What really, really interests me is that after the media's total eviscerating Hillary over her "crying" (which I put in quotes, because since when was a bit of a shaky voice equivalent to breaking down into tears?  Not a tear was shed- ASSHOLES) she WON!  She WON!  And I actually find myself slightly happy about this, because as a woman I am glad to know that the *ahem* frailty of a woman's passions doesn't somehow hold her back from being presidential.  So Hillary was broken and passionate and soft spoken- why should any of those things mean that she is unqualified?  I don't like the woman- I really don't- and I doubt I would vote for her.  But that has nothing to do with her femininity.  Any time she is attacked solely on the basis of her femininity I find myself wanting to rally behind her.  So, a warning to the anti-Hillary crowd:
    Attack her on the basis of her being cool, calculating, not a real change, or in the pocket of industry: I will vote for Edwards or Paul.  Attack her on the basis of her being a woman or being married to Bill: I will support her.
    You've been warned.

    Now, in defense of Hillary.  One: being passionate is GOOD.  It means one will go above and beyond the normal expectancy in order to achieve ones goals.  Passion is far better than cool calculation in that regard, because if one is cold one will sacrifice.  If one is passionate, one will not.  I liked Hillary far more when she was trembling and fighting to control her voice than I ever liked her when she was stridently declaring herself.
    TWO:  She is far more experienced than Edwards or Obama.  Damn it, you heard me right.  That woman IS more experienced.  She may only have one more term in the Senate, but that doesn't mean she's not more experienced.  As a lawyer she worked for a lot of government causes, and as a First Lady she was FAR more than a figurehead, a thing she was attacked for at the time.  Aside from her husband, she was the number one diplomat, the number one ambassador, the number one organizer.  She helped to author bills, to meet with caucuses, to handle diplomatic situations.  She was the first First Lady to ever have an office in the West Wing- something she did because she wanted to be in the middle of the action.  Prior to Hillary, First Ladies spoke at luncheons and championed charitable causes.  Hillary made laws.  Doesn't anyone who is now attacking her for claiming experience when she must have only "looked on" remember how much she was strung out and BEATEN for being such an active part of her husband's administration?  She says "WE did this, WE did that" not because she looked on but because they truly governed as a team.
    I heard an analogy that went like this:  If a plumber's wife watched him plumb for twenty years, could she claim twenty years experience plumbing?
    In Hillary's case it goes more like: if a plumbers wife regularly covered for him and took service calls for twenty years, could she claim twenty years experience plumbing?  Yes, absolutely she could!  She couldn't claim the experience RUNNING the company, but she certainly did plumb.

    So, anyway, that's my rant.  Hate Hillary for her politics, if you want, but don't attack her experience (which is valid) or her femininity (which will make women flock to her defense.)

And yesterday's boxes for the move:

Our now very nearly empty bookshelves.  Note that there are still books on one.

boxes - 1/8 (by desk)

What a tragedy.  Here is a Reuter's story, but I will try to sum up the details.

    Bhutto was speaking publicly when she was shot by a suicide bomber.  Preliminary news articles said that anywhere between six and fourteen people were murdered, including Bhutto and her bodyguards.

Really, what a tragedy.

    Benazir Bhutto (former Pakistani Prime Minister and opposition leader) stood firm on the need for integrity, honor and equality in government.  She was attacked for being a thief and charlatan, accused of running her political party with an iron fist and being a cold-hearted bitch, but people who heard her speak saw her as being strong-willed but fair and absolutely inspiring.  Bhutto cared more about justice and the voice of the people than she did her own life, and returned from a self-imposed exile to fire up the streets in protest of Musharraf's military rule.

    She has paid dearly.  Society has paid.  Women have been dealt a strong blow, as well as lovers of free speech and rule of law.  We should all take a moment in silence to remember the many strong women who have lived, fought, and died for the rights of the smallest and weakest among us.

    Rest now, Benazir.  May you find in death the comfort that life did not give you.  May your spirit inspire where your voice has been silenced.  May the streets not be silent and the people not be ruled by fear.

    I realize the Election is still a long way off.  Regardless, I'm feeling very political today.  Why?  Because yesterday I listened to a very long debate about whether or not voting should become mandatory.  One pundit was talking about how in Canada they were mortified when there was only a 65% turnout (which, btw, would be impressive by our low American standards) so they are considering a fifteen or twenty dollar fine if you don't show at the poles.  The question then became, if Canadian government finds it hard to consider itself a democracy with low voter turnout- what are WE?
    I hear a lot of griping about how society is falling to crap and no decent laws are getting passed and the government is accountable to no one and Armageddon is coming...  my response to all of this, normally, is "so what are you doing?"
    We live in a democratic society.  We live in a participatory society.  Sure, Congress makes the law- but we have the ability to tell them what law to make or vote for someone new.  Our vote is our weapon.  If we participate, we change things.  How many of the people reading this post have written to a congressperson?  How many have organized or participated in community events?  How many can actually list more than six people currently running for president?  How many, for example, know who the top four are in some of the latest polls?  (You might be surprised.)  Did you, for example, know that John Edwards is fast closing on Obama and Clinton?  At this point, we aren't even close to knowing who the next Democratic candidate could be.
    And don't even get me started on the Republicans.  I know a lot of people love Ron Paul.  I know there are several things about him to love.  But, when you start talking about disassembling the machine that is running this country and rebuilding it with the vast majority of the weight being towed by the states (the way it was originally intended) you are talking about taking a lot of risks, and there will be costs.  Think, people.  Think about the implications of what he's saying.  He can be a little cagey, so you have to use your brain.
    There's also a lot of griping going on about who's in the lead and who people want to have in the lead and how if it's Giuliani against Clinton who can we vote for and on, and on, and on, and on, to which I say:
    VOTE.
    The point of the primary is that people decide who they want their candidate to be.  By people, I mean us.  You and me.  WE decide who we want our candidate to be.  So go out there, register with the party you like- or the party that has the candidate you most like- and VOTE.
    Vote, or so help me God, I WILL smack you upside the head.

    Oh, and inform yourself first.  It's not that hard.  God gave us Google for moments such as this.

I'm really in a mood today.  I don't know why.

    In any case, I was washing dishes and ruminating about the whole Christian Nation thing and how much it goads me- and it really, really does.

    So, to continue my thoughts:

    If you legislate morality, moral choices lose their value.  For example:
Bob chooses not to drink because he believes drunkenness is a sin.  Larry chooses not to drink because he doesn't want to pay a fine.  Who does the better thing?

Susan chooses to dress modestly because she honors her body.  Leticia dresses modestly because she's afraid of a public flogging.  Who does the better thing?

George prays every day during the lunch hour because he believes that partaking of food without praying shows disrespect for God's gifts.  Tony prays during the lunch hour because he is told to by the voice on the loudspeaker.  Who does the better thing?

    I think the answers are obvious.  When a decision is forced, it loses it's moral merit.  I say that because I believe that morality comes from choice, not law.  That isn't to say that both choices are good- obeying the law is always good.  And that isn't to say that some moral choices shouldn't be made in the law as well.  It is good that murder and rape are crimes.  It's good that they are crimes because those that murder or rape should be treated as criminals- for the protection of the populace.  There is also a difference between drinking to drunkenness and doing it in a way that could hurt others.  It's not wrong to be drunk, it is harmful to others to drink and operate machinery or to drink and strip to the nude and parade around publicly- which is why there are laws to prohibit those behaviors.
  
    One should also keep in mind that while morality is subjective to the believer, ethics aren't.  One can make both moral and ethical arguments for things like the value of personal property and the inherent wrongness in stealing.  So there's nothing wrong with arguing that certain behaviors (like stealing) should be prohibited on ethical grounds.  Those laws are also about protection.

    We as a society should ask ourselves questions like, who are we protecting if we ban gay marriage?  Is there an ethical argument for teaching creationism in schools?  Does the ethical argument weigh more towards allowing or banning stem cell research? 

    Do we really have a moral obligation to stop things like abortion- and if we do, would our energies be better spent banging our heads against the legislature or simply going out and helping meet the needs of the pregnant women?  (Realizing that the number one reason a woman gives for seeking an abortion is the inability to adequately provide for a child.)

    There.  I feel better now.  I can let you all ruminate on this stuff and wash my dishes in peace.  :)

This was going to be a comment on Toe-Knee's outstanding post today, but then I realized that it was better done in a post of my own.

    The United States of America was not founded on "Christian Principles."  So, everyone that says that in such a pompous self-ingratiating tone, just STOP.  One can reasonably argue that it was founded on "godly" principles, since God loves freedom and is the giver of freedom of choice, but one cannot argue for Christian Principles- especially since in the founding of our Government we were withdrawing from a very God-loving England.  To be a fly on the wall!  I imagine that England was saying that the United States was going against God, just as much as citizens of the United States would have been invoking God as their protection.
    But- Christian Principles?  Many of the founders were Christian, I won't argue against that.  I won't even argue that their faith in God and love for God and especially honor for the Freedom of Choice that God gave us informed their work.  Sure, that's all true.  But they never intended for our nation to be a Christian one.  Their intention that was that it be free, for everyone.
    Freedom of Religion, now, that is a godly principle.  It is Godly, in fact, with a capital G.  Why?  Because God was the one that gave us free choice!  We need to be able to make choices in order to have true faith, and those choices include the way we worship and who we worship.  Freedom of Religion not only protects the Buddhist and the Taoist and the Hindu and the Luciferian (I know, sore subject for a lot of people).  It also protects the Christian.  Again, a lot of people will look at me in bafflement when I say that.  If we are a Christian Nation and those Christian Principles are upheld, why would we need protection?  Well, because some Christians believe that women should only wear long skirts and cover their hair.  Do we all want to be forcibly made to do so?  I think not- we're fighting against that elsewhere, aren't we?  Some Christians believe that we should only worship God with our voices.  Do we want them coming in to our churches to take our guitars?  Some Christians believe strongly that it is a sin to touch alcohol or allow it to be drank.  Do we want them taking our beers out of our hands?  Oh, wait, we tried that and it failed.
    So- which Christian Principles should we be upholding?  That women be made to stay home?  That birth control be outright banned, in it's many and various forms?  That women be forced to marry to leave the home? Whose Christian morals should we be upholding?  The Evangelicals?  The Baptists?  The Lutherans?  The Catholics?  The Eastern Orthodox?  The mainline Protestant? The Mennonite?  The Amish? The Mormon? The Jehovah's Witness?  Because, when it comes down to it- the Abolition proved that the vocal cries of a minority can tie the hands of the majority, and should the decision be made that this be a Christian Nation, do we really want to risk the voice being heard not being ours, because it very well might be.
    If you want to live in a free and moral society, my advice would be to keep to the Constitution as strictly as possible.  Those guys knew what they were writing it for.  They knew it much more strongly than we ever could today.  It's my personal opinion that they did a bang-up job!

And because I'm in a mood today, a spritely ode to the consumerist attitude by the late, great, Five Iron Frenzy:

05 - American Kryptonite