In applying an arbitrary standard to voter eligibility, what Robert is really saying is this: “Let me decide.” Fair enough! If he wants to assign himself this role, he should understand that “two can play this game.” So let us judge Robert by his own standards and determine whether or not he should have the right to vote.
Here is the gist of a conversation I had with Robert earlier this week:
Robert: I belong to the crowd that doesn't want everyone to vote.I have extended an invitation to Robert to visit our humble shores and take our voter eligibility test. That is why I prevail upon you, my fellow creatures of the deep and pilots of the waves. What would you ask Robert to determine his eligibility to vote?
(O)CT(O)PUS: Lucky for the rest of us, there are laws to protect us from people like you.
Robert: I wouldn't deny anyone the right, of course, but Saturday elections would mean that many people who have such apathy to the process that they wouldn't vote during the week would cast votes on Saturday.
(O)CT(O)PUS: And who are you to make this judgment? Who are you to decide when one votes or who gets the right to vote? By this definition, you would disenfranchise anyone at the drop of a hat for failing to meet any narrow-minded criteria you can think of.
Robert: It is sad that so many people are uninformed on issues.
(O)CT(O)PUS: Like you! By this standard, you should not have the right to vote either. What makes you think your opinion or your vote is more worthy than mine or the next person. Do you think you are smarter than me? Or more educated than me? Or more democracy-worthy than me? Or more entitled than me? Obviously you have no concept of equal rights, equal protection, and equal access under Law.
Robert: I think that half the people who vote now would do us all a favor by staying at home.
(O)CT(O)PUS: Then do us a favor and stay home yourself. For someone who claims to value liberty and freedom, you have a damn strange concept of what these mean. Or are you one of George Orwell's … pigs who would have our Constitution restated to mean: "Some animals are more equal than others." Damn, you are even worse than stupid!
My question for Robert begins with this 48-second segment from a Sarah Palin speech:
Fruit fly research does sound a bit silly … especially for the likes of Joe-Six-Pack and Joe-the-Plumber. But a recent study shows that “Drosophila” fruit flies have an abundance of neurexin, a protein essential for proper neurological function. This discovery has important applications in autism research.
Of course, everyone knows that Sarah Palin has a “special needs” child, and it would seem hypocritical of Petite Sarah to debunk this research. So here is my voter eligibility question for Robert: Read this paper and give us your opinion as to why funding for this research should be cut.
Next? My compatriots above and below the waves, can you think of any voter eligibility questions you would like to ask Robert, the Conservative?
Like a fair number of Republiphants, apparently, Robert finds it just dreadful that the working people of the country might actually vote for the candidates who suit their interests. That completely messes up the whole "talk populism but promote neofeudalism" scam the right has been running for years and to which Fogg alludes in his latest post. I can't think of any suggestions on the eligibility question--I think anybody who has taken the time to register and who has given some serious thought to what would be best for the country really ought to vote. A lot of working people don't have much time to consider all the options, but they ought to be able to figure out who seems most likely to show a genuine interest in the health and well-being of the common citizen, and who seems most likely to treat the people of other nations with respect, too.
ReplyDeleteI quote from Bloggingdingo "...I think anybody who has taken the time to register and who has given some serious thought to what would be best for the country really ought to vote."
ReplyDeleteYour assertion that I think people should not have the right to vote is both deceptive and disingenous. I said nothing more than that which I quoted above. I said that we would be better served if less people voted, because there are too many on both sides who have no idea about the issues and pay very little attention to the reality of their preferred party's plans. At no time did I say that ANYONE should not be allowed to vote, and in fact stated that directly in my post.
I should probably comment on the Palin clip that you posted here. I will preceded my comments by saying that I have a special needs child. I post about her occasionally on my blog. She is nine years old, and has developmental delays. Autism was first considered and ruled out, then Angelmanns Syndrome was the next suspect. Ruled out as well. After years of tests and specialists, there is no diagnosis and it is the way it is "just because"...everything about her is normal except her delayed development in learning and socialization.
ReplyDeleteI didn't hear Palin criticizing the research. What I heard her question is American taxpayer dollars going to Paris for this research. I have a tendency to oppose it as well, alhtough i would have to know more about the structure and if there is a partnership, for example, with U.S. universities or hospitals.
The same monies granted to a U.S. University/Hospital is not an issue. My tax dollars going overseas is questionable when the same research could be done at home.
To Robert the Conservative,
ReplyDeleteFirst and last, I don't give a rosy rat's bottom what you think. Let that sink in because I won't respond to further messages from you. There's no intended connection between the first and second part of my response. Anybody who's registered to vote has every right to do so, and neither you nor I should divide them up into people who ought to vote and people who ought to stay home. I am in favor of strong voter turnout, period--for both parties and indeed for any parties in the race. We all know why so many Republicans would just love for there to be fewer voters in the booths. It's a simple matter of numbers: if those pesky, all-too-numerous Democrats show up, Republicans generally lose. Finally, your defense of Palin's anti-intellectualism is inexcusable. Bye.
I have no idea where you find in my comments that strong voter turout is a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteI think anybody who has taken the time to register and who has given some serious thought to what would be best for the country really ought to vote.
Your words, not mine...although they mirror my initial point. We are served by people who have given serious thought to whom they support, instead of homeless persons being paid by ACORN to vote.
I didn't exclude republicans from my statemets about who should stay at home, either.
Whether you respond or not, I sleep the same.
To be fair, I don't think roberto here is saying anyone ought to be prevented, but only wishes the stupid and uninformed wouldn't bother. The problem is that those I consider to be unworthy are not those whom he would consider unworthy.
ReplyDeleteI am used to being thought stupid. It's been so all my life. I don't think I am, of course, but I can flatter myself by listening to the stories of indubitably smart people who have had similar experience. In other words, ideas sufficiently brilliant may be indistinguishable from foolishness - or not.
This is a convoluted way of supporting the idea that the government should encourage everyone to participate, even if they leave blank spaces on ballots and only vote on one candidate or party or issue.
As individuals, I think it quite permissible and in fact commendable to discourage certain people, but I can't and have to resort to vain argument.
In short form, people have the right to be fools and to define what foolishness is - it's the only way to have a Democracy, even if it insures that it won't work all that well: and it doesn't.
So stay home Robert. I don't like the way you think, but I will defend your right to be an idiot anyway. I have to, for my own protection.
Fogg, yes, that's the point as you state it at the outset -- we can't agree on which subset of potential voters ought to be "discouraged," so the best thing is just to favor a healthy turnout. I've noticed that some conservatives really dislike the new trend towards early voting, weekend voting, etc. It should be obvious why: God forbid some poor slob should be able to avoid waiting in line for three hours to vote on a workday. No, it's better to "discourage" him or her from casting an uninformed (i.e. probably not conservative) ballot by making it as difficult as possible. But when people vote, they are at least suggesting that they think it's important to exercise a key right, lest they lose it through attrition and apathy. I'm quite encouraged by what looks to be a strong turnout this time around, and wouldn't want anyone interested in participating discouraged from doing so, however they may vote. It's always possible for a democracy to ruin itself by perfectly democratic means, but discouraging turnout really isn't the solution.
ReplyDeleteRobert; I will preceded my comments by saying that I have a special needs child. I post about her occasionally on my blog.
ReplyDeletePlease accept my apologies for choosing this example. In encouraging a healthy debate, it was not my intention to hurt. Had I known this in advance, I would have chosen a less sensitive topic.
Robert: I didn't hear Palin criticizing the research.
Actually I did. She was pandering about fruit flies, trying to make this sound as ridiculous as possible while playing for “boos” and “hisses” from the audience. It was shamefully dishonest and disingenuous.
Robert: What I heard her question is American taxpayer dollars going to Paris for this research … My tax dollars going overseas is questionable when the same research could be done at home.
This response demonstrates NO understanding of scientific research whatsoever. I guess you never heard of an international medical conference where research scientists from around the world present their findings and share their data.
Many study areas have co-researchers working in separate countries but all working on the same problem. These days, clinical trial studies are international in scope (it gives researchers access to larger human study samples with more ethnic and genetic diversity).
The entire pharmaceutical industry is internationalized. In case you are not aware, companies such as Aventis, Bayer, Novartis and Roche, as examples, are headquartered outside the U.S. Patent drugs are licensed across borders, and research funding flows accordingly.
Understand this: America has no monopoly on disease or pervasive developmental disability disorders. Research breakthroughs in London, Paris, or Gotham City benefit a world community. One would think you, Robert, would have a vested interest no matter where the study takes place. Furthermore, basic research projects have a study span of 10 years or more. When the grant process gets politicized, the research suffers.
Now that you know something about where science is conducted, do you still think it questionable that research funds move across borders … just because your silly national pride has been wounded?
Unfortunately, you did not do the homework or answer the question so you get a failing grade. Nevertheless, Blogging Dino has very strong feelings about universal voter participation, so we will NOT revoke your voting rights (unqualified as you are). Your personal prejudices have nothing to do with equality under Law.
Never mix science with politics or religion unless you want a potential treatment for your kid to be banished somewhere on the Church Index. This has happened before. Ignorance and superstition makes (O)CT(O)PUS very angry and predatory.
Thanks you for your comments but I assure you that there was no offense or hurt involved. The topic is not sensitive or at all off limits except when my daughter is around. She is a very intuitive child, even though she often can't quite communicate her thoughts and ideas as she wants. I do not shy away from talking about her or her situation.
ReplyDeleteWe utilize the services of the University of Alabama-Birmingham, one of the finest teaching universities around. We also have benefited greatly from the Civitan International Research Center, which is dedicated to research on developmental disabilities and their causes. My wife and I founded, and sit on the board, of a new civitan club in our fair city because of our personal interest in their work and their services.
Ok, back on topic, more or less. I have no idea why you guys keep saying that I would desire to have some people excluded from voting. I would not, nor would I endorse any such activity. All I did was express my opinion about how some people shouldn't vote - the uniformed, the homeless who are paid to push a particular button - because their vote distorts true public opinion. Neither did I make distinctions between political ideologies - unprepared voters participate on both sides.
Finally, I do not have any idea as to the research Palin was talking about. I am sure she was quickly provided with some examples and she has no idea about the structure of the research either.
I have no issues with the U.S. participating in research that is worldwide in scope. It benefits people everywhere. I do have issues with money going directly to other countries when it could be used at home.
I do have issues with money going directly to other countries when it could be used at home.
ReplyDeleteLike Iraq, for instance?
So let me get this straight here. You are upset because Robert doesn't think that the uninformed should vote. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
ReplyDelete"I am in favor of strong voter turnout, period--for both parties and indeed for any parties in the race"
Ah, so it's about quanity and not quality. That doesn't suprise me coming from what I've read so far.
___________________________________
This video is the EXACT reason that the uninformed should not vote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5p3OB6roAg
If people voted for whom they thought would be the best president, then by all means go vote. When someone can't even tell you what policies which canidate stands for or who their VP is, how you can sit here and say that their voice should be heard? I don't care if your democrat or republican. I don't want those voters to decide who has control of the country for the next four years. If you knew anything about Robert you would know he is above the things you are accusing him of. To do an entire post on someone else's blog tells me either #1 you don't have enough originality to hold your own or #2 he didn't give you the answers you wanted to hear on his blog. Either way it does not speak much of you. Don't you believe it's a little hypocritical to condemn Robert for not wanting the idiots out there voting for one of the most important positions in the country, but you can tell Robert not to vote.
___________________________________
["At no time did I say that ANYONE should not be allowed to vote, and in fact stated that directly in my post."]
What part of that statement don't you understand?
___________________________________
["I think anybody who has taken the time to register and who has given some serious thought to what would be best for the country really ought to vote."]
They were your words, not Roberts, but when they come from him, they are wrong? Hypocrisy 101!
Perhaps the problem is the impression many have that the average voter could not pass a citizenship test demanded of everyone who petitions the government for naturalization. This would seem to be a greater problem than whether the average citizen is familiar with the mechanism for funding medical/scientific research. The truth is that our average high school graduate ranks far behind his/her equivalent in Europe and most of Asia.
ReplyDeleteI seriously doubt whether any average person is able to discuss the nation’s budget, foreign expenditures, health care issues, diplomacy, or our judicial system, and this probably explains why political candidates avoid any meaningful discussion about them. Most people focus on issues that affect them directly, even if they don’t understand those either. So we should not be surprised when candidates easily fool people who the candidates know are uninformed and confused. What should we think about political aspirants who resort to such tactics?
It is true that people look at political promises in terms of what seems to fit their needs most directly. I wonder, considering the value placed on civic virtue by our forefathers, why we are more concerned about the nation first. Not attempting to sound simplistic, but it seems to me that if a program is good for the country, then it should be good for the citizens of our country. It is difficult to imagine the converse. On the other hand, a program that is good for individuals may not be good for the nation as a whole. There are many examples to choose from, but even if we take something relatively simple like tax policy . . . how is a progressive tax policy good for either?
If we are a united people, if we all share the vicissitudes of political decision-making, how is it fair to excuse any American from paying a fair share of required revenues? And yet, politicians pander for votes through class warfare with nauseating regularity. If we assume a tax rate of 15% applied equally to all citizens, the person making $10K a year will pay $1,500. An individual making $100K will pay $15,000. Why is this not fair? But no, what happens is that politicians promise tax cuts for people who don’t even pay taxes, and those who are affected become light-headed and vote for that candidate. It is wrong, and it makes no sense. At the same time, hardly any politician wants to talk about spending cuts . . . or any popular sentiment holding Congress to a frugal, responsible budget.
So I think that there are people who are entitled to vote, when they are not sufficiently aware of the long-term consequences of this important decision. In that sense, I think the question was a good one, and the sentiments express were a fair concern.
Jennifer,
ReplyDeleteDon't care much for your post, although your defense of your friend is admirable. Who is this "you" that you're talking to--a melange of several commenters? The quoted words are bloggingdino's indeed, but I'm not sure it's even me you're criticizing. Anyhow, I most assuredly don't suppose your conservative friend wants to outlaw voting on the part of anybody. So spare us the misguided outrage. Nope, what I don't like is the notion that anybody should even be dissuading folk when it comes to voting. I'm well aware that a lot of people I would consider ignorant and misguided vote--on both ends of the political spectrum. When was that ever not the case? But most are still good people, and what their leaders do affects them whether they are erudite or not—or even literate, for that matter—so I think it is healthy that they express their preferences. Even to suggest that certain groups should not bother voting is effectively to regard whole swaths of our electorate as little better than medieval serfs. Have you never heard that the usual antidote to problems with democracy is more democracy? Ultimately, I suppose, the best way to strengthen the Republic is to promote sound education: that alone will create an informed electorate. But in the short run, discouraging people from voting--no matter what the method or the rationale or the rhetoric--is not the way to go. That's the issue here--not that anybody's trying to disenfranchise anybody else in some old Jim Crow fashion.
Mustang,
ReplyDeleteI would like to offer the following thoughts on your fourth paragraph, in which you seem to advocate a flat tax or something similar, if I understand rightly. I would suggest that in a broad or holistic sense, no, it really isn't fair, because 15% of 10,000 seems like an awful lot to some poor devil slaving away as a waitress at a diner, while 15% of 100,000, while a substantial (and rather painful!) chunk of money to fork over to Uncle Sam, isn't so dire a hit on one's standard of living. It's still less of a hit for some CEO making ten million a year, no? (Notice that Warren Buffett is on record as saying he thinks he's getting off pretty easy on the taxes--he could pay more and wouldn't mind much; it wouldn't affect his prospects or way of life.) Perhaps liberals have become so weak at defending the basic concept of social welfare that it has become easy to suggest doing away with said concept. If we want a peaceful, relatively optimistic society, I think a progressive tax system is one way to promote it. Nobody should be destitute. It is painful to pay taxes, but it's worthwhile if the money is used decently. I'll agree with anyone that taxing the rich half to death is a very bad idea (we're a capitalist society, after all, and so we can't treat wealth as sinful in itself), but I wouldn't go so far as to say we shouldn't have a progressive tax system or that we should axe the concept of social welfare. Neither would private charity (a common conservative emphasis, though I don't know your thoughts about it) be a good alternative: as William Blake said, "Pity would be no more, if we did not make somebody poor." Charity and misery feed upon one another; their relationship is unholy. Charitas in the biblical sense, I believe, has a much wider, healthier connotation: a genuine outpouring of love and generosity for one's fellows. It is no less than a command leveled by Jesus himself, and by Saint Paul, and others.
Finally, you use the phrase "class warfare." I suggest that what progressives do consistently is to acknowledge and point out that there are in fact distinct socio-economic groups in America. We should admit that, and we seem quite resistant to doing so. It isn't class warfare at all to point out in the context of determining public policy that there are poor people, people of middling income, and wealthy people, and that each group has some common needs and responsibilities, but also that each group may have some different needs, too. For instance, the poor could use a little help keeping body and soul together, and the rich ought not deny them that help. This seems to me basic fairness, and a reading of the Gospels should convince anybody of its rightness as a principle. May I suggest Matthew, Ch. 25 in its entirety? Progressives should not be shy about the moral foundations of public policy. This is in the Good Book, people; or in the lingo of the Big JC, "this is the law and the prophets."
"Don't care much for your post,"
ReplyDeleteThat is certainly your prerogative, but I didn't care for yours either, so I guess that makes us even. :-)
___________________________________
When I spoke of "you" it was to the previous commentors. Sorry if I did not make that clear.
___________________________________
"misguided outrage" Okay, I'll accept that I was a bit harsh, but I was just sticking up for a friend I felt was being attacked.
___________________________________
"Nope, what I don't like is the notion that anybody should even be dissuading folk when it comes to voting."
I think to acknowledge and defend those that are unwilling to even look at who the canidate is or what he represents is not doing the country the justice it deserves.
__________________________________
"But most are still good people, and what their leaders do affects them whether they are erudite or not—or even literate, for that matter"
I don't disagree with that comment in the least. I am sure they are very good people, just not ones that I particulary want voting for president of the United States. It affects them, your correct, but their un-educated vote also affects me. So I think it would be foolish to be unconcerned.
___________________________________
I'm not sure what you mean by "certain groups".....the un-educated? If that is indeed the case, however you catagorize it, voting for someone you know nothing about is irresponsible and may damage the country because of it.
___________________________________
"Ultimately, I suppose, the best way to strengthen the Republic is to promote sound education:"
That would be the ideal although, unfortunately, we live in the real world and there will always be those that just don't care enough to get the facts.
Jennifer,
ReplyDeleteI think I understand where you're coming from. Will just leave you with this: what you describe is the burden of a republic or democracy. As I've sometimes said, it's almost always a matter of agonizingly close percentages one way or t'other as to whether we have bad policy or good policy, wise leadership or foolish leadership. It is our responsibility to do the best we can. It is possible that one day we will mess up so badly that we lose our freedom--that's always the risk. I just don't really buy the notion--if indeed you're suggesting it, which maybe you aren't--that some people are sort of flipping a coin in the booths. And surely--again not that you're saying this--the right-wing nightmare of hordes of zombie-like ACORN voters mindlessly pushing the buttons is pure fantasy; there's been some voter registration fraud, but Mickey Mouse and Pluto ain't gonna show up to vote on Nov. 4. I will venture that most people who bother to vote at all care just a bit more than that, at the least. It's always a bit of a hassle to vote, and it would be easier not to bother. We don't get paid to vote, ja? I live in a very working-class area, and when I vote at my local church, I see lots of poor folk looking pretty damn serious about what they're doing. One must hope that the democratic process itself is something of an education--sometimes it doesn't seem that way, but if we lose hope that it can be, what are we left with?
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I honestly do not know anyone who believes that Americans should be excused from lending a helping hand to t he needy. Overall, I think every indication is that Americans are the most charitable people in the world. My religious training tells me that if we do have freedom of choice, God blesses us when we choose to donate our time and money to those less fortunate than ourselves. I fear, however, this is not what some politicians have in mind for Americans. It is insulting to some that the government steps in and decides, charitable as we are, it isn’t enough to satisfy their own pet programs.
ReplyDeleteBut I think the one thing you overlook is that each of us has equal opportunity; some of us choose not to take advantage of that. To return to education as an example, we the people pay billions of dollars every year into public education. In return, our children graduate from high school with their needs unmet, with marginal skills, and completely unprepared for what awaits them on the other side of the stage. We haven’t even addressed the at risk kids who simply drop out. This is our collective failure, and I have not heard a single politician offer a meaningful solution to the problem. Indeed, I have not met a single politician willing to have a meaningful dialogue about these issues.
Nevertheless, our children did have an opportunity to learn. Thirty percent of them did learn, and they will go on to college, with only thirty percent of them actually graduating. For those lost in the shuffle, there is still “adult education” programs and community colleges – a safety net for those whose maturity time clock is running slow. But what lesson must we reinforce to all citizens is that while there are some “do-overs,” we are ultimately responsible for our own course through life. If we want the better job, then we need to prepare for it. If we lose our job because of economic conditions beyond our control, then we need to go back to school and learn a new skill. We may even agree at this point.
We may not agree with the following. It hurts me deeply to witness the human condition within most government subsidized housing areas. They are filthy, dangerous, and depressing. This is the product of government dependency. It is every bit as much slavery as existed in the “old south.” How dare we treat any citizen like this, or to consign any elderly black person to live in fear from the dangerous elements that surround him or her. But this is the product of a welfare system that took away an American’s greatest attributes: dignity and independence. If this is what progressives promise more of in the future, I will oppose it. There has to be a better way, and I honestly think it is not the federal government who must look to such issues; it is states and communities. To the federal government – which I condemn as wasteful and inefficient, also corrupt, we are but a number. To our neighbors, we have a name.
I apologize for going on so long . . . but I hope you understand the perspective. Our people deserve better. We must not ignore the needy under any circumstances, but among those who are able, we must cause them to stand on their own two feet. All of us should be disgusted with politicians who seek to capitalize on these unsavory circumstances, and yet do nothing about it. I cannot imagine, for example, how the CRA has helped anyone other than corrupt officials, but I know that at least 1 million people have suffered from it.
Thank you,
Glad to oblige. I would agree with much that you say, though not all. In general, the situation you describe reminds me of the projects in Chicago built some decades ago—I read somewhere that Mayor Daley couldn't understand why the poor folk didn't love him for building those towering projects; but some say it's best to describe that kind of gesture as "vertical segregation." It is a genuine failure of liberal capitalism and social engineering. Material help isn't enough. Again in terms of the Gospels, is not the spirit more than the body? A more "superfragisocialisticalical" way to put it, I suppose, is that poverty is in part a structural consequence—nay, a demand—of the economic and social order itself: so these programs only ameliorate, at best; they cannot end poverty. And as always, "the hapless soldier’s sigh runs in blood down palace walls" (Blake). Yeah, man, systems is evil, evil!
ReplyDeleteGiven what you say about consequentialty following from choice, you may incline somewhat towards the notion of a "deserving poor" and an "undeserving poor," no? If so, there I think we might not agree, or at least we might not agree on what is to be done about it. I've no doubt at all that some people make horrible choices and drag themselves down. In fact, I have seen this happen, and it is heart-wrenching. And sometimes people do injustice by their families and perfect strangers. Much of it stems from weakness, as when drug addicts "self-medicate" depression or inner conflicts of some sort. And then it's all downhill from there: that demon drug unleashes the violence of the violently inclined, and the milder it makes to steal. (If you've ever known a heroin addict, then you know what I'm talking about.) That some of such people fail to do the right things at multiple points along the way, I know, though some hardly had a chance in hell in the first place, given the circumstances into which they were born. Still, I would go very much against a punitive society, if that's the right way to describe it—not that that is your term at all.
The older I get, the more I think we must return to the deepest kind of ethics and base policy on it to the extent possible: "Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven" (Matthew 18:21-22). Or is that seven eleventy? My tiny dino mind boggleth at such numbers, but the point is the same: charitas. I always use the King James Bible. Now how could anybody disagree with the KJB? Such eloquence and moral wisdom!
"Now how could anybody disagree with the KJB? Such eloquence and moral wisdom!"
ReplyDeleteHoo boy - there's too much on the platter to gnaw on at this point. I could write volumes on that statement - and I ahve - but that's not for today.
I do want to point out some things that I think are hard to refute. Not all ignorant people are stupid, not all stupid people are ignorant, not all brilliant and informed people are rational or objective or well intentioned or honest -- and for the second time, our perceptions of these things are the most subjective of our observations and are not to be trusted in ourselves much less in some government agency.
I would cite the evidence of support for relatively uneducated and admittedly uninformed candidates by people who lament the right of "dummies" to vote. The last few Republican tickets haven't really been the intellectual creme de la creme, now have they? If only an educational elite were allowed, we wouldn't have had Republican control of government in many, many decades.
And of course there's the matter of the Constitution. It says nothing about different rights for different IQ's despite my objection to anyone not in at least the 4th standard deviation being allowed to.
Yes, I wish some people would not vote and would keep their mouths shut, but I will take up arms to defend their right to be the ignorant fools I know them to be! The matter of "literacy tests" has been settled by the courts anyway and we can't keep saying "ignorant" without discussing how ignorance is to be measured and who gets to do the measuring. Why even discuss an idea that is so illegal, so un-American, so impossible to implement?
Equal opportunity? Jeezis - this is why I dislike conservatives." No, we don't have it at all and here they are wishing they could limit it further!
Americans in general are not the most generous people on the planet. On the whole Muslims and Jews give far more freely to charity than Christians and as to giving to other countries, we're not even in the top two dozen nations in dollars per capita. We are at the vanguard of braggadocio however, boasting being the core of conservative conceptions of patriotism.
Fogg--well, you're gnawings are always welcome anytime you feel inclined to gnaw. I myself am not a bible-thumper but a bible-thumber--that is, I read it selectively as a species of moral eloquence. So my comment had a bit of a smiley-face wink to it, though not a glib one. But yes, this is a subject I'll just start a new thread on--the whole bizness of religion and progressivism, and today's intellectual trend towards dismissing religion with put-downs like, "you don't really believe in a talking snake, DO YOU?" But I kid Bill Maher, I kid him with affection....
ReplyDeleteResponse to Jennifer,
ReplyDeleteLet me clarify, this is not a single author blog but a group blog comprised of several contributors … perhaps a source of confusion within this comment thread. Let me introduce some of the contributors. One is Captain Fogg, a bona fide pirate. Two are cephalopods, Squid and (O)CT(O)PUS (that would be me), who reside below the waves. You have met Bloggingdino. If you are a Sarah Palin fan, please note that Dino is living proof of Sarah Palin’s Flintstone Theory that humanoids and dinosaurs coexisted at the same. In fact, Dino is a genuine Allosaurus, an endangerous species.
Lazy (O)CT(O)PUS has been remiss in posting our comment policy. For the record: No misogyny or sexism, no racism, no anti-Semitism (Jew or Moslem), no homophobia, no feet on the furniture, and no urinating on the bushes. Only Dino and Squid have exclusive rights on the use of profanity. Well, okay, you too, Maleeper, but not you, Fogg. “Engrish” is spoken here.
Your loyalty to Robert is duly noted, and please do not think harm will come to him in The Swash Zone. Despite our beachcombing ways, he is quite safe here. In fact, I am sure Robert is a mighty fine, decent, and upstanding fellow (at least as much as one can expect from a humanoid) who took this challenge with courage and good humor.
Jennifer, while we are devout in the ways of the waves, there is a light-hearted spirit here, which you seem to have missed:
CAPTAIN FOGG (Time Stamp - 12:00 PM, November 01, 2008): I don't like the way you think, but I will defend your right to be an idiot anyway. I have to, for my own protection.
(O)CT(O)PUS (Time Stamp - 2:19 PM, November 01, 2008): Blogging Dino has very strong feelings about universal voter participation, so we will NOT revoke your voting rights (unqualified as you are).
As you can see, Jennifer, Robert is actually quite safe here. We decided not to revoke his right to vote (however misguided). But Mustang is not safe. There is a school of holy mackerel progressive tax advocates heading his way. RUN!
Robert, the complaint about funding research in Paris doesn't say anything about whether you should be allowed to vote, but says a great deal about why you shouldn't be appointed to a grant committee. Science is an inherently global activity; scientists build on each others' research, validate or disprove each others' results, and divide projects in a way that would make Adam Smith proud. If scientists in Paris are receiving US taxpayer money for fruit-fly research, there is undoubtedly a US facility pursuing complementary research. Just because you cut off funding to Paris doesn't mean the American project will pick up the slack -- in fact, the American project gets hobbled.
ReplyDeleteWOW! You guys are actually having a **conversation** over here...
You're always welcome here, Matt. Yes, I think we're fixing to have sort of a Blakean "intellectual conversation" on these here shores.
ReplyDeleteAnd just to amplify what Octo said immediately above, why certainly, I appreciate conservative visitors' comments, even if I may snarl a bit, depending on whether I've had my breakfast (fresh kill over-easy, of course). I don't confuse conservatives with stegosaurs--against which latter species I have sworn (like Satan in Paradise Lost) to wage "by force or guile eternal War irreconcilable." No, an Allosaurus, unlike the terrifying T-Rex of Jurassic Park fame, never goes beyond inducing mild disquiet....
Before this thread goes completely dead, I thought it fitting and proper to thank Robert for his participation. (O)CT(O)PUS thinks it was very sporting and gentlemanly of Robert to do this, and he is deserving of our appreciation (teleprompter reads “Applause”).
ReplyDeleteSometimes “preaching to the choir” gets boring and these little get-togethers help liven up the conversation. What say you, fellow colleagues above and below the waves: Shall we do this again?
As noted previously in this forum, there have been noteworthy Republican defections during this campaign, namely:
Colin Powell, CC Goldwater (granddaughter of “Mr. Conservative” Barry Goldwater), Christopher Buckley (son of William F.), Ken Adelman (neo-con hawk who served under Ford, Reagan, and Bush), Nicholas Burns (former Under-Secretary of State in the Bush-Cheney administration), Scott McClellan, William Weld (former Republican governor of Massachusetts), Barbara Lorman (Wisconsin GOP official), Charles Fried (former General Counsel to the McCain-Palin campaign), to mention a few.
Have these folks betrayed their ideals or their Party? I think not. They would say their party betrayed them. They decided to reject the politics of cronyism, deceit, divisiveness, extremism, and incompetence by endorsing “That One.”
I should point out that Robert too has been critical of the current administration. Very commendable, but what is regrettable, in my view, is that he has allowed himself to be sucked into the jingoism of this campaign. It would NOT have been a betrayal of principles or Party to speak against character assassination or, even better yet, to join the ranks of those illustrious Republicans who have.
Nevertheless, as the old cliché goes, lets let bygones be bygones. This election cycle has been long, tiresome, and loathsome. Actually, I was thinking (yes, cephalopods ARE thought-capable) that we need folks like Robert and Jennifer and Matt and Mustang to start a healing dialogue.
Over time, our soon-to-be president-elect will prove that he is not an “anti-American, unpatriotic, terrorist-loving, tax-and-spend pinko-socialist” who will gobble up their tax money and eat their children. Right now, our country has a lot of problems, and our president-elect will need a lot of support … yes, even from Robert.
After the election, I will announce a surprise for Robert, but not yet. Shush! Just wait.
Octo, Yes, we surely wish the recent visitors all the best. And as for the endorsers of Obama from the GOP side, they are exactly the Republicans, in my view, who can help reinvigorate the party and bring it back to its core ideals. It is difficult to go against one's party. I would find it very hard to do.
ReplyDeleteTo Octo and the rest of your (flock?herd?school? - Not sure what the term is for the socialization structure of all aquatic life forms...lol):
ReplyDeletePreaching to the choir does indeed become boring at times. I enjoy conversations and debates, and have always spent as much time, if not more, at liberal leaning blogs than at conservative blogs. Jenn and Mustang are two of my favorites, for different reasons. Jenn writes from a personal, anecdotal viewpoint that is more real than any blog I have seen. Mustang provokes thought with detailed and time consuming posts. I am glad that they have dropped in and hope they will continue.
My blog, as stated in my focus at the very top, is to render my opinions, talk about what I might have on my mind from time to time, and occasionally an educational psot with research and everything. I speak for no one but myself. When I am wrong I note it, when I conceded a point I do it gracefully, and I prefer to discuss without too much profanity and ire.
I did not feel unwelcome here, and as long as the door is open I will continue to encroach on your realm. As I do so, let me point out a couple of things:
I do not think that Obama is un-America, anti-American, or the antichrist. I do think his agenda is socialist as his personal ideology. I think the liberal agenda is misguided, and is not the direction that our democracy needs. At the same time, while I personally admire the courage and character of John McCain, I have posited for years that the GOP has been offering poor quality in their candidates. The Ronald Reagan's opf the world are the exception, not the rule, yet we continue to tender our support to the "party faithful" like Bob Dole who might be individually admirable but politically a poor choice. Yes, I am a registered republican, but I am not in lockstep with the party. I am only associated with the GOP because it more closely resembles my beliefs than the deomcrat party. Notice I said "more closely" and not "mirror." Do my personal positions match the GOP occasionally? Yes. Do I determine my positions based on GOP platforms and rhetoric? No. I am conservative, believe in the power of the individual, and see government as a necessary evil.
I see that there is an emphasis on the hard sciences here! My education and experience is in the social science realm - My background is law enforcement and security. My undergrad was at a private school; my grad at a public one. I think we could have some good and interesting discussions.
Everyone is welcome at my home as well. It is a conservative leaning site and there is little doubt it will raise your cold blooded blood pressure.
And for the record: Regardless of the outcome of the election, I fully support the President of the United States. I do not wish any President to fail, nor do I wish him ill will or that any harm come to him (and one day her, I suppose). If Obama wins tomorrow I will be critical of policies and direction, but at no time will threaten to leave my country. If this country should take military actions under Obama, I will support them and wish for spedy conclusion to the conflict.
Of course, I will work to make sure he only gets four years....lol.
Oh, and thank you for not revoking my right to vote. While it matters little where I vote, as it is traditionally as red as it could be, I shall still exercise my right tomorrow.
There are some very interesting differences in play here - of course I'm going to vote for Obama and of course I see nothing more socialist about him than I saw in Bush, but if Obama decides to improve his family's fortunes or indulge a grudge or pursue a military fantasy, I will not automatically support the effort - or any other effort for that matter. Such opposition I consider to be a patriotic duty identical with the duty to protect our country.
ReplyDeleteI don't mean to sound pompous but I think the president owes loyalty to us rather more than we owe loyalty to him. Although you're not the mean-spirited Republican I often see, this is a fundamental difference in our ideas.
I don't see Government as evil at all, any more than I see the dynamics of a family as evil, necessary or otherwise. The talk about "the individual" assumes things that are a bit at odds with reality IMO. Individuals do not survive, families prosper and I would like to see a country that truly had more in the way of "family values," that dreams less of anarchic utopias, the ability of which to survive has never been demonstrated, and is willing to contribute to the public good.
Other than that. . .
Fogg, I think I will have to think out my posts a bit before I submit. I think I should have said "Although I may not necessarily agree with a President regarding the military expeditions on which we embark, I will not automatically criticize an action simply because he is a democrat."
ReplyDeleteI do not consider opposition to military action as unpatriotic. I do consider opposition simply because of party affilitation as undesireable and depending on the depth and degree of opposition, perhaps unpatriotic. I supported Clinton in Bosnia, et al. I supported him in Somalia, although I despise the outcome and the way it was managed. I think there is some common ground here, albeit from opposite ideological perspective.
I do not think it pompous to believe that the President owes us loyalty. I think that is a summation of all that is inherent to the office. While I do not think it translates into leading by poll numbers, and I do see that there are times when a President should act despite it being unfavorable, the President should be loyal to us and act as such.
I believe in the public good. I do not believe that government is the mechanism by which all things become good.
And I am far from mean-spirited. I will not list here the thigns I do that I consider charitable and where I give and/or serve. I think there are actions worthy of giving/service, and others that are not so much deserving. I don't think that differs from the far majority of other people.
And so we can embark on many a conversation....
I have a lot going on in my life right now so my time in the bloggerhood is pretty hit or miss. I have been avoiding most political postings,rants or raves simply because I don't have enough time to form well- thought out comments and, at this point, I believe in the adage:
ReplyDelete"For those who believe, no further proof is needed; for those who do not, no amount of proof will ever be enough."
Applying it to this thread, I see two sides of the aisle and each thinks their side has the answers and that the other side can't "see the forest for the trees."
You all have put up thoughtful comments and having hung out for a while in the blogisphere, I know most of the commentors to be sincere, knowledgable and honorable Americans.
(Robert - I listened to Palin's comments about the fruit fly research - she brought it up and she dissed it - she really didn't have a clue.)
I think this thread started over the right to vote and the feeling that some should stay home. You watch clips like the Tonight Show's jaywalking and you have to wonder how much dumber can Americans can get! Geez! But, dumb or not, we all do have a right to vote - even if we are voting for "that black guy" or the POW or that lady from SNL. I cringed the year the old broad in FL said, "I wanted to vote for Al Lieberman."
Should we somehow limit voting to those who put the time in to explore the issues and candidates? What will we use as a litmus test? Will we end up denying large groups of certain people thus tipping the scales?
Tomorrow those of us who have not participated in early voting will go to the polls. Let me just add that I have no objection to early voting. I think it relieves the congestion of election day as we are too numerous a nation for one day voting. It also gives those who must work and may not get out in time to vote. While some may vote on Sat just because it convenient, I work part time in a jail and the officers work 12 hour shifts which would make it very difficult for some of them to vote on one day. Like Robert, regardless of who wins this election, I'll support my government when I think it's right and when I object, I'll exercise my right to protest loud and long. If enough of us object, then laws can be changed.
Also, regardless of who wins, I hope that instead of seeing whooping and ha ha mentality on the quality blogs you all produce, that I will see instead each of us reaching across the aisle to work together to improve our country, because when this is over, we are all Americans first. Brothers and sisters of a great country we all love.
Perhaps we can start focusing on banding together to change some things. In my day we did know how government worked and we knew about research going on, etc - it was called a Civics class. Do they even have those in high school anymore? We need to make time to gather in our geographic areas and have discussions, face to face. I am reminded of a trip to Europe where the politcally minded gathered in the afternoon at a local cafe to sip coffee and argue politics and current events.
We, the people, are the only ones who can generate the kind of change we all want to see.
Ghandi once said,"You must be the change you want to see in the world."
It is not enough to rail against apathy - we must be the ones who find ways to create enthusiasm out of apathy. We must BE THE CHANGE!
I look forward to joining you all in debates, dramas and comedic breaks after this election is over. You all give me hope that there are still people who care what happens to this country and are willing to continue to fight for her. Thank you for your time and your blogs - all of you.
Peace & Love,
Rocky
Many thanks, Rockync. Thumbs up no matter who you are thumbing for. Please come back and feel at home here.
ReplyDeleteOcto, if you are familiar with Rocky, then forgive my interuption. She has been a long time reader at my place, and I know of no one else in the blogosphere who is more level headed and reasonable. Her comments are always reasonable and she is a real pleasure to have around.
ReplyDeleteBeen awhile, Rocky. Hope all is well.
"Jennifer, while we are devout in the ways of the waves, there is a light-hearted spirit here, which you seem to have missed:"
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I missed it entirely. I was so bent on coming here to defend Robert and give him a hand in hand in proving a point that I missed the lightheartedness and got defensive. For that I sincerely apologize. Like you, (all) I enjoy the banter between people with different viewpoints. It makes it interesting and sometimes we come out with new opinions if not a different perspective.
___________________________________
"Oh, and thank you for not revoking my right to vote. While it matters little where I vote, as it is traditionally as red as it could be, I shall still exercise my right tomorrow."
Same situation with me, here in New Jersey. I have no doubts that it will be an Obama landslide, but I'll still go and vote and excercise my right as a citizen. You never know! :-p
___________________________________
"I would cite the evidence of support for relatively uneducated and admittedly uninformed candidates by people who lament the right of "dummies" to vote. "
I think most of you understand where I am coming from, although I believe that I have used the wrong wording. When I say un-educated, I don't care if you only got through 8th grade or you happpen to be a brain surgeon. I should have used the word uninformed. Never, will I question a person's right to vote, for that is one of America's precious liberties. But while everyone has the right, I do think it harmful if you don't know what you are voting for. I think my biggest grief is when someone (either democrat or republican) doesn't take the time to even look at a canidate.
Whether someone understands canidates certain policies, is definintely not an issue for me, because half of the time, I have to do far more research than I like to, just to figure out what they are talking about. It's the lazy that I take real issue with, but even with that, they certainly have the right to vote (although I question if they should) even when they vote for someone because of stupid reasons. ( I do cringe while saying that though)!
___________________________________
"This election cycle has been long, tiresome, and loathsome".
Yes it most certainly has, and no matter who wins, we have a country and a president that needs our support, however much we may dislike him. There were a lot of things that I didn't like about Bush, (I think we can agree with that) but I just hope that who ever becomes president tomorrow does not get thrown under the bus like Bush did. It is okay to disagree or even not like the president but to show the absolute disrespect like we did to Bush simply undermines his respect from the world and that is dangerous to our enemies. "United we stand or divided we fail."
___________________________________
Thank you for the welcome even though I was quite rude and didn't deserve it. I will be back and hopefully now that I am not acting like a complete schmuck, we can have some intelligent and lively debates.
If any good came from my rants, at least you know I'm loyal to my friends! :-)
Welcome back, Jennifer. And a thumbs up to you too no matter who you vote for.
ReplyDelete(8pus will return later, got lots of comments in mind. See y'all later)
Thank you Robert and 8pus for the nice comments. And thank you for the concern Robert. I am fine but am helping to care for a terminally ill, sometimes difficult relative and with my two other jobs, well, time is at a premium to say the least. But I do hope to get around a little more real soon.
ReplyDeleteRobert: Not sure what the term is for the socialization structure of all aquatic life forms...lol):
ReplyDeleteActually two forms of aquatic life, one Allosaurus, a pirate, and some flightless birds missing a right wing. We manage it all with a lot of mixed metaphors.
Robert: I did not feel unwelcome here, and as long as the door is open I will continue to encroach on your realm.
Please do feel welcome. Just one little favor to ask: Once or twice a month, we enlist the neighborhood to clean the beach of flotsam and litter. Would you mind pitching in?
Robert: Octo, if you are familiar with Rocky, then forgive my interruption. She has been a long time reader at my place, and I know of no one else in the blogosphere who is more level headed and reasonable.
Actually I do know Rocky, and she knows me although she doesn’t know it yet. All will be revealed in time.
Jennifer: I do think it harmful if you don't know what you are voting for. I think my biggest grief is when someone (either democrat or republican) doesn't take the time to even look at a candidate.
Agreed. As a newcomer to this reef, I did a little digging myself to find out who were my friends and anemones before I voted.
Since this thread got started a few days ago, I have been trying to sort out in my cephalopod mind how we got into this pickle of partisan rancor and incivility. There are lingering resentments from the Vietnam era still smoldering below the surface. Fogg and I remember that era. The 1960s … I was a child of the times. The struggle for civil rights and social justice informed my conscience.
More to the point, perhaps, is what happened in 2001. I refer to 9/11. It was a national crisis unlike any in our history. There was a new president, and the entire country, Democrats and Republicans alike, liberals and conservatives alike, rallied behind the leader. There were polls giving President Bush approval ratings of 90% and more. What happened?
This: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to … offer therapy and understanding for our attackers” (Karl Rove).
For Democrats and liberals who supported the President during a time of crisis, this was an utter and complete slap in the face. It was undeserved, abusive, and abominable beyond reason. Rove’s statement was the Archimedes point that started divisiveness and polarization of the country.
After an election ends, it is customary for the loser to congratulate the winner and call for national unity. There is an assumption that a new President will close ranks and reach out, not just to his own constituency, but to all people. George W. Bush made no such attempt.
Various writers (Woodward especially) have point out that the political campaign of year 2000 never ended but continued unabated through the entire Bush presidency ... hence the constant character assassination, smear and jeer rhetoric, petulance, and contemptuousness. No president before George W. Bush treated the loyal opposition with such a callous disregard.
That is why we, on the left, are highly reactive to hot button words like “unpatriotic,” “un-American,” and “terrorist-sympathizer.” We supported the President wholeheartedly after 9/11 … then got burned.
I highlight these examples, not to aggravate our conservative friends, but to point out how one rogue president divided us.
Our conservative friends also got burned: You wanted fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Caveat emptor. Instead, you saw our country go from budget surpluses to massive deficits … over a half trillion dollars annually; national debt - more than doubled; wages - stagnant; families - severely distressed, retirement accounts - tanked … no, my conservative friends, you deserve better than this too.
I would never offer “therapy and understanding” to a terrorist but I do feel it is important to reach out to fellow citizens. Some of you, no doubt, will be disappointed with the election, but trust me on this: I have confidence in the outcome. The soon-to-be president-elect is capable, thoughtful, and sincere. While you may not agree with his positions, he will not abuse you like the current one.
Your humble 8pus needs rest and camouflage. Peace and plentiful crustaceans to you all.
As this is getting further down the page I will make this my last post on this thread. First, I am more than happy to pitch in and keep the place clean. I am a conservationist of the old school - from my cub/boy scout days and then as a matter of OCD about leaving things the way I found them. In scouts, we have a particular philosophy, and there is actually a training class for leaders called "Leave No Trace". Whether invited or not, I always leave the beach with a handful of stuff that I didn't bring with me.
ReplyDeleteWe can dissect the Bush Presidency ad nauseum and probably will for the next four or eight years. As you noted, I have been critical of the Administration on certain things,and even more critical of the GOP controlled Congress for 12 years. I can't agree that Rove made the first punch in eradicating the support and unity of the nation. I think it a little darker intenet on the part of opposition segments...But I have been disappointed in President Bush as a conservative. I knew that he didn't look to Reagan for his philosophy, but I thought he would be more in tune with real conservatism than he has been.
Our economic systems are somewhat mixed, and I don't think any conservative truly believes that Obama wants a communist/socialist system in place of capitalism. We use the term socialist/ism to discuss the attempts to redistribute wealth and the absolutely negligent fiscal policies of our governemnt - and lately that includes republicans/conservatives. I abhored the bailout a few weeks ago. I abhore the increase on programs that don't work. Let me mention the bane of politics - the welfare state. I don't suggest eliminating any and all help for those in need. I have no issues with helping those who are truly trapped in moving forward. But c'mon, we should all be able to agree that the "war on poverty" has been a complete failure and has cost us trillions of dollars. We need to reconstruct our system and find something that is actually efficient.
Originally, I didn't think I would enjoy the discussions here but have found them to be though provoking and will probably raise the quality of my discussions and research. For all of you, there is a link to my email on the left column of my page. Feel free to use it if you wish, and I think we can forge a "debate society" while we banter about President Obama and the dem controlled Congress for the next four years.
Robert: "Leave No Trace"
ReplyDeleteAs we say in the Zone: "Leave only footprints" or in my case "mudsquiggle marks" in the sand.