"Aorta (fiery version)" - digital painting, copyright K. Aurencz Zethmayr
Friday, November 14, 2008
And here's the payoff....
November 4th, 2008
Election '08 final results
11/4/08 10:16 pm CST
YES!!!!!!! FINALLY!!!!!
Tags: election 2008, obama, victory
:
:
:
:
:
Just sharing my Election Night reactions about....(recent comment)
11/5/08 04:51 am
[In response to L--- :]
Yes, god yes.....I was watching the Indecision 2008 coverage w/ Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, and when they suddenly flashed to a full-screen "President-Elect" photo of Obama I thought for a second that they might be joking despite the already-established lead, just jumping the gun as a tweak to Stephen's wounded-conservative act -- and then clicked back to the broadcast stations and saw that Obama had clinched it, absolutely clinched it in real life, and that all this was really happening here and now.
Yeah, I teared up too....after all this sh** and stealing and obstructionism and outright lies, finally the best man won -- and with a clear Congressional majority, moreover, so that there's no one left to blame for blocking the legislation that will take us forward as a nation -- or to use as an excuse for not daring to put it wholeheartedly forward (Barney Frank, I'm lookin' at you...).
Some of my flisters online voted for third-party candidates (there's only one that I know voted for McCain), and to them with all their doubts of the major parties I can just say this, but firmly and certainly: this is the end of the federal two-party duopoly, because there's no longer going to be the oppressive GOP ruling party and the compromised Dem opposition party forced into bed together. Having a Democratic federal majority opens up the field to demand more of governmental representation, and to let more players and parties have their say. The main needful thing, as I've been saying all along, was to first break the back of the arrogant incumbency and get some rational feet in the door. This victory may have come under the Democratic Party's banner, but it is above all a victory of the people, by the people and for the people, formed of a communicative coalition rather than a mouthpiece-monolith.
So even for those who didn't vote for Obama 'cause he wasn't progressive enough -- this is what we have been needing to change the tide of our times.
Much-belated reply.....(in response to a comment on this post)
11/14/08 01:45 am (local)
I'm not saying that the nominal duopoly is going to go away, but that the party system is going to be much shaken and ripped loose of the traditional assumptions. Republicans are going to have to find a way to make themselves popularly relevant (and honest) enough to gain national power again, now that their major demagogic tactics are being been exposed and broadcasted so widely -- and Democrats are going to have to define themselves proactively instead of reactively, seeing as they now bear the unstrangleheld responsibility of being the party in power. There is going to have to be a lot more "reaching across the aisle" by Republicans if they want to have their concerns taken seriously, instead of just being able to block-by-monolithic-bloc the legislation that they don't agree with, and that means that previously-assumed agendas are going to face a greater challenge of communication and consensus-building.
I think that this will lead to a lot more identification around issues rather than on the basis of parties per se, and that this identification around articulate issues will definitely open the door to more third- (and fourth-, and fifth-...) party political involvement at the higher levels of government. I think it's clear, watching the political re-landscaping of Obama's campaign, that the dominant theme of his administration is not going to be party loyalty (and stirring up resentment against the opposition) but actual meritocracy and intelligent qualification for one's position and/or authority. And that does mean a fairer playing-field being made for all politicians who have heretofore been shut out of the federal tier of activity due to the bipartisan feud.
_
Election '08: The final countdown
November 4, 2008
AAAAAAGH!!!! VOTE FOR YOUR LIFE!!!!
11/4/08 02:39 am
Okay, this is rather funny......my current status message on Facebook, as of last night, is as follows:
Kagen is hoping that civilization will prevail over lies and humanity move forward tomorrow -- voting for Obama as if my future depended on it. (10 hours ago)
I had no idea whatsoever until I heard it on the The Daily Show that Obama had, in his 'closing argument' speech just the other day, used the climactic clause "work like our future depends on it."
I know that it does...I wish I'd been able to get more done, more said in terms of getting out the word of what I see and know to be true about this campaign and this moment in time. I don't see how people can actually still be undecided at this point, and if they are...well, let's just hope they can't make up their minds to get to the polls. And I can only pity those who are so vision-impaired by the wool (or milfy hockey-mom, or religious dogma) over their eyes that they can't see what this country really needs and deserves after eight years of the Bush regime, financial elitism and regressive culture-warfare.
Yes, I am an idealist, and I think that this nation is heavily populated this election year with idealists like me, who are aware of our domestic and global society's problems and have long been waiting for a chance to be actively part of the solution -- in a way that doesn't just involve shopping and maintaining consumer confidence, mind you.
This is the most participatory I have seen American democracy in my lifetime, and I'm damn glad of it. Creating a better world and a better future together? -- yes, emphatically yes. I want the grassroots to rise and topple the trickle-downs and fact-twisting gladhanders and smiling, smiling villains who have no regard for truth or decency. Not to mention to quell and humble the torch-and-pitchfork-wielding crowds of the late-stage McCain-Palin campaign rallies, an accumulation of real live vitriol and hatred that outstrips anything ever rhetorically thundered from the pulpit by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The difference in energy between rallies (not to mention the national conventions) has been immense -- and the dominant vibe of the Republican events, like it or not, has been hate and meanspiritedness, and the communal hope not of achieving some positive dream but of crushing down the dreams and aspirations of others in order to defend the status quo as permanently as possible. I have been feeling this all along and it makes me more certain than ever that this is a pivotal moment for the United States, in which we must decide what sort of a nation we want to be: one of social principles or one of self-defensive materialism -- one of humanism and cooperation or one of militaristic paranoia -- one of truth and responsibility or one of sanctioned deception and the ends used and warped to justify the basest means (let alone all the ends that a "President Palin" would seek under sanctimonious cover...). This is our chance to regain the high road and salvage our honour among nations, and to be again (and possibly as never before) "government of the people, by the people and for the people."
And so no, I'm not putting this under a cut despite its length and politicality*, because I want people to take this election seriously and not just as another day, same-old, whatever, business as usual, see-ya-when-it's-all-over. I know this is a crucial point in history, and I'm not going to downplay its significance and potential consequences. Hell, they've got Christian-cultural-conservative "prayer warriors" fixing their invocations on defeat for Obama / victory for Palin-And-McCain-Too -- so why not pull out all the stops on our wills and put them where our hopes are?
Or, to coin a phrase, put your mana where your mouth is, my fellow Americans -- and be sure that you've exercised your civic power and voted by this day's end. Even if you don't get a free coffee or ice cream scoop out of it.
[*Whether out of their own personal burnout or to de-stress from known political differences, several people on my LiveJournal flist had started/circulated a 'no politics' picture meme just a day or so before E-Day.....I, however, was not in a mood to avoid the issues and keep my opinions unvoiced.]
_
AAAAAAGH!!!! VOTE FOR YOUR LIFE!!!!
11/4/08 02:39 am
Okay, this is rather funny......my current status message on Facebook, as of last night, is as follows:
Kagen is hoping that civilization will prevail over lies and humanity move forward tomorrow -- voting for Obama as if my future depended on it. (10 hours ago)
I had no idea whatsoever until I heard it on the The Daily Show that Obama had, in his 'closing argument' speech just the other day, used the climactic clause "work like our future depends on it."
I know that it does...I wish I'd been able to get more done, more said in terms of getting out the word of what I see and know to be true about this campaign and this moment in time. I don't see how people can actually still be undecided at this point, and if they are...well, let's just hope they can't make up their minds to get to the polls. And I can only pity those who are so vision-impaired by the wool (or milfy hockey-mom, or religious dogma) over their eyes that they can't see what this country really needs and deserves after eight years of the Bush regime, financial elitism and regressive culture-warfare.
Yes, I am an idealist, and I think that this nation is heavily populated this election year with idealists like me, who are aware of our domestic and global society's problems and have long been waiting for a chance to be actively part of the solution -- in a way that doesn't just involve shopping and maintaining consumer confidence, mind you.
This is the most participatory I have seen American democracy in my lifetime, and I'm damn glad of it. Creating a better world and a better future together? -- yes, emphatically yes. I want the grassroots to rise and topple the trickle-downs and fact-twisting gladhanders and smiling, smiling villains who have no regard for truth or decency. Not to mention to quell and humble the torch-and-pitchfork-wielding crowds of the late-stage McCain-Palin campaign rallies, an accumulation of real live vitriol and hatred that outstrips anything ever rhetorically thundered from the pulpit by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The difference in energy between rallies (not to mention the national conventions) has been immense -- and the dominant vibe of the Republican events, like it or not, has been hate and meanspiritedness, and the communal hope not of achieving some positive dream but of crushing down the dreams and aspirations of others in order to defend the status quo as permanently as possible. I have been feeling this all along and it makes me more certain than ever that this is a pivotal moment for the United States, in which we must decide what sort of a nation we want to be: one of social principles or one of self-defensive materialism -- one of humanism and cooperation or one of militaristic paranoia -- one of truth and responsibility or one of sanctioned deception and the ends used and warped to justify the basest means (let alone all the ends that a "President Palin" would seek under sanctimonious cover...). This is our chance to regain the high road and salvage our honour among nations, and to be again (and possibly as never before) "government of the people, by the people and for the people."
And so no, I'm not putting this under a cut despite its length and politicality*, because I want people to take this election seriously and not just as another day, same-old, whatever, business as usual, see-ya-when-it's-all-over. I know this is a crucial point in history, and I'm not going to downplay its significance and potential consequences. Hell, they've got Christian-cultural-conservative "prayer warriors" fixing their invocations on defeat for Obama / victory for Palin-And-McCain-Too -- so why not pull out all the stops on our wills and put them where our hopes are?
Or, to coin a phrase, put your mana where your mouth is, my fellow Americans -- and be sure that you've exercised your civic power and voted by this day's end. Even if you don't get a free coffee or ice cream scoop out of it.
[*Whether out of their own personal burnout or to de-stress from known political differences, several people on my LiveJournal flist had started/circulated a 'no politics' picture meme just a day or so before E-Day.....I, however, was not in a mood to avoid the issues and keep my opinions unvoiced.]
_
Pre-election cameos, satire and greatness
Obama being on The Daily Show and McCain being on SNL are completely different things...
11/2/08 03:25 am
[Expansion of Facebook status and comment]
11/2/08 03:25 am
[Expansion of Facebook status and comment]
To be precise, it's the difference between "laughing with" and "laughing at"....McCain may have been being a good sport in his own opinion, but the humour of his opening "infomercial" and Weekend Update piece was of the "it's funny because it's true" variety -- which made it both funny and disturbing at the same time, because of the known lack of distance between parody and demonstrated reality.
Having the man himself (i.e., not an impersonator) come on TV to exaggerate himself only reminds how little room there is to exaggerate -- which certainly produces a negative impression for his campaign. McCain hasn't the operative wit to bely or knowingly tweak his alotted lines, much less the underlying reality to make it clear that they are comedic material. As per my going theory that serious conservatives are incapable of performing or grasping satire (and in general, the more extremist people are in their beliefs, the worse their wit)...
And, need I say it, Obama does have a grasp of this, and can be humorous without making himself ridiculous. Big difference there -- perhaps even bigger than McCain's lack of online-literacy. Fundamentally, it's a pretty big deficit if a presidential candidate (or a president) doesn't have the instincts to detect and understand, much less proactively create, the political satire that is bound to surround him in intelligent citizens' minds (such as the Current Resident when he was having his ass handed to him on a polished platter by Stephen Colbert...) .
McCain complains about how he's portrayed by the media -- he apparently doesn't see that there's grains of truth in it that are both significant and sticking to him. To quote the old dishwashing liquid commercial..."You're soaking in it." How is he going to prove that he isn't what people think he is, when his actions reiterate it over and over again? How do you refute satire or serious accusation, when both of them are dependent for their ultimate success on there being something in it that's true? It's not just a matter of "balanced coverage" or "equal time" in the journalistic media -- if the facts and the reality of things are speaking loud and clearly enough, are we supposed to blame reality for not "being fair" to the disadvantaged party? How very PC, to cry foul on account of being "popularity-challenged" in the midst of the culture war that one is vehemently waging.
Seriously...the McCain-Palin campaign has mounted an unprecedented degree of defensiveness and hostility against the acknowledgement of reality, doing everything possible to demonize the opposition and distract voters away from all the facts and valid comparisons/contracts involved in this campaign. Such as badmouthing "community organizer" as a fluff job without responsibility, or equivocating between Reverend Wright's fiery sermonizing (as if Obama himself endorsed or still tolerated it) and Sarah Palin's accustomed religious culture of exorcizing and xenophobic prayer warfare (which she does both tolerate and endorse, despite the campaign's attempts to downplay its persistence in her life and politics). Or the ongoing conflation of reinstated social responsibility with "socialism" -- they really mean Communism, of course, but using that word directly both plays into Godwin's Law and invokes both the spectre of McCarthyism and its logical refutation. The war of words over "selfishness," with a campaign that claims "Country First" as its slogan actually pulling at the strings of the basest material self-centeredness. The hypocrisy of "marriage protection" rhetoric coming from supporters of a man who betrayed and divorced his wife for a blonde trophy-heiress, while the most solid demonstration of "family values" in action is coming from the candidate who (anathema to fundies and dogmatic Catholics alike) believes in the preservation of Roe v. Wade against strategic underminings and effectively-negating restrictions.
[more serious]
There is a grassroots culture war going on, though -- between those who want to cling to what's materially theirs and impose laws to preserve what they're personally comfortable with, and those who desire the chance to work together and create a better future together despite their personal differences. In my opinion, the most potent thing that Obama is offering the American people is the opportunity to be co-creators of a better and sustainable 'American Dream', one that is not imposed from above or trickled down from the fickle tables of the rich, but involves a revival of cooperation and community activism, delivering power back into the hands of the people -- and reminding them that it was theirs to begin with all along. After the shock of 9/11 and the ramming-through of an autocratic federal regime, I believe that people -- thinking people -- are tired of having the government thinking for them, operating top-down and in opacity.
Bringing to mind the famous "Ask not what your country can do for you...ask what you can do for your country," it seems that despite all the accusations of forcibly redistributing wealth, what Obama is actually aiming for is the enablement and inspiration of all citizens to work together for the common good regardless of wealth or class, while McCain hides behind his Kennedyesque slogan with a core message to cling on even more bitterly to whatever bolsters one's ego and assuages the emptiness of an undeveloped self. "Selfish" is different from selfhood -- it's the attempt to surround and protect and envalue oneself by external means when one lacks internal character. People who have selfhood do not need to be selfish in order to cushion their world or make much of themselves, because they know that what is inside of them is enough and needs no inflation/insulation. If Ayn Rand hadn't been such a kneejerk anti-Communist and deified "selfishness" as a virtue by that name, we might be having a far more intelligent national conversation about the nature of individual character and self-reliance that was the valuable part of her philosophy. But as it is, selfishness has come to be extolled and excused beyond all rational need, and unchided supercapitalism has made luxuries, appearances, entertainment technology and brand-name status items more respected and deemed popularly necessary than decent food and water and lodging -- which in any truly civilized society would be considered the baseline that all citizens deserve. So I am no fan of this selfishness that laces the current sociopolitical discourse: the "I me mine" has achieved grotesque stature over "Live simply that others may simply live." The etymological meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" have long borne witness to this split between those who want to preserve their own values and socioeconomic privilege (even if they actually lack the sort of privilege that is being preserved...) and those who want to give everyone a fairer chance to make their way in life -- with relative degrees on both sides of wanting to control the social values and the freedom of choice involved in others' actions. And at this time, in this place, the pendulum has swung too far to the side of untrammeled greed and acquisitiveness, combined with a lowerclass-blaming double standard -- the worst aspects of conservatism -- and it is in dire need of a counterswing, into an administration and a society that does not put the Economy ahead of the populace, and where "Country First" is not allowed to be a flagwaving euphemism for "people last."
[/more serious]
Anyhow....with all those IQ quiz ads floating around with references to the candidates' statistical intelligence, I think it makes sense to consider the other forms of intelligence that come into play (or fall short) when one's under the pressure of the campaign trail and the potential weight of executive authority. So let me close with this favourite passage of mine from Dune:
"Greatness is a transitory experience. It is never consistent. It
depends in part upon the myth-making imagination of humankind. The
person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is
in. He must reflect what is projected upon him. And he must have a
strong sense of the sardonic. This is what uncouples him from belief in
his own pretensions. The sardonic is all that permits him to move
within himself. Without this quality, even occasional greatness will
destroy a man."
--from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan
And then there's this.....
"Contrary to the rumors you have heard, I was not born in a manger. I was actually born on Krypton and sent here by my father, Jor-El, to save the planet Earth." [2]
Yep......he's got it.
_
Having the man himself (i.e., not an impersonator) come on TV to exaggerate himself only reminds how little room there is to exaggerate -- which certainly produces a negative impression for his campaign. McCain hasn't the operative wit to bely or knowingly tweak his alotted lines, much less the underlying reality to make it clear that they are comedic material. As per my going theory that serious conservatives are incapable of performing or grasping satire (and in general, the more extremist people are in their beliefs, the worse their wit)...
McCain complains about how he's portrayed by the media -- he apparently doesn't see that there's grains of truth in it that are both significant and sticking to him. To quote the old dishwashing liquid commercial..."You're soaking in it." How is he going to prove that he isn't what people think he is, when his actions reiterate it over and over again? How do you refute satire or serious accusation, when both of them are dependent for their ultimate success on there being something in it that's true? It's not just a matter of "balanced coverage" or "equal time" in the journalistic media -- if the facts and the reality of things are speaking loud and clearly enough, are we supposed to blame reality for not "being fair" to the disadvantaged party? How very PC, to cry foul on account of being "popularity-challenged" in the midst of the culture war that one is vehemently waging.
Seriously...the McCain-Palin campaign has mounted an unprecedented degree of defensiveness and hostility against the acknowledgement of reality, doing everything possible to demonize the opposition and distract voters away from all the facts and valid comparisons/contracts involved in this campaign. Such as badmouthing "community organizer" as a fluff job without responsibility, or equivocating between Reverend Wright's fiery sermonizing (as if Obama himself endorsed or still tolerated it) and Sarah Palin's accustomed religious culture of exorcizing and xenophobic prayer warfare (which she does both tolerate and endorse, despite the campaign's attempts to downplay its persistence in her life and politics). Or the ongoing conflation of reinstated social responsibility with "socialism" -- they really mean Communism, of course, but using that word directly both plays into Godwin's Law and invokes both the spectre of McCarthyism and its logical refutation. The war of words over "selfishness," with a campaign that claims "Country First" as its slogan actually pulling at the strings of the basest material self-centeredness. The hypocrisy of "marriage protection" rhetoric coming from supporters of a man who betrayed and divorced his wife for a blonde trophy-heiress, while the most solid demonstration of "family values" in action is coming from the candidate who (anathema to fundies and dogmatic Catholics alike) believes in the preservation of Roe v. Wade against strategic underminings and effectively-negating restrictions.
[more serious]
There is a grassroots culture war going on, though -- between those who want to cling to what's materially theirs and impose laws to preserve what they're personally comfortable with, and those who desire the chance to work together and create a better future together despite their personal differences. In my opinion, the most potent thing that Obama is offering the American people is the opportunity to be co-creators of a better and sustainable 'American Dream', one that is not imposed from above or trickled down from the fickle tables of the rich, but involves a revival of cooperation and community activism, delivering power back into the hands of the people -- and reminding them that it was theirs to begin with all along. After the shock of 9/11 and the ramming-through of an autocratic federal regime, I believe that people -- thinking people -- are tired of having the government thinking for them, operating top-down and in opacity.
Bringing to mind the famous "Ask not what your country can do for you...ask what you can do for your country," it seems that despite all the accusations of forcibly redistributing wealth, what Obama is actually aiming for is the enablement and inspiration of all citizens to work together for the common good regardless of wealth or class, while McCain hides behind his Kennedyesque slogan with a core message to cling on even more bitterly to whatever bolsters one's ego and assuages the emptiness of an undeveloped self. "Selfish" is different from selfhood -- it's the attempt to surround and protect and envalue oneself by external means when one lacks internal character. People who have selfhood do not need to be selfish in order to cushion their world or make much of themselves, because they know that what is inside of them is enough and needs no inflation/insulation. If Ayn Rand hadn't been such a kneejerk anti-Communist and deified "selfishness" as a virtue by that name, we might be having a far more intelligent national conversation about the nature of individual character and self-reliance that was the valuable part of her philosophy. But as it is, selfishness has come to be extolled and excused beyond all rational need, and unchided supercapitalism has made luxuries, appearances, entertainment technology and brand-name status items more respected and deemed popularly necessary than decent food and water and lodging -- which in any truly civilized society would be considered the baseline that all citizens deserve. So I am no fan of this selfishness that laces the current sociopolitical discourse: the "I me mine" has achieved grotesque stature over "Live simply that others may simply live." The etymological meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" have long borne witness to this split between those who want to preserve their own values and socioeconomic privilege (even if they actually lack the sort of privilege that is being preserved...) and those who want to give everyone a fairer chance to make their way in life -- with relative degrees on both sides of wanting to control the social values and the freedom of choice involved in others' actions. And at this time, in this place, the pendulum has swung too far to the side of untrammeled greed and acquisitiveness, combined with a lowerclass-blaming double standard -- the worst aspects of conservatism -- and it is in dire need of a counterswing, into an administration and a society that does not put the Economy ahead of the populace, and where "Country First" is not allowed to be a flagwaving euphemism for "people last."
[/more serious]
Anyhow....with all those IQ quiz ads floating around with references to the candidates' statistical intelligence, I think it makes sense to consider the other forms of intelligence that come into play (or fall short) when one's under the pressure of the campaign trail and the potential weight of executive authority. So let me close with this favourite passage of mine from Dune:
"Greatness is a transitory experience. It is never consistent. It
depends in part upon the myth-making imagination of humankind. The
person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is
in. He must reflect what is projected upon him. And he must have a
strong sense of the sardonic. This is what uncouples him from belief in
his own pretensions. The sardonic is all that permits him to move
within himself. Without this quality, even occasional greatness will
destroy a man."
--from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan
And then there's this.....
"Contrary to the rumors you have heard, I was not born in a manger. I was actually born on Krypton and sent here by my father, Jor-El, to save the planet Earth." [2]
Yep......he's got it.
_
Political Animal Husbandry
[reprise from LiveJournal post of April 29, 2008 (has previous comments)]
Okay, I'm pissed. Every election season where there's anything major at stake, it seems that the lion's share of electoral power is given to those who frankly barely deserve it. And I'm not even talking about the "superdelegates."
No, it's that lumpen and easily-led-by-the-nose mass known as the "average American," the "regular Joe," etc. -- the "God-fearing," "churchgoing" resident of the "Heartland" -- who is usually also described/labeled/led by the terms 'swing voter,' 'conservative' or 'moderate' -- which in my observation of politics thus far seems to mean just "moderately prejudiced and intent on preserving the status quo for their imagined benefit/self-protection."
Yeah, I'm a bit of an elitist, one could (and probably will) say -- I believe that people who lack political literacy, cultural literacy, literal literacy and/or accurate (not merely party-spoonfed) issues exposure/knowledge have no business being part of deciding this nation's direction. I do not believe that the uneducated populace can be trusted with the privilege of voting, and this has nothing to do with technical grades and levels of education but with the desire -- or lack thereof -- to eliminate ignorance from one's mind and life. Those who do not try to educate themselves on the issues at hand, and who do not seek out to the best of their ability what there is to be known about candidates and their actual stances and the longterm effects thereof if implemented, are nothing more in my estimation than pawns of party loyalty or cultural/familial tradition.
I do not like the current two-party political system and the antagonistic dualism that it breeds -- but it must be said that of the two parties I detest far more that one which commands the most fervent nominal loyalty, the "my party right or wrong" attitude that barely if ever considers a thought or practical observation that was not bred within its chosen intellectual hothouse of self-validating systems. At the moment I am quite in accord with John Stuart Mill's statement on the subject -- that is, that although it cannot be proven that all conservatives are stupid, it can be easily observed that "most stupid people are conservative." The reason why (this is me talking now) is that they are led by their most base and basic fears -- their concerns for apparent personal financial gain (rather than the less-visible fabric of the general welfare), for security, and for social conformity of 'creeding and breeding' and all that surrounds it. These are lower-level needs, as per Maslow et al, and if it is true (as some delight in airing about) that a conservative is a liberal who's gotten mugged, then is that not a blatant regression into fear and not an advancement in actual awareness? Post-traumatic paranoia, that's all it is -- hardly something to chortle smugly about.
As for moderates...well, as I said -- "moderately prejudiced." Moderately afraid of the unknown and unwilling to deal with its existence as real and equally-valid life; moderately clutching onto their privileges of class, race, dominant culture and/or universally-assumed religious faith; moderately suspicious of those not like themselves, and moderately without the cultural education or overview to see people as conscious individuals rather than as threatening cloned units of the designated Other.
(Which still doesn't entirely account for the existence of Log Cabin Republicans, but that's far more about class+wealth than it is about actual sexuality...)
Does nobody see that the oft-cited "beer test" of potential Presidential popularity is all about reassuring the least-educated social stratum of voters of one's normalcy (itself a statistical illusion) and implied non-superiority -- pandering to their fears and worries, condescending to their folkways, with no relevance whatsoever to the actual tasks of clear-sighted national and international leadership? I don't trust a candidate who's too comfortable with the touted "red-blooded American" in bar, bowling alley or shooting range, and who deprecates too much the professional and intellectual types upon whose intelligence and advice hris prospective presidency will actually rely -- let alone hris own intelligence. It's in the same league as baby-kissing, except that babies can't vote (and don't own guns or drink beer...). Personally, I'd rather see a politician act natural for hrimself, for good or ill, than put on a gladhanding show in the sticks -- and were the right to vote dependent upon one's being a member of the informed citizenry (rather than the indoctrinated, unexposed or otherwise "unwashed" masses), then there'd be far less of a created need for this sort of appealing to the lowest common denominator. An American President, by the known details of hris job and its scope, is not primarily a bowling nor drinking buddy to the American Everyman (Everyperson?)...so why should hse be compelled to pretend that that's where hris heart and ambition truly lies?
Of course......were the Electoral College abolished, there would probably be less of a created need to go kissing ass in Middle America, seeing as the impact of high-population (and more culturally diverse) areas is muffled and that of sparsely-settled (and more culturally isolated/insulated) ones inflated to satisfy the old paranoia (again) of maintaining individual states' rights. The whole circus of voting goes on as it does because of old compromises that simultaneously elevate and disempower the average "common man" voter, and that discourage citizens from having an actual array of candidates among which they can choose by their consciences and have some chance of satisfaction in the result (as per multi-party instant-runoff voting). That's another thing that needs changing, and will probably be easier to implement than my own "elitist" idea of only letting people vote who have some real idea what they're voting about. I'm in favour of a literacy requirement and preferably a Constitution Test requirement before one can vote in any elections that affect the national level of politics and lawmaking. And more than that, I'm in favour of requiring that anyone who votes must maintain or seek current exposure to articulate political opinions besides those of their nominal party or philosophy.
Even and especially if you can't stand what stands in opposition to your own beliefs (and particularly on the most controversial and emotional of issues), you owe it to yourself as a 'political animal' to keep abreast of it and be able to explain, understand and refute it (if need remain) intelligently and civilly rather than out of a kneejerk aversive reaction. This is the essence of an educated political citizenry, and essential to cultivate in any nation that would not be prey to demogoguery and mob rule of the majority over all their fellows. Whatever group or party would stand against such mental exposure is afraid of losing its hold over the faithful -- and I use the religious term intentionally, as it's the same basic issue. No one's opinion can be considered anything more than an opinion, nor should it be given any more power than that in the sphere of political action, unless it is an opinion formed and firmed of actual considered alternatives.
And if you don't like that, then you can just keep your opinions out of the voting booth and off the national stage. If you want political influence, then you have to trade in your ignorance and cultural isolationism.....now wouldn't that be refreshing to have as the rules of the game?
_
Okay, I'm pissed. Every election season where there's anything major at stake, it seems that the lion's share of electoral power is given to those who frankly barely deserve it. And I'm not even talking about the "superdelegates."
No, it's that lumpen and easily-led-by-the-nose mass known as the "average American," the "regular Joe," etc. -- the "God-fearing," "churchgoing" resident of the "Heartland" -- who is usually also described/labeled/led by the terms 'swing voter,' 'conservative' or 'moderate' -- which in my observation of politics thus far seems to mean just "moderately prejudiced and intent on preserving the status quo for their imagined benefit/self-protection."
Yeah, I'm a bit of an elitist, one could (and probably will) say -- I believe that people who lack political literacy, cultural literacy, literal literacy and/or accurate (not merely party-spoonfed) issues exposure/knowledge have no business being part of deciding this nation's direction. I do not believe that the uneducated populace can be trusted with the privilege of voting, and this has nothing to do with technical grades and levels of education but with the desire -- or lack thereof -- to eliminate ignorance from one's mind and life. Those who do not try to educate themselves on the issues at hand, and who do not seek out to the best of their ability what there is to be known about candidates and their actual stances and the longterm effects thereof if implemented, are nothing more in my estimation than pawns of party loyalty or cultural/familial tradition.
I do not like the current two-party political system and the antagonistic dualism that it breeds -- but it must be said that of the two parties I detest far more that one which commands the most fervent nominal loyalty, the "my party right or wrong" attitude that barely if ever considers a thought or practical observation that was not bred within its chosen intellectual hothouse of self-validating systems. At the moment I am quite in accord with John Stuart Mill's statement on the subject -- that is, that although it cannot be proven that all conservatives are stupid, it can be easily observed that "most stupid people are conservative." The reason why (this is me talking now) is that they are led by their most base and basic fears -- their concerns for apparent personal financial gain (rather than the less-visible fabric of the general welfare), for security, and for social conformity of 'creeding and breeding' and all that surrounds it. These are lower-level needs, as per Maslow et al, and if it is true (as some delight in airing about) that a conservative is a liberal who's gotten mugged, then is that not a blatant regression into fear and not an advancement in actual awareness? Post-traumatic paranoia, that's all it is -- hardly something to chortle smugly about.
As for moderates...well, as I said -- "moderately prejudiced." Moderately afraid of the unknown and unwilling to deal with its existence as real and equally-valid life; moderately clutching onto their privileges of class, race, dominant culture and/or universally-assumed religious faith; moderately suspicious of those not like themselves, and moderately without the cultural education or overview to see people as conscious individuals rather than as threatening cloned units of the designated Other.
(Which still doesn't entirely account for the existence of Log Cabin Republicans, but that's far more about class+wealth than it is about actual sexuality...)
Does nobody see that the oft-cited "beer test" of potential Presidential popularity is all about reassuring the least-educated social stratum of voters of one's normalcy (itself a statistical illusion) and implied non-superiority -- pandering to their fears and worries, condescending to their folkways, with no relevance whatsoever to the actual tasks of clear-sighted national and international leadership? I don't trust a candidate who's too comfortable with the touted "red-blooded American" in bar, bowling alley or shooting range, and who deprecates too much the professional and intellectual types upon whose intelligence and advice hris prospective presidency will actually rely -- let alone hris own intelligence. It's in the same league as baby-kissing, except that babies can't vote (and don't own guns or drink beer...). Personally, I'd rather see a politician act natural for hrimself, for good or ill, than put on a gladhanding show in the sticks -- and were the right to vote dependent upon one's being a member of the informed citizenry (rather than the indoctrinated, unexposed or otherwise "unwashed" masses), then there'd be far less of a created need for this sort of appealing to the lowest common denominator. An American President, by the known details of hris job and its scope, is not primarily a bowling nor drinking buddy to the American Everyman (Everyperson?)...so why should hse be compelled to pretend that that's where hris heart and ambition truly lies?
Of course......were the Electoral College abolished, there would probably be less of a created need to go kissing ass in Middle America, seeing as the impact of high-population (and more culturally diverse) areas is muffled and that of sparsely-settled (and more culturally isolated/insulated) ones inflated to satisfy the old paranoia (again) of maintaining individual states' rights. The whole circus of voting goes on as it does because of old compromises that simultaneously elevate and disempower the average "common man" voter, and that discourage citizens from having an actual array of candidates among which they can choose by their consciences and have some chance of satisfaction in the result (as per multi-party instant-runoff voting). That's another thing that needs changing, and will probably be easier to implement than my own "elitist" idea of only letting people vote who have some real idea what they're voting about. I'm in favour of a literacy requirement and preferably a Constitution Test requirement before one can vote in any elections that affect the national level of politics and lawmaking. And more than that, I'm in favour of requiring that anyone who votes must maintain or seek current exposure to articulate political opinions besides those of their nominal party or philosophy.
Even and especially if you can't stand what stands in opposition to your own beliefs (and particularly on the most controversial and emotional of issues), you owe it to yourself as a 'political animal' to keep abreast of it and be able to explain, understand and refute it (if need remain) intelligently and civilly rather than out of a kneejerk aversive reaction. This is the essence of an educated political citizenry, and essential to cultivate in any nation that would not be prey to demogoguery and mob rule of the majority over all their fellows. Whatever group or party would stand against such mental exposure is afraid of losing its hold over the faithful -- and I use the religious term intentionally, as it's the same basic issue. No one's opinion can be considered anything more than an opinion, nor should it be given any more power than that in the sphere of political action, unless it is an opinion formed and firmed of actual considered alternatives.
And if you don't like that, then you can just keep your opinions out of the voting booth and off the national stage. If you want political influence, then you have to trade in your ignorance and cultural isolationism.....now wouldn't that be refreshing to have as the rules of the game?
_
Election '08 rundown - personal overview
Apologies to anyone who's run across this site and wondered where all my sociopolitical bloviation disappeared to -- the truth is, the latter days of the election season were so extremely emotional and controversy-laden all around that I was spending the vast majority of my time on LiveJournal and Facebook because their friending system allowed for a much faster (and existent) response time on opinions posted, as well as on comments to others' posts. The real-time factor there was a bit more insistent than the "publically-viewable and globally-searchable" factor over here. Obviously, I need more friends and hecklers on this thing.
As a comprehensive follow-up, though, I will give you all the major highlights of my campaign coverage, insofar as I can gather them together here.
But first.....here's where I stand personally. I live in suburban Cook County, Illinois, about 35 minutes by train from downtown Chicago. My interests, in a nutshell, are those of the minority against the majority who thinks they have the sole right to determine the way things ought to be. By reason of almost every possible category except that of the color of my skin, I am either a member of a relatively dispossessed (and often-demonized) minority -- or simply dispossessed. I am not wealthy and never have been; I lack (through this perpetual financial insecurity) a graduate or post-graduate degree that might give my words some automatic credence with others who rely upon those things as a sign of qualification. I lack powerful connections of family or friendship that might make my life easier by helping me along. I am not mainstream. And I refuse to have the wool pulled over my eyes by those who merely pretend to answer the needs of the people, or who manipulate their fears to drive them into a fold.
That said.....you can add my profile to the list of those who have favoured Barack Obama from the very advent of his run for president.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
In which Sarah Palin's cultural intolerance hits the MSM....and I post a lot of links to theocracy
Yesterday morning saw the publication of the Time magazine article on Sarah Palin's time as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, in which it was mentioned that she had threatened to fire the town's librarian over her opposition to banning books (allegedly on account of complaints of offensive language).
According to the New York Times article from this morning
In the Los Angeles Times, Tim Rutten's excellent op-ed takes on directly the issue of the "privacy" that the Palin family claims for itself, when by her politics Sarah Palin would forbid that same privacy and free choice to others.
I'm waiting for the Washington Post to land in my inbox so I can scan through it....hmm, they don't seem to have anything on the book-banning issue -- it's all about finances and abortion rights/restrictions, significant as those are.
This is not even covering the material that Dark Christianity has been turning up regarding her links to dominionist movements....for anyone who does not know what that term refers to and doesn't want to read the whole article before proceeding, it basically means those who believe that it is their mission to force the United States (and/or whatever other country they happen to be working in) to be a "Christian nation" -- i.e., a fundamentalist Christian theocracy.
Some religious fundamentalists and evangelicals basically see the state of the nation as morally deplorable but not their business to fix by force -- they may separate themselves from the rest of society/outside culture to whatever degree, and control their children's education and religious indoctrination, and agitate when they feel beleaguered by the advances/changes of modern society and the loss of assumed preeminence to Christian "traditional" values and observances (and political obeisances) within the United States, but it is the dominionists -- largely Pentecostals, of the Assemblies of God churches or the breakaway charismatic "Joel's Army" movement, a militant form of Christian Reconstructionism -- who believe that it is their duty to use every means possible to make their nation a full theocracy in which civil rights are re-forbidden to those who do not follow/fit the rules of Christian Cultural Conservatism (my capitals; happens to be more convenient to be able to refer to the CCC).
That would mean:
=/= Legal execution of queers of every kind, preferably by good old-fashioned Biblical methods such as stoning (that's one thing they have in common with radical Islam...); never mind gay marriage or adoption, as they intend a "final solution" to that problem.
=/= Enforcement of traditional gender roles; re-segregation/restriction of higher/career education according to permitted social roles; emphasis on women's fertility and wifely virtues as their primary purpose in life; "morality police" a probable development
=/= Elimination of divorce except on traditional (OT) Biblical grounds (which don't include domestic or sexual abuse); arranged and/or "shotgun" marriages in the case of teenagers to eliminate illegitimacy and single-parenthood; adultery technically again punishable by death
=/= Criminalization of both abortion and birth control, with death penalty prescribed for those who perform abortions (and punishment to the woman as well); total abstinence-only education; women's reproductive health no longer under their own control but technically controlled by physician and husband/father/son/male head of household
=/= Total educational regression -- creationism again taught in place of evolution; history rewritten to favour the CCC agenda; literature censored to an extreme, with inevitable bookburnings in the process; religious indoctrination integrated into all areas of education
=/= Re-criminalization of witchcraft, paganism, etc.; unbelievers not permitted to live. (Even the scrupulous white-lighters, people...and Christopaganism won't pass muster)
=/= Censorship of arts and media; destruction of "immoral art" of every kind; morally-educational standards required to be met in all areas of art; artistic immorality equated with sexual immorality and punished likewise
=/= "Immigration reform" -- extreme raising of borders against anyone not meeting moral standards of the CCC (similar to Spain not allowing heretics/political incendiaries to emigrate to the New World)
=/= Science dismantled in every controversial area; all research or technology banned that does not support sanctioned religious/moral aims; genetics, medicine and surgery re-censored to avoid forbidden uses
=/= All politics subjugated to religion; mandatory public prayer at all government meetings/functions; all laws to be decided not by their constitutionality but by their adherence to (selective) Biblical doctrine
This doesn't even take into account the hypocrisy and double-standardness that is already rampant within cultural conservative politics -- the idea that those in power can insulatedly indulge the liberties that they forbid to others -- lovers and mistresses, adulterous or not (as long as they remain behind closed doors and demand nothing), abortions, genetic testing and controversial medical procedures (for those who can pay or threaten well), recreational drugs, erotica & pornography, high art and forbidden literature/knowledge (on their own terms). The above list assumes that dominionists actually mean what they say and would enforce it as such without exception.
This is why so many people on the hardcore Religious Right are applauding McCain's choice of running mate. Not only has he promised them an administration governed by pro-life policies, he's given them someone they can really believe in as a fellow Christian, whose moral principles are uncompromising and who will deliver unto them the licence and control they need to start making their dreams come true.
So, anyone who was considering voting for this McCain/Palin wonder-ticket (as per Senator Lieberman's sickening display of proselytizing last night...), please re-engage your brains and....just don't.
(And don't forget to celebrate Banned Books Week.......I'm certainly planning to do something to observe it properly....)
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Fw: McCain's dangerous choice - facts re Sarah Palin
Yes, I'm spreading it around.......
_____________________________________
Dear MoveOn member,
Yesterday was John McCain's 72nd birthday. If elected, he'd be the oldest president ever inaugurated. And after months of slamming Barack Obama for "inexperience," here's who John McCain has chosen to be one heartbeat away from the presidency: a right-wing religious conservative with no foreign policy experience, who until recently was mayor of a town of 9,000 people.
Huh?
Who is Sarah Palin? Here's some basic background:
- She was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage. She has no foreign policy experience.1
- Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.2
- She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000. 3
- Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.4
- She's doesn't think humans are the cause of climate change.5
- She's solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy. She's pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska.6
- How closely did John McCain vet this choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting. They spoke a second time, last Sunday, when he called her about being vice-president. Then he offered her the position.7
This is information the American people need to see. Please take a moment to forward this email to your friends and family.
We also asked Alaska MoveOn members what the rest of us should know about their governor. The response was striking. Here's a sample:
She is really just a mayor from a small town outside Anchorage who has been a governor for only 1.5 years, and has ZERO national and international experience. I shudder to think that she could be the person taking that 3AM call on the White House hotline, and the one who could potentially be charged with leading the US in the volatile international scene that exists today. —Rose M., Fairbanks, AK
She is VERY, VERY conservative, and far from perfect. She's a hunter and fisherwoman, but votes against the environment again and again. She ran on ethics reform, but is currently under investigation for several charges involving hiring and firing of state officials. She has NO experience beyond Alaska. —Christine B., Denali Park, AK
As an Alaskan and a feminist, I am beyond words at this announcement. Palin is not a feminist, and she is not the reformer she claims to be. —Karen L., Anchorage, AK
Alaskans, collectively, are just as stunned as the rest of the nation. She is doing well running our State, but is totally inexperienced on the national level, and very much unequipped to run the nation, if it came to that. She is as far right as one can get, which has already been communicated on the news. In our office of thirty employees (dems, republicans, and nonpartisans), not one person feels she is ready for the V.P. position.—Sherry C., Anchorage, AK
She's vehemently anti-choice and doesn't care about protecting our natural resources, even though she has worked as a fisherman. McCain chose her to pick up the Hillary voters, but Palin is no Hillary. —Marina L., Juneau, AK
I think she's far too inexperienced to be in this position. I'm all for a woman in the White House, but not one who hasn't done anything to deserve it. There are far many other women who have worked their way up and have much more experience that would have been better choices. This is a patronizing decision on John McCain's part- and insulting to females everywhere that he would assume he'll get our vote by putting "A Woman" in that position.—Jennifer M., Anchorage, AK
So Governor Palin is a staunch anti-choice religious conservative. She's a global warming denier who shares John McCain's commitment to Big Oil. And she's dramatically inexperienced.
In picking Sarah Palin, John McCain has made the religious right very happy. And he's made a very dangerous decision for our country.
In the next few days, many Americans will be wondering what McCain's vice-presidential choice means. Please pass this information along to your friends and family.
Thanks for all you do.
–Ilyse, Noah, Justin, Karin and the rest of the team
Sources:
1. "Sarah Palin," Wikipedia, Accessed August 29, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
2. "McCain Selects Anti-Choice Sarah Palin as Running Mate," NARAL Pro-Choice America, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17515&id=13661-1414076-3OccGlx&t=1
3. "Sarah Palin, Buchananite," The Nation, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17736&id=13661-1414076-3OccGlx&t=2
4. "'Creation science' enters the race," Anchorage Daily News, October 27, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17737&id=13661-1414076-3OccGlx&t=3
5. "Palin buys climate denial PR spin—ignores science," Huffington Post, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17517&id=13661-1414076-3OccGlx&t=4
6. "McCain VP Pick Completes Shift to Bush Energy Policy," Sierra Club, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17518&id=13661-1414076-3OccGlx&t=5
"Choice of Palin Promises Failed Energy Policies of the Past," League of Conservation Voters, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17519&id=13661-1414076-3OccGlx&t=6
"Protecting polar bears gets in way of drilling for oil, says governor," The Times of London, May 23, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17520&id=13661-1414076-3OccGlx&t=7
7 "McCain met Palin once before yesterday," MSNBC, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=21119&id=13661-1414076-3OccGlx&t=8
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 3.2 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. This email was sent to Kagen Aurencz Zethmayr on August 30, 2008.
Sexual Politics -- or, Don't fall for the woman in red-state red
[X-posted to Hyperlucidity and my other blog; feel free to pass on (w/ due credit/blame of course) if you want, just let me know about it.] _____________________________________________________
Okay, here we are with two things at the forefront, one expected and the other a bit of a twist: A, Barack Obama accepting the Democratic nomination for President, and B, John McCain choosing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (a real live WOMAN, disgruntled Hillaryites!) as his running mate on the Republican ticket.
Do you think this'll work to steal the feminist vote, this whole "cut off your nose to spite your face" angle to snare in those old-school feminists who are too attached to the idea of a certified woman in the Oval Office (or close enough to it) to care that her politics are the opposite of practically everything that old-school feminism fought for in the first place?
I sure as hell hope that people aren't fooled by this act, and I'm sure as hell going to spread it around every way I know how that this is a trick designed to catch women with estrogen like flies with vinegar (which actually does attract flies more than honey does, but that's beside the point and has nothing to do with human body chemistry...). It's a feint to the left that's a thrust for the right, trying to pull swing voters back into the Republican fold by appealing to that vilest form of sexual prejudice -- the idea that a woman in authority automatically gives a shit about women in general, let alone anyone else in the category of social minority. A token female doth not a kinder+gentler government make -- just ask anyone who lived through the term of Margaret Thatcher in the U.K. Just like a token black+female Secretary of State (or a token Latino Attorney General) does not mean that there is any actual solidarity with those who have the same minority signifiers but lack the political voice and status.
This isn't the first time that Republicans have played identity politics against the causes for which minorities need to gather and remain cohesive. I'm sure that groups who solely see colour, ethnicity or sex as reasons for togetherness applauded the appointments of Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Alberto Gonzales without questioning the intent behind the inclusion. And now the GOP is eagerly anticipating that Hillary Clinton's supporters, pissed off 'cause Barack Obama (a MAN) not only beat her in the primaries but passed her over as his running mate (in favour of another MAN), will turn to McCain out of sheer vitriol and resentment, rather than remember the issues at stake, and the fact that Sarah Palin is one of those religiously-motivated cultural conservatives who have long desired to overturn Roe v. Wade and send other women (just, y'know, poorer women with less power and fewer options in the first place) back to the cultural Dark Ages of illegal abortions, inaccessible birth-control and rescinded autonomy over their own bodies altogether.
Hmm. I wonder how many people will turn their brains off and fall for that? Actually, some comments I've read online say that Palin'll grab the male vote as well, based on her physical attractiveness. So that's two kinds of thinking with the ol' hormones that McCain and his team are counting on.....heck, never mind the whole "college education" split between Hillary and Barack, even -- this one's going straight to below the belt.
Voters, please -- just because a woman's in high political office, or preaching on TV, or on the radio being a pundit, it does not mean that she shares concerns about "women's issues" or will do anything to better the state thereof. Conservative women-in-power care primarily for themselves and their party's (faith's) agenda, and will gladly sacrifice the legal status, socioeconomic conditions and the very lives of women in general, whether to the infallibility of "market forces" or "ad majorem Dei gloriam."
They don't include themselves in the populations they affect, and therefore (like Log Cabin Republicans) will vote against what one would think to be their own interests and concerns -- and which would be, perhaps, were they not insulated from seeing it by their own social position. Because, as much so as celebrities are courted by Scientology, attractive and articulate women are prized by both the Political and Religious Right as figureheads and spokepeople, as proof that can be whipped out to bely the idea that Republicans (or Evangelicals) are systemically misogynistic and anti-female in their policies.
In other words: it's a trap. Don't fall for the stereotype of women caring about women, or caring about anything but what their own actions show as their agenda. Don't assume. Don't assume that seniors care about other seniors, that veterans care about other veterans (or active military personnel), or that anyone cares about anyone, categorically speaking, until and unless their actions prove that it's actually part of their platform.
And that's a point at which "issues voters" on the left(ish) in particular had better keep their eyes on the issues and not let themselves be misled by that purty gun-totin' feminine fly in the ointment.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Putting in my political oar on the Obama/Clinton race
-
I suppose it's about time I got political and stated exactly why I'm for Obama over Clinton, seeing as others have been having their say openly.
I'm usually not that open about what I'm in favour of so much as what I'm against, but in this case I can explain both -- to my mind, Barack Obama shows a deep-seated drive of public service, while Hillary Clinton shows a deep-seated drive of ambition, pure and simple. Her main selling point is that she is a woman (rather than making the detail as little of an issue as possible, considering that the voting population is kinda split fifty-fifty there and one needs to deal with both halves fairly) -- and as for being a Democrat, I barely even see how she qualifies to be on the left of the aisle. Forcing people to buy health insurance is not the same thing as "achieving universal health insurance", for example, especially when one talks of garnishing wages as penalty (and when one has close corporate backing in the pharmaceutical industry)....and if, as Lurkitty excellently pointed out, Hillary shares in the presidency of Bill in professional experience as well as in political reputation, then why would I vote for the life partner of a man who advised John Kerry that if he wanted to be successful in running for the White House he ought to set his campaign platform against gay rights?
The fact is, Hillary shows herself as willing to do anything to win, and thinks that voters ought to see that as a victory for them -- but her principles are so malleable in that pursuit that she counts in my book as Republican-lite, moderate-ly prejudiced, and willing to abandon any/every core constituency of the left (thinking them in the pocket or over a barrel anyhow) just to court the swing voters and independents who are just a little bit dissatisfied with the range of GOP and rightwing options available. People who want a Democrat-by-name but not a 'leftist' who might actually shake the boat and deliver change.
So they gravitate to Hillary's stability and her more-experienced political polish -- her use of prepared talking points and pointed humour, her political connections and inside edge not for changing the way business is done but just putting a different nominal colour over it. And that is, I'm afraid, a rather top-down vision of vision and implementation (especially where the counted-upon elite superdelegates are concerned), whereas what we see with Obama is really a far more 'grassroots' and 'popular' direction, where it is not the political insiders who are assumed to have control of the process but the 'civilian' voting population -- the people who want and need real change in this country and are putting their weight where it is most likely to be delivered to them and not undermined for the sake of maintaining the status quo.
Of course, there's the international side of the struggle, too. With all the talk of "Islamofascism", has anyone considered that Barack Obama is a far better 'sleeper' for combatting Al Qaeda and other jihadists, because he has had experience abroad and knows about Islamic cultures from the inside? He has the potential to give a far greater appearance of diplomacy than Hillary Clinton, who as a 'privileged' American white woman represents an immediate provocation to radical Islamic values. This is not me being "sexist" -- this is reality right now at the present time. Yes, Benazir Bhutto was a female leader and presents a logical parallel, but she was Pakistani and Muslim herself, not Western -- she was part of her culture and not assumedly set against it. If one is considering how best to "rehabilitate" and strengthen the United States' image with the rest of the world, the racial and gender issues take on a decidedly different weight, insofar as any President who wants to salvage America's political repute has to be able to communicate cross-culturally and not assume anything of the stereotypical American insularity that has made us politically resented even by those that don't hate us. Our current lame-but-still-[kicking]-duck is a culturally-inept and inarticulate buffoon who's never bothered to understand anything outside of his own privileged sphere, sheltered as much as possible from having to suffer the consequences of his own actions and ignorance. The last thing that we need at this point is a national leader who projects American insularity and overconfidence in our self-proclaimed status as "The Greatest Nation on Earth." (I think that whoever coined that expression ought to be boiled in oil...:-)
I have to say it flat-out -- I do not trust Hillary Clinton. Dave Barry's comment re her planning her run for President while still in the womb doesn't seem too exaggerated, imho -- it seems that she has set her sights on making history and the first female president for a long time now, without thinking whether that's what this country really needs right now -- or what it needs. I don't think that she's really been listening....rather like someone who doesn't hear what you're saying because they're planning what they're going to say next. Hillary is calculating. She is ruthless. She has no humility in the face of her goal and what it entails in the way of serving the American people -- this is, one might easily conclude, simply the highest notch she aims to carve on her proverbial gun.
In some ways, I think that Obama has more 'feminine' virtues than she does -- feminine graces, even. I mean, not to rehash the entire character-contrast subtext of The Crying Game, but does it really take a genetic female to bring the traits of gender balance and equal respect to national politics? What does "the first woman President" really mean, if the only main thing setting her apart from the other candidates -- on either side of the political fence, seeing as she tends to vote like a Republican -- is that she wears skirts and nylons in public? Is that a revolution worth fighting for as a primary cause? Is it enough of a revolution? Hell, if we were able to get the full version of ENDA passed, that'd do a lot more across the nation than just this aiming for a token dose of executive estrogen at the top of the heap.
People keep talking about the gender issue and the race issue swaying people predictably and irrationally -- but really, how predictable is it? Obama isn't just black, afterall, and the way that people respond to both candidates is not just reducible to which traits define them most strongly. Some people do think that simplistically -- some don't. And if I, by this time in my life, didn't think long and hard about why I was inclined to support people and make sure that it wasn't just based on kneejerk identity politics, I'd be a pretty irresponsible voting citizen.
_
I suppose it's about time I got political and stated exactly why I'm for Obama over Clinton, seeing as others have been having their say openly.
I'm usually not that open about what I'm in favour of so much as what I'm against, but in this case I can explain both -- to my mind, Barack Obama shows a deep-seated drive of public service, while Hillary Clinton shows a deep-seated drive of ambition, pure and simple. Her main selling point is that she is a woman (rather than making the detail as little of an issue as possible, considering that the voting population is kinda split fifty-fifty there and one needs to deal with both halves fairly) -- and as for being a Democrat, I barely even see how she qualifies to be on the left of the aisle. Forcing people to buy health insurance is not the same thing as "achieving universal health insurance", for example, especially when one talks of garnishing wages as penalty (and when one has close corporate backing in the pharmaceutical industry)....and if, as Lurkitty excellently pointed out, Hillary shares in the presidency of Bill in professional experience as well as in political reputation, then why would I vote for the life partner of a man who advised John Kerry that if he wanted to be successful in running for the White House he ought to set his campaign platform against gay rights?
So they gravitate to Hillary's stability and her more-experienced political polish -- her use of prepared talking points and pointed humour, her political connections and inside edge not for changing the way business is done but just putting a different nominal colour over it. And that is, I'm afraid, a rather top-down vision of vision and implementation (especially where the counted-upon elite superdelegates are concerned), whereas what we see with Obama is really a far more 'grassroots' and 'popular' direction, where it is not the political insiders who are assumed to have control of the process but the 'civilian' voting population -- the people who want and need real change in this country and are putting their weight where it is most likely to be delivered to them and not undermined for the sake of maintaining the status quo.
Of course, there's the international side of the struggle, too. With all the talk of "Islamofascism", has anyone considered that Barack Obama is a far better 'sleeper' for combatting Al Qaeda and other jihadists, because he has had experience abroad and knows about Islamic cultures from the inside? He has the potential to give a far greater appearance of diplomacy than Hillary Clinton, who as a 'privileged' American white woman represents an immediate provocation to radical Islamic values. This is not me being "sexist" -- this is reality right now at the present time. Yes, Benazir Bhutto was a female leader and presents a logical parallel, but she was Pakistani and Muslim herself, not Western -- she was part of her culture and not assumedly set against it. If one is considering how best to "rehabilitate" and strengthen the United States' image with the rest of the world, the racial and gender issues take on a decidedly different weight, insofar as any President who wants to salvage America's political repute has to be able to communicate cross-culturally and not assume anything of the stereotypical American insularity that has made us politically resented even by those that don't hate us. Our current lame-but-still-[kicking]-duck is a culturally-inept and inarticulate buffoon who's never bothered to understand anything outside of his own privileged sphere, sheltered as much as possible from having to suffer the consequences of his own actions and ignorance. The last thing that we need at this point is a national leader who projects American insularity and overconfidence in our self-proclaimed status as "The Greatest Nation on Earth." (I think that whoever coined that expression ought to be boiled in oil...:-)
I have to say it flat-out -- I do not trust Hillary Clinton. Dave Barry's comment re her planning her run for President while still in the womb doesn't seem too exaggerated, imho -- it seems that she has set her sights on making history and the first female president for a long time now, without thinking whether that's what this country really needs right now -- or what it needs. I don't think that she's really been listening....rather like someone who doesn't hear what you're saying because they're planning what they're going to say next. Hillary is calculating. She is ruthless. She has no humility in the face of her goal and what it entails in the way of serving the American people -- this is, one might easily conclude, simply the highest notch she aims to carve on her proverbial gun.
In some ways, I think that Obama has more 'feminine' virtues than she does -- feminine graces, even. I mean, not to rehash the entire character-contrast subtext of The Crying Game, but does it really take a genetic female to bring the traits of gender balance and equal respect to national politics? What does "the first woman President" really mean, if the only main thing setting her apart from the other candidates -- on either side of the political fence, seeing as she tends to vote like a Republican -- is that she wears skirts and nylons in public? Is that a revolution worth fighting for as a primary cause? Is it enough of a revolution? Hell, if we were able to get the full version of ENDA passed, that'd do a lot more across the nation than just this aiming for a token dose of executive estrogen at the top of the heap.
People keep talking about the gender issue and the race issue swaying people predictably and irrationally -- but really, how predictable is it? Obama isn't just black, afterall, and the way that people respond to both candidates is not just reducible to which traits define them most strongly. Some people do think that simplistically -- some don't. And if I, by this time in my life, didn't think long and hard about why I was inclined to support people and make sure that it wasn't just based on kneejerk identity politics, I'd be a pretty irresponsible voting citizen.
_
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Re: Your post to Religioholics Anonymous
-
I'm sorry, Regina, but you've obviously misunderstood the purpose of this group. We do not accept proselytizing of any kind, whether from Christians, Pagans, Jews, Muslims, atheists or any other group who believe that their program is the only true/right/permissible way. That's precisely the sort of attitude that stands in the way of the Kingdom of Heaven, if you would but see it....and it is people like you, in the general sense of being insistent upon the absolute rightness of their beliefs and their absolute right to impose them on others, who are the cause of the Tribulation in this world, regardless of whom or what they say they follow.
That is why I say that "the meek shall inherit the earth" -- because they have no compulsion to force others to do as they do 'or else', no herdlike need to make others conform just as they do. The absolutists -- your side and all the other belligerent sides who want their faith to dominate the globe -- are not the peacemakers, are not the merciful, are not those who seek justice, are not those who truly hunger and thirst after real righteousness. They are not the followers of Christ, yet they have seized upon his name and taken it in vain, have latched it to their own pathological agenda of social control and insular security.
Christ did not seek to rule the world as a kingdom -- far on the contrary, he sought to free humanity from the domination of religious authorities and their stranglehold on the defining of morality. Don't ask me how I know these things, unless you care to pit your received beliefs against my direct...revelations. I know things that you do not. I know that you are being led, as many are being led, to preach that which they do not understand and demonise that which, again, they do not understand. Your screed of a creed is but the religious equivalent of a chain-letter....you haven't thought it out for yourself, and perhaps you've never really thought at all about the depth of these things you trot out so earnestly from the Scriptures. God will not punish people for not evangelizing (a virtuous example is more important than all the preaching in the world), but there are grave consequences for setting people against each other in the name of faith, and for doing violence against people's souls and minds in the name of faith.
Your mission to "spread the Word" is not needed. What is needed is your ability to follow virtue for yourself in your life, regardless of what others do or do not do, without trying to force them onto your path. Every person's soul is their own affair -- between them and God, as the expression goes -- and you do not help them by exhortations and threats. Carry your own cross, instead of telling others how to carry theirs -- live your own life that stands as your own example. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear -- but don't go bludgeoning them over the head if they don't jump to and fall into line.
Tend your own field. If the harvest is truly good, then others will see that it is so and follow what you do. But there are other good harvests elsewhere whose methods may be better for them to follow, and they all are part of the same universal yield. Let the matter go -- manage what you have in your trust already (as you imply you are a minister), but let others manage what is theirs. And accept that you do not know what path is best for all -- they must find that out for themselves, of their own choosing and call. It's called free will, and you do need to respect its continuing existence as part of the plan.
Peace,
Aureantes
P.S. -- As for achieving the requisite "Good Heart Condition" you mention, I strongly recommend oatmeal. Lowers bad cholesterol, you know.
[(Edit. 8/31/08): The font of the passages below was much larger, but I downsized it so as not to be quite so hard on the eyes -- it is otherwise verbatim.]
===========================================================
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:28:30 -0000
To: Religioholics_Anonymous@yahoogroups.com
From: "Regina" <sanctifyhisname@yahoo.com>
Subject: What Satan Doesn't Want You To Know
The hourglass is nearly empty. The Great Tribulation has begun and Armageddon looms in the very near future. There are a total of TWO things that you need in order to obtain Eternal Life and Man-Made Religion is not one of them. (1) An Acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior. (2) A Good Heart Condition.
We urge those who wish to obtain Eternal Life in Christ's Kingdom to read the following very important message. We don't aim to twist arms or convince anyone of anything they aren't ready or willing to believe as their hearts will ultimately dictate what they perceive to be truth. However, it is also our responsibility to warn those who do not accept this Truth, will face Judgment at Armageddon. For this reason we pray that the eyes and hearts of all who read our message are opened to the Truth whether that is now, or in the near future when our words come to pass.
The Kingdom Message of Salvation is the Truth and validity of the Bible as a whole. As ministers with the Light of Life Ministry, we are doing as we are commanded within the Scriptures. Because we have been enlightened to the Truth, we have a heavy responsibility to pursue our Ministries. 1 Corinthians9:16 warns of the necessity and woe to those that do not declare the Good News.
"For if I preach the gospel, I have no reason to boast, because an obligation is placed on me. And woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!"
This is because once we have acquired Wisdom about the Truth, it is our duty to spread the message as far as we can over all of creation. If we fail to warn others, the Creator holds us accountable. To walk away is to be overshadowed with negativity. Ezekiel 3:17-18 gives insight on this.
"Son of man, I have made you a watchman over the house ofIsrael
OUR MESSAGE OF TRUTH
The main theme of our Message of Truth is that those who wish to have eternal life must declare Jesus Christ to be Lord and Savior. This must be done in order to be one with His coming Kingdom.
We realize that many will challenge our faith and the faith of others who also declare Jesus to be Lord. They will say that we must meet certain requirements of water baptism, a belief in the Trinity and other man-made religious ideals. If those people have the right heart condition, they will see the Light. If not, they will remain opposed to what is ministered to them. That is their Free Will choice. Even if they claim to be foot-step followers of Christ, they will be deemed not worthy of Salvation unless they exhibit the Holy Spirit from within them. If they believe falsehoods about Christ, cling to their man-made religious belief systems and reject the truth will be marked accordingly by the Cherubic Order of Angels. All people are judged by what is really in their hearts.
As part of our Ministry to those that oppose the Truth, we point out that a humble heart is the only thing that saves anyone. Without it, you are endowed with negativity. What your heart is filled with is what springs forth with abundance from the mouth. Luke6:45 is clear on this point:
"A good man produces good out of the good storeroom of his heart. An evil man produces evil out of the evil storeroom, for his mouth speaks from the overflow of the heart."
Proverbs4:23 is clear on the need to safeguard your heart against the wickedness of negativity being stored there:
"Guard your heart above all else, for it is the source of life."
By knowing and understanding the Truth of the Word, you treasure up within your hearts what guides you (the Holy Spirit) so that you do not sin knowingly against Christ or his Father.
"I have treasured Your word in my heart so that I may not sin against You." Psalms 119:11.
The problem with sin is that it cultivates negativity. From the mind where it begins or originates, it creeps down into your heart. Then you're in trouble. That's why it's not a sin to think a bad thought, if you dismiss it. You did not act on it. Therefore, it is not a sin. But if you dwell on the wrong thought, it will creep on down into your heart and become a part of you. So, above all else, safeguard your hearts.
ALL WHO OPEN THEIR HEARTS TO CHRIST ARE ACCEPTABLE
People of all nationalities, regardless of race, color or religion are open to the Salvation of Christ.
"Then I saw another angel flying in mid-heaven, having the eternal gospel to announce to the inhabitants of the earth—to every nation, tribe, language, and people." Revelation 14:6.
"Hear this, all you peoples; listen, all who inhabit the world, both low and high, rich and poor together." Psalms 49:1-2.
"Then Peter began to speak: "In truth, I understand that God doesn't show favoritism, but in every nation the person who fears Him and does righteousness is acceptable to Him." Acts 10:34-35.
REMEMBER - IT'S A FREE WILL CHOICE
Everyone has Free Will Choice in the decision and are able to choose one way or the other. That's why we will not try to force the Truth on to anyone.
"I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live, love the LORD your God, obey Him, and remain faithful to Him. For He is your life, and He will prolong your life in the land the LORD swore to give to your fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Deuteronomy 30:19-20
"But if it doesn't please you to worship the LORD, choose for yourselves today the one you will worship: the gods your fathers worshiped beyond the Euphrates River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living. As for me and my family, we will worship the LORD." Joshua 24:15
"If you carefully obey My commands I am giving you today, to love the LORD your God and worship Him with all your heart and all your soul, I will provide rain for your land in season, the early and late rains, and you will harvest your grain, new wine, and oil. I will provide grass in your fields for your livestock. You will eat and be satisfied. Be careful that you are not enticed to turn aside, worship, and bow down to other gods. Then the LORD's anger will burn against you. He will close the sky, and there will be no rain; the land will not yield its produce, and you will perish quickly from the good land the LORD is giving you." Deuteronomy 11:13-17
"This is how we are sure that we have come to know Him: by keeping His commands." 1 John 2:3
SALVATION - KINGDOM MESSAGE COMPLETED
Now, either you will accept or reject the Truth we have ministered to you. Since everyone should come to understand that actions result in consequences, we deliver the following warning. If you decide to refuse the truth, then you will know what is ahead--even if you reject that also, at this time. Later on, you will see our words come to life. If you accept the Truth now but are later tempted to cultivate negativity within your heart, then the warning we share might help to prevent that from happening.
YAHWEH'S BITTER-SWEET WARNING TO ALL PEOPLE OF THE EARTH
He that exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life. He that disobeys the Son will not see life. The Wrath of God remains upon him.
"The one who believes in the Son has eternal life, but the one who refuses to believe in the Son will not see life; instead, the wrath of God remains on him." John 3:36
Once you have been given the Message of Truth, if you do not obey it you are exercising your Free Will choice. However, it will result in eternal death at the Judgment. Just as Satan and his angels cannot have free reign in creation - neither will it be permitted of those that exercise that choice. Your fate is upon your own head.
"Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of everyone's blood, for I did not shrink back from declaring to you the whole plan of God." Acts20:26 -27
The above scripture reveals we will be clean from the blood of those who make the wrong choice. If you are so cultivated with negativity that you hear and know that what we speak is Truth and you continue to sin willfully by rejecting that Truth, then you will lose the Sacrificial Hope of Salvation. Time will eventually run out. Armageddon is the final Judgment Chapter.
"For if we deliberately sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins" Hebrews 10:26
"to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor, and the day of our God's vengeance..." Isaiah 61:2
"The tumult reaches to the ends of the earth because the LORD brings a case against the nations. He enters into judgment with all flesh. As for the wicked, He hands them over to the sword [This is] the LORD's declaration." Jeremiah 25:31
"I tell you that on the day of judgment people will have to account for every careless word they speak." Matthew 12:36
"When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood." Ezekiel 33:8
WHO WE MINISTER TO AND SANCTIFICATON OF THE CREATOR'S NAME
This GOOD NEWS of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth and bear witness to all the nations. The nations will be made to know Yahweh. His Name must be sanctified before the nations.
"I will honor the holiness of My great name, which has been profaned among the nations—the name you have profaned among them. The nations will know that I am Yahweh"—the declaration of the Lord GOD —"when I demonstrate My holiness through you in their sight." Ezekiel 36:23
"So I will make My holy name known among My people Israel and will no longer allow it to be profaned. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD, the Holy One inIsrael
ARE THERE ANY FREE RIDES TO ETERNAL BLISS?
Anyone that believes they can get a free ride through eternity without going through Christ, please read:
"There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to people by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12
Once you have received the Truth, you are under obligation by the Creator.
"Wisdom is supreme—so get wisdom. And whatever else you get, get understanding." Proverbs 4:7
The Ministers of the Light of Life Ministry
I'm sorry, Regina, but you've obviously misunderstood the purpose of this group. We do not accept proselytizing of any kind, whether from Christians, Pagans, Jews, Muslims, atheists or any other group who believe that their program is the only true/right/permissible way. That's precisely the sort of attitude that stands in the way of the Kingdom of Heaven, if you would but see it....and it is people like you, in the general sense of being insistent upon the absolute rightness of their beliefs and their absolute right to impose them on others, who are the cause of the Tribulation in this world, regardless of whom or what they say they follow.
That is why I say that "the meek shall inherit the earth" -- because they have no compulsion to force others to do as they do 'or else', no herdlike need to make others conform just as they do. The absolutists -- your side and all the other belligerent sides who want their faith to dominate the globe -- are not the peacemakers, are not the merciful, are not those who seek justice, are not those who truly hunger and thirst after real righteousness. They are not the followers of Christ, yet they have seized upon his name and taken it in vain, have latched it to their own pathological agenda of social control and insular security.
Christ did not seek to rule the world as a kingdom -- far on the contrary, he sought to free humanity from the domination of religious authorities and their stranglehold on the defining of morality. Don't ask me how I know these things, unless you care to pit your received beliefs against my direct...revelations. I know things that you do not. I know that you are being led, as many are being led, to preach that which they do not understand and demonise that which, again, they do not understand. Your screed of a creed is but the religious equivalent of a chain-letter....you haven't thought it out for yourself, and perhaps you've never really thought at all about the depth of these things you trot out so earnestly from the Scriptures. God will not punish people for not evangelizing (a virtuous example is more important than all the preaching in the world), but there are grave consequences for setting people against each other in the name of faith, and for doing violence against people's souls and minds in the name of faith.
Your mission to "spread the Word" is not needed. What is needed is your ability to follow virtue for yourself in your life, regardless of what others do or do not do, without trying to force them onto your path. Every person's soul is their own affair -- between them and God, as the expression goes -- and you do not help them by exhortations and threats. Carry your own cross, instead of telling others how to carry theirs -- live your own life that stands as your own example. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear -- but don't go bludgeoning them over the head if they don't jump to and fall into line.
Tend your own field. If the harvest is truly good, then others will see that it is so and follow what you do. But there are other good harvests elsewhere whose methods may be better for them to follow, and they all are part of the same universal yield. Let the matter go -- manage what you have in your trust already (as you imply you are a minister), but let others manage what is theirs. And accept that you do not know what path is best for all -- they must find that out for themselves, of their own choosing and call. It's called free will, and you do need to respect its continuing existence as part of the plan.
Peace,
Aureantes
P.S. -- As for achieving the requisite "Good Heart Condition" you mention, I strongly recommend oatmeal. Lowers bad cholesterol, you know.
[(Edit. 8/31/08): The font of the passages below was much larger, but I downsized it so as not to be quite so hard on the eyes -- it is otherwise verbatim.]
===========================================================
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:28:30 -0000
To: Religioholics_Anonymous@yahoogroups.com
From: "Regina" <sanctifyhisname@yahoo.com>
Subject: What Satan Doesn't Want You To Know
The hourglass is nearly empty. The Great Tribulation has begun and Armageddon looms in the very near future. There are a total of TWO things that you need in order to obtain Eternal Life and Man-Made Religion is not one of them. (1) An Acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior. (2) A Good Heart Condition.
We urge those who wish to obtain Eternal Life in Christ's Kingdom to read the following very important message. We don't aim to twist arms or convince anyone of anything they aren't ready or willing to believe as their hearts will ultimately dictate what they perceive to be truth. However, it is also our responsibility to warn those who do not accept this Truth, will face Judgment at Armageddon. For this reason we pray that the eyes and hearts of all who read our message are opened to the Truth whether that is now, or in the near future when our words come to pass.
The Kingdom Message of Salvation is the Truth and validity of the Bible as a whole. As ministers with the Light of Life Ministry, we are doing as we are commanded within the Scriptures. Because we have been enlightened to the Truth, we have a heavy responsibility to pursue our Ministries. 1 Corinthians
"For if I preach the gospel, I have no reason to boast, because an obligation is placed on me. And woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!"
This is because once we have acquired Wisdom about the Truth, it is our duty to spread the message as far as we can over all of creation. If we fail to warn others, the Creator holds us accountable. To walk away is to be overshadowed with negativity. Ezekiel 3:17-18 gives insight on this.
"Son of man, I have made you a watchman over the house of
OUR MESSAGE OF TRUTH
The main theme of our Message of Truth is that those who wish to have eternal life must declare Jesus Christ to be Lord and Savior. This must be done in order to be one with His coming Kingdom.
We realize that many will challenge our faith and the faith of others who also declare Jesus to be Lord. They will say that we must meet certain requirements of water baptism, a belief in the Trinity and other man-made religious ideals. If those people have the right heart condition, they will see the Light. If not, they will remain opposed to what is ministered to them. That is their Free Will choice. Even if they claim to be foot-step followers of Christ, they will be deemed not worthy of Salvation unless they exhibit the Holy Spirit from within them. If they believe falsehoods about Christ, cling to their man-made religious belief systems and reject the truth will be marked accordingly by the Cherubic Order of Angels. All people are judged by what is really in their hearts.
As part of our Ministry to those that oppose the Truth, we point out that a humble heart is the only thing that saves anyone. Without it, you are endowed with negativity. What your heart is filled with is what springs forth with abundance from the mouth. Luke
"A good man produces good out of the good storeroom of his heart. An evil man produces evil out of the evil storeroom, for his mouth speaks from the overflow of the heart."
Proverbs
"Guard your heart above all else, for it is the source of life."
By knowing and understanding the Truth of the Word, you treasure up within your hearts what guides you (the Holy Spirit) so that you do not sin knowingly against Christ or his Father.
"I have treasured Your word in my heart so that I may not sin against You." Psalms 119:11.
The problem with sin is that it cultivates negativity. From the mind where it begins or originates, it creeps down into your heart. Then you're in trouble. That's why it's not a sin to think a bad thought, if you dismiss it. You did not act on it. Therefore, it is not a sin. But if you dwell on the wrong thought, it will creep on down into your heart and become a part of you. So, above all else, safeguard your hearts.
ALL WHO OPEN THEIR HEARTS TO CHRIST ARE ACCEPTABLE
People of all nationalities, regardless of race, color or religion are open to the Salvation of Christ.
"Then I saw another angel flying in mid-heaven, having the eternal gospel to announce to the inhabitants of the earth—to every nation, tribe, language, and people." Revelation 14:6.
"Hear this, all you peoples; listen, all who inhabit the world, both low and high, rich and poor together." Psalms 49:1-2.
"Then Peter began to speak: "In truth, I understand that God doesn't show favoritism, but in every nation the person who fears Him and does righteousness is acceptable to Him." Acts 10:34-35.
REMEMBER - IT'S A FREE WILL CHOICE
Everyone has Free Will Choice in the decision and are able to choose one way or the other. That's why we will not try to force the Truth on to anyone.
"I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live, love the LORD your God, obey Him, and remain faithful to Him. For He is your life, and He will prolong your life in the land the LORD swore to give to your fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Deuteronomy 30:19-20
"But if it doesn't please you to worship the LORD, choose for yourselves today the one you will worship: the gods your fathers worshiped beyond the Euphrates River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living. As for me and my family, we will worship the LORD." Joshua 24:15
"If you carefully obey My commands I am giving you today, to love the LORD your God and worship Him with all your heart and all your soul, I will provide rain for your land in season, the early and late rains, and you will harvest your grain, new wine, and oil. I will provide grass in your fields for your livestock. You will eat and be satisfied. Be careful that you are not enticed to turn aside, worship, and bow down to other gods. Then the LORD's anger will burn against you. He will close the sky, and there will be no rain; the land will not yield its produce, and you will perish quickly from the good land the LORD is giving you." Deuteronomy 11:13-17
"This is how we are sure that we have come to know Him: by keeping His commands." 1 John 2:3
SALVATION - KINGDOM MESSAGE COMPLETED
Now, either you will accept or reject the Truth we have ministered to you. Since everyone should come to understand that actions result in consequences, we deliver the following warning. If you decide to refuse the truth, then you will know what is ahead--even if you reject that also, at this time. Later on, you will see our words come to life. If you accept the Truth now but are later tempted to cultivate negativity within your heart, then the warning we share might help to prevent that from happening.
YAHWEH'S BITTER-SWEET WARNING TO ALL PEOPLE OF THE EARTH
He that exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life. He that disobeys the Son will not see life. The Wrath of God remains upon him.
"The one who believes in the Son has eternal life, but the one who refuses to believe in the Son will not see life; instead, the wrath of God remains on him." John 3:36
Once you have been given the Message of Truth, if you do not obey it you are exercising your Free Will choice. However, it will result in eternal death at the Judgment. Just as Satan and his angels cannot have free reign in creation - neither will it be permitted of those that exercise that choice. Your fate is upon your own head.
"Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of everyone's blood, for I did not shrink back from declaring to you the whole plan of God." Acts
The above scripture reveals we will be clean from the blood of those who make the wrong choice. If you are so cultivated with negativity that you hear and know that what we speak is Truth and you continue to sin willfully by rejecting that Truth, then you will lose the Sacrificial Hope of Salvation. Time will eventually run out. Armageddon is the final Judgment Chapter.
"For if we deliberately sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins" Hebrews 10:26
"to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor, and the day of our God's vengeance..." Isaiah 61:2
"The tumult reaches to the ends of the earth because the LORD brings a case against the nations. He enters into judgment with all flesh. As for the wicked, He hands them over to the sword [This is] the LORD's declaration." Jeremiah 25:31
"I tell you that on the day of judgment people will have to account for every careless word they speak." Matthew 12:36
"When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood." Ezekiel 33:8
WHO WE MINISTER TO AND SANCTIFICATON OF THE CREATOR'S NAME
This GOOD NEWS of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth and bear witness to all the nations. The nations will be made to know Yahweh. His Name must be sanctified before the nations.
"I will honor the holiness of My great name, which has been profaned among the nations—the name you have profaned among them. The nations will know that I am Yahweh"—the declaration of the Lord GOD —"when I demonstrate My holiness through you in their sight." Ezekiel 36:23
"So I will make My holy name known among My people Israel and will no longer allow it to be profaned. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in
ARE THERE ANY FREE RIDES TO ETERNAL BLISS?
Anyone that believes they can get a free ride through eternity without going through Christ, please read:
"There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to people by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12
Once you have received the Truth, you are under obligation by the Creator.
"Wisdom is supreme—so get wisdom. And whatever else you get, get understanding." Proverbs 4:7
The Ministers of the Light of Life Ministry
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Freedom of Religion: The Mayflower vs. the U.S. Constitution
-
The main disjoint between the United States and itself, of course, is that of its traditional earliest settlers -- i.e., the 'Pilgrims,' 'Puritans' or Anabaptists -- and the other religious malcontents who followed suit in emigrating to the New World. In contrast to Spain, who enforced restrictions against 'heretics' settling in its colonies because they were intent on converting the natives to Catholicism, England saw it as a convenient way of getting the dissidents and deviants out of the way -- even if they weren't guaranteed to get along with each other. This made America, by default, the first truly heterodox territory-nation in the Western Hemisphere -- or at least since the diplomatic empire-building of Alexander the Great.
The Puritans wanted 'freedom of religion,' as everyone knows.....well, they wanted freedom of their religion against the corruptions of everyone else's, is more like it. The Anabaptists had already found the Netherlands too liberal and tolerant for their tastes, if that's any indication of enduring differences. Their colonies had a sizeable dominance over New England -- yet their denomination was never officially denoted as a 'state religion' -- only a 'city-state religion.' Rhode Island and Pennsylvania also gained charters of their own, but they were not Puritan colonies, and it is notable that the first instances of interdenominational strife in the colonies (though to those involved it might as well have been interreligious entirely) were those of the Puritans refusing to tolerate other sects/denominations in their vicinity -- harassing, assaulting, whipping, tarring & feathering those who did not follow the Puritan ways (which is why Rhode Island was founded in the first place, as a haven for 'heretics' and freethinkers being persecuted elsewhere in the greater region).
So, the first trend that one group of co-religionists started once free of the (real or imagined) pressures inhibiting the practice of their faith....was to start pressuring and inhibiting others from practising any other faith or manner of living. They acted as if they had been granted a charter not merely to settle but to subjugate -- and thus we have the birth of the Religious Right, before the nation itself had been founded.
But what is older is not always better, though it tends to have a strong hold on cultural attitudes -- as the fitful pace of civil rights legislation/saturation in this country has been demonstrating for generations. When it came to creating a framework for the new nation as a whole, the men who were most closely involved with the final product had a definite desire that no religion nor denomination should be enabled, whether through apppointment nor through negligence, to assert itself as the state religion over others. And they were close enough to the past to see what could happen in such an unregulated situation. They said what they thought was necessary, and no doubt thought that posterity might listen -- yet, on the grounds that they were all nominally Christian-or-some-variant-thereof-but-at-least-not-atheist, people have since claimed erroneously that "America Was Intended to Be a Christian Nation."
America was not intended to be a Christian nation. America was 'intended', if anything, as a way to get rid of disruptive domestic elements from England, France and other parts and make their toil productive for their overseas sovereigns. The first rallying cry of the American Revolution was "No taxation without representation" -- that is, everyone deserves a say in the way that things work. Originally that was restricted to white adult male landowners...then the property requirement was lifted...then race, then sex, though there's still the educational dilemma of whether a populace can be considered informed enough to vote unless they can read the dominant language. But it is well worth noting that the legal framework of the Constitution, despite any references to God/Creator/Maker in the seminal documentation of the nation, never restricted any rights according to religion. That, my friends, has all been the work of tradition, social prejudice and entrenched nativism, but was never meant to be a legal disbarrment. Hence, whatever their other social assumptions regarding race, class, education, sex, etc., one must conclude that the United States as a nation was intended to have religious equality and freedom for all -- not just some, not even just a majority of co-religionists or faiths of similar moral conservatism, but all.
That does not mean lack of freedom for religions (unless those religions commit crimes against others); it does not mean the banning of religions from all public expression, as under Communist regimes. Let's get it cleared up -- the only thing that is required of a religion in this country is that it not obstruct the rights and basic freedoms of others, and that is the basis for every advance of explicit civil rights (as not everything can be foreseen two centuries ahead) that elicits cries of "State persecution!" from traditionalist religious denominations today. They are not being oppressed. They are not even being repressed. (Now you see the non-violence inherent in the system)
As it was stated, so let it be guaranteed under law, with no equivocations and panderings to the "born-again" ministers of state and their voting blocs -- America must guarantee not only the freedom to worship, and the freedom to worship/commune as one feels is right, but the freedom not to worship, and the freedom not to live in fear and trepidation of being persecuted for not following the rules based solely on religion's pervasiveness in former days. Freedom not to worship rules made by and for other religions, and not to be punished for offending those sects' delicate sensibilities, whether by one's daily life and livelihood, by one's own spiritual practice, by one's visible relationships or by one's very existence as a visible person. If the laws do not allow for an encompassing view rather than one that caters to an established religion, they are not laws that can be fairly applied to all citizens. In short: state-enabled rule by excuse of religion is effectively the same thing as endorsing a state religion (albeit with slightly less in the way of purges and executions)....and that is against the law of this nation as it still fundamentally stands. Our Founding Fathers did not foresee nor have the power to root out all the blue laws and moral objections that would linger on for centuries as dead-hands on the practice of our freedoms...they are our weeds to uproot, as this nation is our garden to tend, regardless of religious faith or the lack thereof. But let us have faith in something that is not bound to either extreme of militancy.
I am glad that I have an education and the ability to think for myself -- some people are never allowed to get that far in viewing the world they live in. And then there are some who consider themselved educated by dint of higher schooling but apparently haven't learned much. Those many who now believe in American theocracy as a sacred mission have a pitifully poor sense of this nation's prenatal history as a free range for religious social tyranny and extremism. They don't remember history -- and I think you know the rest of the quote. Even in the present crisis, the best answer to one religious extremism is not another extremism, and it never was. It is only in the assertion and rediscovering of the "self-evident" truths of human equality, of dignity and responsible freedom, that the best of our nation and of human civilization can be preserved against those -- all those -- who truly do wish to destroy those truths in the name of their gods.
Things to Do: clean out the lawbooks, dust out the irrational social mores, and remember how far we've come -- and how much farther we need to grow if this nation's ever going to grow up for real.
[For further information on the "Blog Against Theocracy" project, see http://blogagainsttheocracy.blogspot.com/]
The main disjoint between the United States and itself, of course, is that of its traditional earliest settlers -- i.e., the 'Pilgrims,' 'Puritans' or Anabaptists -- and the other religious malcontents who followed suit in emigrating to the New World. In contrast to Spain, who enforced restrictions against 'heretics' settling in its colonies because they were intent on converting the natives to Catholicism, England saw it as a convenient way of getting the dissidents and deviants out of the way -- even if they weren't guaranteed to get along with each other. This made America, by default, the first truly heterodox territory-nation in the Western Hemisphere -- or at least since the diplomatic empire-building of Alexander the Great.
The Puritans wanted 'freedom of religion,' as everyone knows.....well, they wanted freedom of their religion against the corruptions of everyone else's, is more like it. The Anabaptists had already found the Netherlands too liberal and tolerant for their tastes, if that's any indication of enduring differences. Their colonies had a sizeable dominance over New England -- yet their denomination was never officially denoted as a 'state religion' -- only a 'city-state religion.' Rhode Island and Pennsylvania also gained charters of their own, but they were not Puritan colonies, and it is notable that the first instances of interdenominational strife in the colonies (though to those involved it might as well have been interreligious entirely) were those of the Puritans refusing to tolerate other sects/denominations in their vicinity -- harassing, assaulting, whipping, tarring & feathering those who did not follow the Puritan ways (which is why Rhode Island was founded in the first place, as a haven for 'heretics' and freethinkers being persecuted elsewhere in the greater region).
So, the first trend that one group of co-religionists started once free of the (real or imagined) pressures inhibiting the practice of their faith....was to start pressuring and inhibiting others from practising any other faith or manner of living. They acted as if they had been granted a charter not merely to settle but to subjugate -- and thus we have the birth of the Religious Right, before the nation itself had been founded.
But what is older is not always better, though it tends to have a strong hold on cultural attitudes -- as the fitful pace of civil rights legislation/saturation in this country has been demonstrating for generations. When it came to creating a framework for the new nation as a whole, the men who were most closely involved with the final product had a definite desire that no religion nor denomination should be enabled, whether through apppointment nor through negligence, to assert itself as the state religion over others. And they were close enough to the past to see what could happen in such an unregulated situation. They said what they thought was necessary, and no doubt thought that posterity might listen -- yet, on the grounds that they were all nominally Christian-or-some-variant-thereof-but-at-least-not-atheist, people have since claimed erroneously that "America Was Intended to Be a Christian Nation."
America was not intended to be a Christian nation. America was 'intended', if anything, as a way to get rid of disruptive domestic elements from England, France and other parts and make their toil productive for their overseas sovereigns. The first rallying cry of the American Revolution was "No taxation without representation" -- that is, everyone deserves a say in the way that things work. Originally that was restricted to white adult male landowners...then the property requirement was lifted...then race, then sex, though there's still the educational dilemma of whether a populace can be considered informed enough to vote unless they can read the dominant language. But it is well worth noting that the legal framework of the Constitution, despite any references to God/Creator/Maker in the seminal documentation of the nation, never restricted any rights according to religion. That, my friends, has all been the work of tradition, social prejudice and entrenched nativism, but was never meant to be a legal disbarrment. Hence, whatever their other social assumptions regarding race, class, education, sex, etc., one must conclude that the United States as a nation was intended to have religious equality and freedom for all -- not just some, not even just a majority of co-religionists or faiths of similar moral conservatism, but all.
That does not mean lack of freedom for religions (unless those religions commit crimes against others); it does not mean the banning of religions from all public expression, as under Communist regimes. Let's get it cleared up -- the only thing that is required of a religion in this country is that it not obstruct the rights and basic freedoms of others, and that is the basis for every advance of explicit civil rights (as not everything can be foreseen two centuries ahead) that elicits cries of "State persecution!" from traditionalist religious denominations today. They are not being oppressed. They are not even being repressed. (Now you see the non-violence inherent in the system)
As it was stated, so let it be guaranteed under law, with no equivocations and panderings to the "born-again" ministers of state and their voting blocs -- America must guarantee not only the freedom to worship, and the freedom to worship/commune as one feels is right, but the freedom not to worship, and the freedom not to live in fear and trepidation of being persecuted for not following the rules based solely on religion's pervasiveness in former days. Freedom not to worship rules made by and for other religions, and not to be punished for offending those sects' delicate sensibilities, whether by one's daily life and livelihood, by one's own spiritual practice, by one's visible relationships or by one's very existence as a visible person. If the laws do not allow for an encompassing view rather than one that caters to an established religion, they are not laws that can be fairly applied to all citizens. In short: state-enabled rule by excuse of religion is effectively the same thing as endorsing a state religion (albeit with slightly less in the way of purges and executions)....and that is against the law of this nation as it still fundamentally stands. Our Founding Fathers did not foresee nor have the power to root out all the blue laws and moral objections that would linger on for centuries as dead-hands on the practice of our freedoms...they are our weeds to uproot, as this nation is our garden to tend, regardless of religious faith or the lack thereof. But let us have faith in something that is not bound to either extreme of militancy.
I am glad that I have an education and the ability to think for myself -- some people are never allowed to get that far in viewing the world they live in. And then there are some who consider themselved educated by dint of higher schooling but apparently haven't learned much. Those many who now believe in American theocracy as a sacred mission have a pitifully poor sense of this nation's prenatal history as a free range for religious social tyranny and extremism. They don't remember history -- and I think you know the rest of the quote. Even in the present crisis, the best answer to one religious extremism is not another extremism, and it never was. It is only in the assertion and rediscovering of the "self-evident" truths of human equality, of dignity and responsible freedom, that the best of our nation and of human civilization can be preserved against those -- all those -- who truly do wish to destroy those truths in the name of their gods.
Things to Do: clean out the lawbooks, dust out the irrational social mores, and remember how far we've come -- and how much farther we need to grow if this nation's ever going to grow up for real.
[For further information on the "Blog Against Theocracy" project, see http://blogagainsttheocracy.blogspot.com/]
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Petition comments re federal hate crimes legislation
[For a truly impressive piece of thorough and verbose cultural-religious paranoia, check out the comments to this post...]
-
K. Aurencz Zethmayr has sent you an important action alert - read below for more info, and take action at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/126365544
-
K. Aurencz Zethmayr has sent you an important action alert - read below for more info, and take action at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/126365544
As you may or may not know, I have a few subscriptions to various 'action alerts' and petition topics -- and the latest one that I've weighed in on is this one supporting the addition of the Matthew Shepard Act to existing federal hate-crimes statutes. Here's what I said, and the link is below if you want to follow it and have your say:
'I believe that this is one of the most badly-needed pieces of civil rights legislation at this time in history, as a large number of criminal acts, both graphically notorious and generally unreported out of fear, are committed on the sole basis of hatred against those of different sexual orientations and genders. There is no excuse for that, regardless of the number of people who may share similar prejudices and thus seek to minimize or rationalize away such unwarranted and antisocial behaviours. Hate crimes are never justified, no matter who the aggressor is and who the victim is -- unfortunately, many people need this spelled out to them, both in the field of law enforcement and in the general population at large, and will continue to think that "queerbashing" is permissible because of their personal and/or religious views unless this category is specifically and prominently added to existing hate-crimes legislation.'
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/126365544
Thanks for the read, and pardon the inevitable crossposting -- feel free to pass this on if you like the way I phrased it, etc....
Aurey
------------------------------------
ThePetitionSite.com provides tools and empowers individuals to make a difference and effect positive change through online activism. Get connected with the causes you care about, take action to make the world a better place, and start your own petition at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/!
ThePetitionSite.com is powered by Care2.com, the largest online network for people who Care2 make a difference. With over 5 million members, we make it easy for you to live a healthy, sustainable lifestyle and protect the environment, human rights, education, women's rights, animal welfare, and much more... all in one place! Join our community at http://www.care2.com/
Friday, June 01, 2007
Children should not be raised on kiddie-tailored propaganda
=========================================================
Publisher aims to teach kids right from left
A Torrance executive says he sees too many children's books with liberal views. His titles aim to tilt the shelves the other way.
=========================================================
There's a radical concept that I'd like to put forward....
Instead of complaining about "liberal" bias and putting out rightwing children's books in the name of ideological balance/overbalance, why don't people focus on finding and conveying the truth, regardless of whose "agenda" it may seem to support? Afterall, especially when some of these books are being marketed as "nonfiction", shouldn't they actually be supported as 'not being fictions' set up just to argue a point of view?
If you're going to make a story for kids that's supposed to teach them about the real world and how it works (or doesn't), base it on something that has actually happened in reality, and in the same reality that you're setting it in. Don't take your lemonade-stand fable from a Communist milieu and call it typical American liberalism; maybe let your gay penguins have the non-happy ending and one dump the other for a wife (which is what actually happened). That's life -- if you're calling it realistic then stick to what's really there. Princes and fairytales are accepted as being of the realm of fantasy and metaphor, but don't sell contrived propaganda to 'impressionable young minds' and call it an honest perspective. You know what?--Heather really did have two mommies. And she's just as perfectly well-adjusted as (and possibly a lot moreso than) any kid raised in a standard mom-&-dad sex=gender dichotomous household. That's truth. It happens and has been happening for years now, it's real, it's as functional as anything. Same with little Buster Bunny's travels, 'cause that's really information too. Truth. Real people, real existences. You don't like it, then get out of the business of even pretending to have an objective viewpoint.
I feel very strongly about children's books and what they teach. I've read a wide range of literature aimed more-or-less didactically at kids, from Grimm's Fairytales to Tootles to The Chronicles of Narnia. You know, the first tome actually has more enduring worth in it than those more-modern examples, even with all the religious assumptions and violence and dubious magic and what-have-you. Those fairytales do less of the mental violence of being targeted at children to shape them as thoroughly as possible, and are far more psychologically realistic despite all their fantasy -- they're not even as sexist as C.S. Lewis comes across (ever read the Narnia books and gleaned his attitudes?).
In my opinion, kids deserve to have better than mere lessons and manipulations at every turn, and any author or publisher who sets out trying primarily to entrain them into an ideology -- regardless of the nominal agenda -- does not deserve to be in a position of reaching them via those words. At that age, I'd consider it child molestation -- just as I tend to consider formal religious instruction (as well as formal anti-religious instruction). Children deserve to be treated honestly and with respect, not just as future party members or mini-activists. If you can't manage that, I think censorship may be in order, and precisely where most people would never think to apply it.
(And just to be clear on my values, I also hated that "socialist" one with the beautiful fish giving away his shining rainbow scales just to be accepted by others. Bollocks. Self-betrayal is never a defensible virtue in my book.)
Publisher aims to teach kids right from left
A Torrance executive says he sees too many children's books with liberal views. His titles aim to tilt the shelves the other way.
=========================================================
There's a radical concept that I'd like to put forward....
Instead of complaining about "liberal" bias and putting out rightwing children's books in the name of ideological balance/overbalance, why don't people focus on finding and conveying the truth, regardless of whose "agenda" it may seem to support? Afterall, especially when some of these books are being marketed as "nonfiction", shouldn't they actually be supported as 'not being fictions' set up just to argue a point of view?
If you're going to make a story for kids that's supposed to teach them about the real world and how it works (or doesn't), base it on something that has actually happened in reality, and in the same reality that you're setting it in. Don't take your lemonade-stand fable from a Communist milieu and call it typical American liberalism; maybe let your gay penguins have the non-happy ending and one dump the other for a wife (which is what actually happened). That's life -- if you're calling it realistic then stick to what's really there. Princes and fairytales are accepted as being of the realm of fantasy and metaphor, but don't sell contrived propaganda to 'impressionable young minds' and call it an honest perspective. You know what?--Heather really did have two mommies. And she's just as perfectly well-adjusted as (and possibly a lot moreso than) any kid raised in a standard mom-&-dad sex=gender dichotomous household. That's truth. It happens and has been happening for years now, it's real, it's as functional as anything. Same with little Buster Bunny's travels, 'cause that's really information too. Truth. Real people, real existences. You don't like it, then get out of the business of even pretending to have an objective viewpoint.
I feel very strongly about children's books and what they teach. I've read a wide range of literature aimed more-or-less didactically at kids, from Grimm's Fairytales to Tootles to The Chronicles of Narnia. You know, the first tome actually has more enduring worth in it than those more-modern examples, even with all the religious assumptions and violence and dubious magic and what-have-you. Those fairytales do less of the mental violence of being targeted at children to shape them as thoroughly as possible, and are far more psychologically realistic despite all their fantasy -- they're not even as sexist as C.S. Lewis comes across (ever read the Narnia books and gleaned his attitudes?).
In my opinion, kids deserve to have better than mere lessons and manipulations at every turn, and any author or publisher who sets out trying primarily to entrain them into an ideology -- regardless of the nominal agenda -- does not deserve to be in a position of reaching them via those words. At that age, I'd consider it child molestation -- just as I tend to consider formal religious instruction (as well as formal anti-religious instruction). Children deserve to be treated honestly and with respect, not just as future party members or mini-activists. If you can't manage that, I think censorship may be in order, and precisely where most people would never think to apply it.
(And just to be clear on my values, I also hated that "socialist" one with the beautiful fish giving away his shining rainbow scales just to be accepted by others. Bollocks. Self-betrayal is never a defensible virtue in my book.)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)