OnTheIssues.org
See the link, just there?
I put it on the top so that I might avoid some bullshit about what news I watch or websites I visit.
OnTheIssues.org is a very unbiased accounting of political figures and what they do or do not support with by their votes and speeches and whatnot. It can be very helpful when trying to select a political candidate to vote and/or campaign for. Unfortunately, even a well-structured, fair and balanced reference site can't help those people who allow their family, community, church, spouse, or anyone else determine their political opinion
for them. If you don't bother at all, well there's not much help for you, either.
As a matter of fact, if you don't vote and you refuse to learn about the forces that will be governing the country that you live in, pay taxes to, and are a citizen of, then get the fuck off my blog and go read the goddamn website. Come back when you have an educated opinion.
Jesus H. Christ, its not like you even have to leave your house.
Sorry. Got pissed off for a minute. Back to topic, for real. The purpose of today's entry is to make a case for liberalism and the Democratic Party in the United States. I just specified that out of courtesy for non-American readers. Seriously, for all I know, YOUR "Democratic Party" eats baby souls for breakfast and wash them down with kitten tears.
American elections are usually fought out between the two heavy-hitters, Republican and Democrat, though sometimes they're sprinkled with just enough of the alternate parties to piss everyone off. For the most part, though, unless you vote for a political candidate who is represented by one of those two aforementioned parties, you might as well vote for yourself for President. You'll probably have a better chance of winning and a worse chance at getting your ass beat by militant voters who don't want to wait all night to hear about the twenty-three votes that Ralph Nader snagged for the Green Party. Hell, that's three more than last time!
Despite my bouts with digital Tourette's syndrome
(with stem cell research, surely we can find a cure!), I'm one of those really obnoxious people who thinks about stuff like etymology and using the right word at the right time for the right thing. With that in mind, I want to share with Merriam-Webster's definition of the word "democracy", which is the political system of our country, that elected officials swear to maintain.
Definition of DEMOCRACY
1
a: government by the people; especially: rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2
: a political unit that has a democratic government
3
capitalized: the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy— C. M. Roberts>
4
: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5
: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
Examples of DEMOCRACY
The nation has chosen democracy over monarchy.
In a democracy, every citizen should have the right to vote.
The company is not a democracy; decisions are made by a board of directors, not the workers.
There is democracy within the company.
Democracy, I would repeat, is the noblest form of government we have yet evolved … —Norman Mailer, New York Review of Books, 27 Mar. 2002
Now, I'm not an entirely uneducated boob; rather, I have two AWESOME boobs and they've both been to college with me. I do understand the why and how of the Republican party bearing its name. That said, I find it amusing that, more often than not, when our country finds itself in a disagreement over a country's collective ideology, that country refers to itself as a "Republic of (Insert Country Name Here)". It's not really important, but it gives me a little geeky chuckle to myself sometimes.
"government by the people; especially: rule of the majority"
This is the starting point of one of my major issues with what's being offered to us for political representation. The Republican party has spent (at least) the last fifteen years endorsing politicians who rally around both stagnation and fear, making blanket-generalizations about what "the people" want, based on their own experiences. The death-grip on Christianity breeds intolerance of other religions, and plays upon peoples' fears of inadequacy and immorality. EVERYONE IS COMMITTING A SIN, SOMEWHERE, OF SOME KIND.. at least according to popular religious beliefs. Rather than agree that people are saved (even when they supposedly are), the very people who are claiming to adhere to their professed religion are debunking an enormous portion of their own dogma (New Testament, anyone?? ANYBODY? you know.. the half of the book that makes you not Jewish?) by way of micro-managing for God in deciding which sin is the "bad one" during any given campaign. The politicians themselves, of any party, are just as "sinful" as anyone else, and thus, really don't have any right to call out anyone else.
What experiences do these people have that make them knowledgeable about "the people"? How many people do you know, personally, that are Ivy League graduates and were born into money and have never had to get help or federal/state assistance? How many people do you actually know that were able to get straight through college, with no detours or side trips, right into graduate school and then straight on to high paying jobs? Only politicians (and their families) get to slide through anything from
DUIs, MANSLAUGHTER,
bizarre hunting accidents, and a multitude of other personal crises that would have at LEAST slowed down the average person's upward mobility for a few years.
Just WHO, exactly, is in the minority, here?
From a
popular republican blog:
"Republicans believe that long term
welfare should be given only to those people who are incapable of working for a living. Any American who is capable of working a regular job should be expected to do so. There is no shame in working for a living regardless of the type of job you have. Working at one job regardless of your title is just as respectable as any other job that provides an income for you. Republicans are willing to help people who are willing to help themselves and those people who are incapable of helping themselves. Republicans refuse to help people who are too lazy to help themselves."
That all sounds really good. I don't want to pay for anyone who can work and would rather sit on their ass. There just aren't enough jobs right now for this statement to make any sense. In most states there is no such thing as the welfare that politicians (career AND "armchair") like to rant about all the time. It's a nightmare to get food stamps and housing assistance in most states requires waiting for your rotation on a list so long that by the time you get your turn, you have to try and convince the mailman to drop letters off at your cardboard box under the bridge.
WHO is the majority again? For that matter, why does being a woman classify you as a minority or part of a "special interest group"? Um, excuse me, but
women outnumber men worldwide. That link takes you to a PDF chart by
census.gov which explains the age/sex comparison. In simple terms, at any point in time there are more adult women than adult men on the planet. How are we a minority? I could see being referred to as a "special interest group" when the idea of women voting was just that; an idea. It's been kind of a common practice for a while now, so what gives?
Anti-choice, conservative politicians try to tear down
Planned Parenthood every chance they get, but PP works like mad to promote and provide birth control education and methods to women in order to REDUCE the number of abortions performed. PP also provides screenings and preventative care for female-specific conditions that have nothing to do with pregnancy prevention and EVERYTHING to do with keeping women alive and healthy, yet we get racked up there as a "special interest" right along with the pharmaceutical and tobacco industries.
So, as a woman who has this unreasonable sense of entitlement when it comes to, y'know, being alive.. I kind of have to cast my vote in the opposite direction of the party that doesn't seem to give a shit if I'm dead. Gosh, us girls and our fucked up logic. Good thing we're in the
minority.
"the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges"
Well, where in the fuck does that leave
that long line of politicians who all just HAPPENED to belong to the Skull and Bones society?
What is the point of government if not to provide for and protect its citizens in times of need? As a fairly young adult, all I've seen out of the red-state-party is fear propaganda and hate mongering. A big fatassed elephant stepping on gays and lesbians, minority religions, women, and the poor. The republicans appeal to YOU, the hard-working American citizen, proclaiming that they will not allow the "welfare class" to keep eating the tax money you invest in the country. What about when you need food stamps or medicaid? Oh shit, now YOU are one of the "welfare class". Good thing you voted for people who have no mercy for scum like you.
Is it just me, or does anyone else see a massive effort being made toward forming class distinctions that should not exist?
Before you vote or campaign for anyone, go to the website. I'll leave you with some parting facts about two of the scarier people who are currently aiming for the Presidential office.
Rick Santorum:
On Homosexuality:
Q: Should we outlaw homosexuality?
A: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with other acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. The question is, do you act upon that orientation? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions..
Q: So if somebody is homosexual, should they not have sex?
A: We have sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.
Santorum wrongly claimed that "one in three pregnancies end in abortion" in the US when saying that abortion was to blame for funding problems for Social Security and Medicare. Santorum said: "The reason Social Security is in big trouble is we don't have enough workers to support the retirees. Well, a third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion, because one in three pregnancies end in abortion."
First, fewer than one in four pregnancies ended in abortion in 2008, the most recent statistics available. Second, Santorum assumes the population is lower by a number equal to total abortions, but that's not the case. One analyst told us "most women obtain abortions to postpone childbearing not to prevent it altogether" and an unknown number of pregnancies would have ended in miscarriage.
Michelle Bachmann:
Bachmann [is involved in a] brouhaha over her counselor/husband Dr. Marcus Bachmann. He's the one who insists you can "pray away the gay." He's compared bisexuals and gays to "barbarians" who must be "disciplined." Meanwhile, she has lamented that involvement in "the gay and lesbian lifestyle" means "personal bondage" linked to "Satan."
Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)
Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans. (Jul 2010)
Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood. (Jan 2011)
Grant the pre-born equal protection under 14th Amendment. (Jan 2007)
Report on Medicaid payments to abortion providers. (Apr 2009)
Declare preborn as persons under 14th amendment. (Feb 2009)
End net neutrality; allow tiered Internet service. (Jan 2011)
Voted NO on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. (Apr 2009)
Q: You say that we don't win the war on terror by closing Guantanamo and reading Miranda rights to terrorists. Rep. Paul says terrorism suspects have committed a crime and should be given due process in civilian courts. Why is he wrong?
BACHMANN: Because terrorists who commit acts against US citizens, people who are from foreign countries who do that, do not have any rights under our Constitution, nor Miranda rights. We've also seen that Guantanamo Bay has yielded significant information. In fact, we've learned that that led to the capture and the killing of bin Laden. This is a tool that we need to have in order to be able to prostitute the new type of war, the new type of warfare, and the new type of terrorists that this country is dealing with.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is putting forward a very daring proposal for how to fix Social Security and Medicare. Bachmann spoke this past weekend at the right-wing Constitutional Coalition in St. Louis, Missouri, and put forth her plan:
"So, what you have to do, is keep faith with the people that are already in the system, that don't have any other options, we have to keep faith with them. But basically what we have to do is wean everybody else off," said Bachmann. "And wean everybody off because we have to take those unfunded net liabilities off our bank sheet, we can't do it. So we just have to be straight with people. So basically, whoever our nominee is, is going to have to have a Glenn Beck chalkboard and explain to everybody this is the way it is."
Source: Eric Kleefeld on TalkingPointsMemo.com Feb 9, 2010
