11 posts tagged “conservative”

Why is it that we follow others?   If we are truly a nation built on the individuality of people, why do some people rise while others fall?   Why do some people allow themselves to be herded to blindly follow a leader that may or may not be the right person for the job?  If history has taught us anything, it should be this – never trust your leaders. 

Trust is not something that should be offered to leaders, especially political leaders.   I do not care if the man or woman can perform miracles; you have to doubt your leaders at all times.  Doubting your leader should be mandatory because it keeps you thinking, questioning and analyzing their movements and actions.  Its doubt that allows you to see a “leader” for what they truly are – your equal that is capable of making mistakes and errors just like you.  Doubt helps you to understand that leaders are not better than you because they are simply operating on authority you gave them and you can take away.

I understand that there are people that need to trust their leaders, but that need is flawed.  Trust is something that should be earned and it simply cannot be done on a national level.   The people of this country can’t sit back and claim to know the President; they don’t know him at all.  They know the image and the brand.  They know the shiny exterior that is packaged and presented to the world, not the real person.  I don’t care if you have seen a President hug their children and kiss their wives – that is nothing more than a framed snippet presented to make the leader more likeable to the “common” people that are so willing to give away their own authority in the world.

Yes, many of you will read this and think I am talking about Obama followers, but others will look at this see Bush followers.   It doesn’t matter.  Apply it to whomever you want but you must understand that if you are willing to trust a leader without question, you are doomed.   After all, the people of Germany trusted Hitler because he was a moving and powerful leader that rescued the nation from a crushing depression and restored national pride lost during World War I.  Look what happened to that nation when trust was given rather than doubt.

We have ALL seen it before.  A group protests the ruling political party's policies and the participants are deemed dangerous to the Country, the President and even themselves.  The most recent victims of the anti-protest rhetoric are the participants of T.E.A. Party demonstrations.  From Nancy Pelosi to CNN - participants were mocked, demeaned, belittled, and even declared dangerous.   The evil "neo-con" word was thrown around too - even though some of the protestors were liberal democrats.  I won't even go into the amount of times that people attempted to race bait participants.  During the Bush years, anti-war and liberal protestors were declared dangerous and unamerican.  The Right declared these protestors to be commies, radicals, unamerican, unpatriotic and even terrorists!

Why can't Americans see that, no matter what side of the political fence you are on - protesting is a staple of a democracy, a republic and the USA?  These protestors are involved in their country and its governance that supercedes most Americans.  Their participation surpasses that of ANY elected official (to include St Bush and St Obama) because they are doing it for something more than wealth, money, power or fame.

I don't care what the person is protesting, they are doing so because they want to make the nation better.  They are doing it out of a love for their country.  They are protesting because they want to make a difference.   Unlike politicians and talking heads - they generally don't seek fame and glory.  They aren't paid.   They aren't rich.   They are there on their dime. 

So, maybe we can all sit back and respect that thes people are true Americans that are actively involved in the way that it runs rather than calling them names.

OK, so today I received a rather annoying traffic ticket because I drove down a public side-street that has been closed to local residents only.   While researching the laws to find out how I am being denied access to a tax-payer maintained road that had its snow plowed before mine and is only 500 feet from my home (seems local to me), I found an interesting local law.

Sec. 19-4.  Flag and coat of arms.

(a)   Definitions.  The words "flag," "standard," "color," "ensign," "cost-of-arms" and "shield," as used in this section, shall include any flag, standard, color, ensign, cost-of-arms and shield or copy, picture or representation thereof made of any substance or represented or produced thereon, and of any size, evidently purporting to be such flag, standard, color, ensign, coat-of-arms or shield of the United States or of this state or a copy, picture or representation thereof. 

(b)   Exhibition and display of flag.  It shall be unlawful for any person within the city to in any manner for exhibition or display: 

(1)   Place or cause to be placed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing or advertisement of any nature upon any flag, standard, color, ensign, coat-of-arms or shield of the United States or of this state or authorized by any law of the United States or of this state;

(2)   Expose to public view any flag, standard, color, ensign, coat-of-arms or shield upon which shall have been printed, painted or otherwise produced or to which shall have been attached, appended, affixed or annexed any such word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing or advertisement; or

(3)   Expose to public view for sale, manufacture or otherwise or to sell, give or have in possession for sale, for gift or for use for any purpose any substance being an article of merchandise, receptacle, or thing for holding or carrying merchandise upon or to which shall have been produced or attached any such flag, standard, color, ensign, coat-of-arms or shield in order to advertise, call attention to, decorate, mark or distinguish such article or substance.

(c)   Mutilation of flag.  It shall be unlawful for any person within the city who shall publicly mutilate, deface, defile, defy, trample upon or by word or act cast contempt upon any such flag, standard, color, ensign, coat-of-arms or shield. 

(d)   Exceptions.  This section shall not apply to any act permitted by the statutes of the United States or of this state or by the United States army and navy regulations, nor shall it apply to any printed or written document or production, stationery, ornament, picture or jewelry whereon shall be depicted such flag, standard, color, ensign, coat-of-arms or shield with no design or words thereon and disconnected with any advertisement. 

(Ord. No. 75-51, §§ 13.1--13.4, 2-11-75)

State law references:  Similar provisions, MCL 750.244 et seq., MSA 28.441 et seq. 

 So then I researched the State of Michigan laws which say the same thing.  I guess it never occurred to me that the flag burning amendment would be pointless in this state because it was already illegal.  I probably also didn't notice because burning a flag never seemed like something I wanted to do (with my luck my hair would go up with the nylon flag).  However I think that American citizens should have the right to burn a flag in protest just like the colonist burned the British flag and effigies of the king during the Revolution.

So what do you think - should flag burning (and other form of flag "desecration") be banned? 

I know that I won't be doing it any time soon because, as an Army brat, I was brought up to look at the Flag a certain way.   However - that does not mean that I should be allowed to tell others that they cannot burn one in protest.

Please note - you cannot equate burning a flag with urinating or defecating on it.  Both of those acts are considered indecent in public (as they should be) so they are automatically out of the "desecration" category.

On November 4, 2008 - I joined with the masses of voters here in the Metro detroit area and voted for President.  Up until the point where I stepped into the booth, I was undecided.   I did not know who I would vote for even though I had educated myself on EVERY issue.   In the days before, I tried to make up my mind using every information resource and election tool available on the internet.  I was even stumped at a non-partisan site that had me fill out a survey of issues so it could match me to the proper candidate - I matched 48% Obama and 48% McCain.  In the end it came down to Palin and her conservative views, attacks on reproductive rights, and I hate to say it - McCain's age.   I voted for Barack Obama because I was worried that if the office took a toll on him - we would end up with a Palin Presidency (possibly worse than Bush).

So now I will stand up and support our new President Elect.  I am going to hope that the Democratic Party can actually do the good that it promises to do.  Obama certainly has the tools to do it - charisma, charm, intellect and a Democrat controlled congress.  If he blows the promises and does stuff I hate - I will disagree out loud.

McCain moved me with his grace last night during his concession speech.  He told booing supporters to be quiet.  He told them that BArack Obama was HIS President.  I loved that he was able to handle defeat without throwing a temper tantrum or calling for recount after recount. 

No matter your candidate - you have to admit that both men fought hard.  The race was MUCH closer than anybody thought it could be after 8 years of George W Bush, a failing economy and an endless war. 

So congratulations to both men on ending such a hard fought campaign with grace and dignity.

We actually drove by a man in fatigues carrying a cross and completely decked out in military camo heading away from our voting station. 

Please note - he wisely hid his nametag under the Palin sign.   We pulled over and asked the man some questions and he immediately began talking about the "great Sarah Palin" and how he wants HER to be President because she is a real conservative.   Jeez...this guy probably likes GW Bush too....

downsized_1104081047a.jpg

OK.  In the 6th grade, I can still remember political campaigns of the time.  I knew what my parents wanted.   I thought Reagan and Bush Sr were supposed to be cool because Dad said so.  Kids are so easily lead in their belief systems.  However, we never wore political crap to school.  We also didn't wear stuff that was meant to cause a controversy or disruption in the school.

Last week a six grader in Aurora, Colorado was suspended for causing a disruption in school when he wore an Anti-Obama shirt that went beyond campaign slogans and moved into the realm of derogatory rhetoric.  It said "Obama - A Terrorist's Best Friend".  This shirt was not designed to campaign or support any candidate.  the shirt was not meant to be a positive statement about anybody.  It was meant to offend.  It was meant to cause a stir at the school.  It hit its target.  When the child was told to turn the shirt inside out or to go home and change - he refused.  the result?  A three day suspension and a dad whining about his child's "freedom of speech".

092308_obamashirt.jpg

1 comment

In 2007 the Supreme Court (Morse Vs. Fredrick) ruled that students should not receive First Amendment protections in school when the school has a clearly defined student code of conduct.  In 1969, the Supreme Court stated that students could wear protest armbands so long as they did not cause a disruption.   Clearly, the shirt caused a disruption and that was what the boy was suspended for in the end - the disruption and his refusal to change the cause of the disruption.

I have to laugh though.   I've been hearing a multitude of conservatives complaining that had it been an anti-McCain shirt, the result would have been different and the shirt allowed.  Wrong!  The child had a sister who wore the same shirt and managed to go the whole day without being suspended because there was no disruption in her class over the shirt.  It was the disruption the boy caused and then the boy;s choices that got him suspended.

Since when did our children become political billboards?  It great to be politically active and to show your children their future rights.  However, turning your child into a zombie spouting empty rhetoric or participating in the lowest level of the political machine - mudslinging - is not acceptable.  Teach children to use critical thinking to analyze a candidate.  Teach your children to engage in respectful, mature debate.   Pissing people off just because its fun is not what kids need to learn!

OK, I should preface this with the following.  I am a liberal.   I am a democrat.  However, I am relatively moderate.  The individuals that I am referring to are the FAR left wing.  It is my opinion that they are just as dangerous to the future of America as the far-right wing.

This past week, I took a most wonderfully relaxing trip to the Upper Peninsula.  I absolutely adore camping up there because just across the Big Mac Bridge, I find myself a little piece of heaven on earth.  I don't have a TV up there so I find myself sheltered from the goings-on of our little nation and planet.   Its just me and the kids.

HOWEVER, this time my peace was intruded upon by two instances of the modern American political machine.  First off, was the unavoidable Kwame Kilpatrick debacle.  We were still in Michigan and the Detroit papers were outside of the bathrooms/showers.  He managed to get himself on the front page everyday.  What an embarassment - but he is something I could ignore.

The second issue happened in the most odd way.  We were camped in between a really sweet family and a really NASTY far-left liberal.  The sweet family came up from Midland, Michigan in their F-250.  The back end was loaded with camping gear, TWO canoes, fishing stuff, etc.  They were clearly ready for their two week getaway in the upper peninsula.  The kids were sweet.  the Dad helped me split some kindling off my logs for a fire.   They were really nice.  I have no clue what political affiliation they were - I just know that at the back end of their truck they had a bumper sticker about gas prices sucking.

The people on the other side of us showed up in a hybrid Escape towing a trailer with ski-doos and a topper on the top of their vehicle.  After setting up their camp, they came over to talk to me about where the  best place to buy wood was in St Ignace.   I told them where to buy it  and at that moment - the F-250 neighbors had loaded the kids in the car to go to the store.   The man noticed their bumper sticker and started to make horrible comments about "rednecks" that kill the environment and then whine about the cost of their "murder" of Earth.  I pointed out that the man had a right to complain about the gas prices because they WERE high ($4.25 for economy in the UP of Michigan).  The man echoed sentiments that I've heard on Vox and elsewhere.  HE started to point out how the people witht he truck could have rented a smaller vehicle and also that there was no reason to own that vehicle.  The man actually had the nerve to equate owning an F-250 with being a Bush loving, war-mongering bigot!

What the hell?!?!?  I had talked to the family later that night while the kids were at the beach and I found out that the man owned a landscaping company.  It had hit hard times so a part of their downsizing was selling the family truck (an F-150).  Apparently the man needed the F-250 to haul his landscaping stuff to jobs - so the couldn't sell that.  Renting a smaller vehicle was pointless because they still needed to be able to haul their camping stuff.  ALSO, paying $50 a day to rent a small SUV eliminated any cost savings that they may have gotten in gas prices.

You know, it really irks me when people have to be completely unaccepting that they refuse to hear the other side of the story.  The far left wing is just like the far-christian right, they refuse to accept any lifestyle and moral code beyond their own. Whether its accepting a religious belief or a scientific one - people need to allow for a difference of opinion. 

OK.  I admit it.   I've done it.  In the heat of an argument, I have said that every person that supports George W Bush has got to be a Christofacist Reactionary Nut.   It was a knee-jerk reaction that required no thought and was truly below me.  I apologized to my Republican friends because I really don't feel that way.  I have friends in every party and since I only befriend people that I have deemed intelligent - I know its simply not true.

I think its the atmosphere of politics these days.   Both sides do and both sides are guilty.  Its the far right and far left that have polarized this nation and left moderates like myself gawking at the spectacle they create.  You have people like Ann Coulter declaring that all liberals are evil Godless people and they want to let the terrorists take over.   You then have the uber left that declares every Republican is a war criminal that kills babies for pleasure while they destroy the environment for fun.  

I am socially liberal and financially conservative - but neither slips into the spectrum of radical (left leaning extremists) or reactionary (right leaning extremists).   There are times that I stand back frm the squabbling rights and lefts and shake my head in wonder and amazement.  Do they realize how silly they sound?

For instance...global warming.   The right says it isn't happening and if it is - its simply natural.   The left says it is happening and its a man-made event that could destroy our planet.   Both sides swear they are right and point to scientists to back them up.  Both sides point to flawed science in the opposition's facts.   Guess what folks - NEITHER group has conclusively proved it one way or another.   That's why I support pollution reduction policies - because it HASN'T been proven yet.   Why not err on the side of caution when it comes to our planet?  That doesn't make me crazy - just cautious. 

Another issue is gay marriage.  I understand that churches don't want to marry them.  That's fine.  Hell, I can't marry in a Catholic Church - why would I expect them to marry a gay couple.   Christians and other religious groups have every right to deny a religious marriage to somebody - God bless freedom of religion!  HOWEVER, what two consenting adults do in their home should not be dictated by religious guidelines.   The federal government should simply recognize civil unions as the contractual joining of two people - gay or straight - and get out of the business of religious ceremonies.

I hear democrats screaming about how KAtrina was the result of GWB being a racist.   That's simply not the case.  Katrina was the result of poor planning at every level - beggining wih the MAyor and City Council of New Orleans.  Yes, there were some poor who could not leave but MANY of the New Orleans residents who were trapped had transportation and CHOSE to stay.  Yes, FEMA was trashed by GWB's reoganization and GWB's appointment of an incompetent leader for FEMA - but the state and local government could have gotten those people out before the hurricane hit.  Perhaps GWB suffers from a disconnect with the poor and doesn't understand their plight but I doubbt he is a racist.

Come on people.  We have got to stop listening to the extremists of each party and start thinking on your own.  Do you really think that only democrats get abortions, do drugs and get welfare? Do you really think that all republicans want to destroy the environment and start wars for fun?  Does anybody honestly think that the members of one political group can speak for any religion?

If we just take the time to talk to our political "opponents" you begin to see their side and understand their reasoning.

I started out my political life declaring loudly and proudly that I was a Republican.  I was wooed by the party as a young child by their spokesperson on the show, "Family Ties" - Mr Alex P Keaton.   I thought the idea of making your own money and standing on your own two feet an incredibly wonderful and "republican" ideal.  I thought that people on welfare just needed jobs and they should go out and get them.  I was an Army brat and I thought that supporting the military was equal to supporting the Republicans.  I also thought that the Republicans would try to instill responsible spending programs (ie no more $450,000 toilet seats).  I was no less socially concerned than I am now - just a bit naive.   In my mind, people could get off welfare if they just tried to stop having babies.  I was even *gasp* a Young Republican.  Over the past decade - my political sensibility has matured along with the crows feet in the corner of my eyes.  

I still consider myself a fiscal Republican.  I am dying to see some fiscal restraint in the congress and with the current Presidential Administration. Unfortunately, George W Bush is like a college freshman with a trillion dollar credit card - there are no limits to the spending and no plan to repay it.  I even think that social security reform is somewhat necessary - but complete privatization is out (I prefer a more libertarian approach here).

I want to see responsible defense spending that forces military contractors to actually produce the products that we pay billions for.   I also want to see reasonable spending guidelines in place so the Federal gvernment isn't paying a premium on goods and services.  Its a massive organization that should be paying reduced bulk purchasing prices.

When it comes to crime - I believe in strict enforcement of laws and true life sentences that have no possibility of parole.   I want criminals to stay in a penitentary that is not a country club escape from the struggles of daily life - that means no TV, no gym, no fun stuff.  However, I do believe in education and reform measure for criminals - that's the only way to cut recidivism.  Criminals should also PAY for the time and money that taxpaying, law abiding citizens put into them.  That means if a criminal gets a college degree while in jail - they should have to pay back the cost just like every law abiding citizen has to do.

Socially - I am liberal.   I believe that two consenting adults should be allowed to enter into the legal contract of marriage - regardless of gender.  I personally don't want any religion or sect of a religion dictating what two citizens or other religions do.  Just because a religion chooses to be selectively literal in its interpretation of the Bible does not mean we should all have to suffer.   In my church - homosexuality is seen as one of the designs of God and God does not make mistakes.  So, why shold any church tell me I am wrong? 

Abortion should be available but rare.  I know that some complain about partial birth abortion but those are EXTREMELY rare and they encompass less than 1% of all abortions in this country.  They also don't mention that "partial birth abortion" is probably done most frequently on women who have a dead fetus inside of them (my sister-in-law had a partial birth abortion - the fetus had died days earlier).  Military women and the families of governmental agencies in foreign countries should also have access to abortion services at american military hospitals - we are their employer and they shoud have access.   We should focus on the WHY of abortion - not just the act itself - if we want to solve the problem.  I should say this - there are and were pro-choice Republicans, so my beliefs do not make me a democrat.

Comprehensive sex-education should be compulsary for all kids as they enter junior high school and it should continue through college.  Yes, I know that religious far-right get whiney on this point but guess what folks - its BIOLOGY.   Let the schools teach factual and informative courses in sex ed.  Let the parents and the churches teach the moral codes to live by.

Hmmm...so where do I fall into the political labeling process?

OK folks, I understand that you fear what you don't understand but do you really need to be frightened of things that don't affect you in any way shape or form?  

LEGAL marriage in America is the contract that joins two individuals.  This contract grants them certain rights and priveleges (over 1000 of them at the federal level) and it al confers on them responsibility for their mate.   The marriage license (contract) should be granted to ANY two consenting adults that want to cement their relationship legally - Gay or straight.

The Christian Uber Right in this nation is hell bent on banning federal recognition of gay marriages, why?   because their version of Christianity says its wrong.   Does their God or their Bibles also tell them that its wrong for Elvis impersonatoeto  marry people in drive-thru wedding chapels in Vegas?  If ther God is dictating who can or can't be married, then can wiccans be married?   What about satanists?   What about Christians who believe that gay people should be married?  Why is it that one INTERPRETATION of God's will is more important than any other?   Why is it that these religions get to interfere in on of the basic rights of this nation?   You know, the pesky, "Freedom of Religion".

Some supporters of the ban gay marriage movement state that marriage should only be open to those who can procreate and have children.   Well then, do we test every man and woman to make sure they are fertile prior to marriage?   Do we put a time constraint on when they will have children to ensure they don't break that mandate from god?

Some claim that gay marriage will cause a breakdown of society and it will weaken the bonds of marriage.  Umm yeah, its not allowed now and we still have over a 50% divorce rate.  How can it get much worse?  Perhaps if you let gay people marry, they would trly appreciate the privelege  and show straight people how to STAY married - then again maybe thats what they are afraid will happen.  If you are worried that gay marriage will destroy you marriage - perhaps you shouldn't have married a gay person?  Personally, if any group make marriage look bad and cheap, you need to look at celebrities that marry in druken parties in Vegas and divorce 24 hours later.

Face it folks, two gay people marrying won't hurt you.  In most cases, it won't even affect you.   What it will do is grant the status of full citizen to an oppressed group of people.