Sigh....
I'm feeling insulted on a regular basis, and it's really beginning to piss me off.
I am against the current health care proposals. I agree completely that there are problems that need to be fixed. I think every American knows that the system needs to be improved, and most of us think ideally that all Americans should have access to medical care when we need it. But there isn't one proposal that I support completely, and at least one that I am vehemently opposed to. I figure, you don't fix a broken mirror with a hammer.
So... Now we must ask why, right? Why, oh why, can't I see that I am wrong? Don't I realize that these people know what is best for me and are going to do this for my own good? Clearly, there is something wrong with my mind-upbringing-character-soul-intelligence-
Do you see where I'm going with this?
Every day of my life, I get to be insulted. I read in the paper that I'm a racist. I see on the news that I'm an "evilmonger" (whatever the hell that means). Certain blogs have diagnosed me as clinically insane, borderline retarded or both. I learn on the radio that I am a corporate shill, and a zombie spellbound by right-wing commentators. I also have been made aware that I wasn't raised right, I'm not raising my own kids right, and the part of the country where I have always lived only matters to the elected muckety-mucks when they need some poor folks to parade around as evidence they need to do even more good deeds!
Of course, none of this is directed at me personally. And if I were to call any one of these Congress MEMBERS on it, I'm sure that would be their explanation. Why, they don't actually mean ME. Just those other people who - you know - think the exact same way I do.
Well, I'm sick of it.
I am not a racist. It's disgusting that we live in a time when a person feels they have to make such a statement. I am deeply offended every time I hear or read that my views are based on race. Skin color is, by definition, superficial. I don't judge people based on their melanin level, and it infuriates me that anyone would imply that because my own skin is fair my thoughts are not.
I am not an evilmonger. I'm still not even certain what that word means - or if it IS a word.
I am not stupid. I don't need those with a priviledged education to think for me. I'm tired of smarmy, condescending elitists talking down to ordinary people as if we were half-witted toddlers in need of competent care. And I'm at least relatively sure that I'm not insane.
I am not getting paid (unfortunately) by any corporations or insurance insiders.
I am not a ditto-head. Something else I'm not certain is a real word. I don't buy into conspiracy theories. I am not brainwashed by talk radio. Unless I've been so thoroughly programmed that I've forgotten I was programmed.
I am not a card-carrying member of The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. Independent, so I am.
So that means I am being insulted on a regular basis even though I'm more likely to be persuaded by a reasonable argument. Since I don't give a rip about party loyalty, my decisions will be made based on what seems most rational and logical to me in any given issue.
I'll tell you this: I am opposed to the health care reform as currently proposed based on the merits and flaws I see. Alienating me and pissing me off right now is NOT the way to convince me that this nightmare is in my best interests, and I've just about had it with those who seem to think they can verbally bully me into submission. I'm sick to death of being insulted EVERY SINGLE DAY. I will remember this complete lack of civility, manners and mature dialogue for many elections to come. We pay these people to insult us? No more. Not only will I personally vote against anyone I can who talks to their employers so disrespectfully, I will work hard to bring others to my way of thinking.
And I won't do it by insulting anyone.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Backfire!
You know, I'm not a Glenn Beck fan.
I listen occasionally, take in a sample, because I try to catch as much news and opinion from both the right and left as I can. And Beck is more than a little crazy. Oh, he's entertaining. But he's crazy.
That said, I have to admit I found myself cheering for him this morning. In an unbridled attempt to silence dissent and drown out his opinions (which I may not agree with, but feel he's entitled to...) the far left has been promoting boycotts, writing his advertisers and generally trying to hound one of their fellow Americans into unemployment.
Well, it worked! Another American is out of work this morning. Only, OOPS, wrong guy! Instead of Glenn Beck resigning his position, it's Van Jones.
Frankly, I find this colossal backfire hilarious!
This morning, I surfed the news sites. You have one side gleefully declaring victory. You can almost hear the stadium chant of :"Nananana heyheyhey... Goodbye!" On the OTHER side, you have the hand-wringing declarations of victimhood.
Now, for the record, it's not necessarily Van Jones' resignation that has me grinning this morning. It's the glaring hypocrisy. It's the sense (once again) of "Well, when WE do it, it's DIFFERENT because we're the good guys!" It's the annoying, and frankly offensive, mindset that says a particular action from one side is patriotic, and the same action from the other side is unfair.
And it's also this: Glenn Beck (and Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, and everyone else the far left would like to silence permanently) are political commentators. Much as some like to say these folks set policy, they do NOT. They are observers and reporters, and are entitled to say things other people find objectionable.
Van Jones was a member of the administration, albeit in a roundabout "Czar" position. That makes Jones' statements and history relevant in a different way - he DID have a voice in shaping policy. And that makes him answerable to all of us. If he wants to write a blog, get on the radio, or become a talking head on TV, I support his right to believe and say whatever he likes.
See, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work. If someone says something you disagree with you can debate, try to convince, or even outright argue -- all while respecting their right to believe what they said. The minute you begin a witch hunt to silence opposition, you are IN THE WRONG.
I'd rather we could all remember that rights are for all, and return a sense of civility to national debate. Short of that, I'll just keep enjoying it when one side or the other tries to force the issue, and it blow up in their face.
I listen occasionally, take in a sample, because I try to catch as much news and opinion from both the right and left as I can. And Beck is more than a little crazy. Oh, he's entertaining. But he's crazy.
That said, I have to admit I found myself cheering for him this morning. In an unbridled attempt to silence dissent and drown out his opinions (which I may not agree with, but feel he's entitled to...) the far left has been promoting boycotts, writing his advertisers and generally trying to hound one of their fellow Americans into unemployment.
Well, it worked! Another American is out of work this morning. Only, OOPS, wrong guy! Instead of Glenn Beck resigning his position, it's Van Jones.
Frankly, I find this colossal backfire hilarious!
This morning, I surfed the news sites. You have one side gleefully declaring victory. You can almost hear the stadium chant of :"Nananana heyheyhey... Goodbye!" On the OTHER side, you have the hand-wringing declarations of victimhood.
Now, for the record, it's not necessarily Van Jones' resignation that has me grinning this morning. It's the glaring hypocrisy. It's the sense (once again) of "Well, when WE do it, it's DIFFERENT because we're the good guys!" It's the annoying, and frankly offensive, mindset that says a particular action from one side is patriotic, and the same action from the other side is unfair.
And it's also this: Glenn Beck (and Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, and everyone else the far left would like to silence permanently) are political commentators. Much as some like to say these folks set policy, they do NOT. They are observers and reporters, and are entitled to say things other people find objectionable.
Van Jones was a member of the administration, albeit in a roundabout "Czar" position. That makes Jones' statements and history relevant in a different way - he DID have a voice in shaping policy. And that makes him answerable to all of us. If he wants to write a blog, get on the radio, or become a talking head on TV, I support his right to believe and say whatever he likes.
See, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work. If someone says something you disagree with you can debate, try to convince, or even outright argue -- all while respecting their right to believe what they said. The minute you begin a witch hunt to silence opposition, you are IN THE WRONG.
I'd rather we could all remember that rights are for all, and return a sense of civility to national debate. Short of that, I'll just keep enjoying it when one side or the other tries to force the issue, and it blow up in their face.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
STAY AWAY FROM MY KIDS!
I can't think of a simpler way to say it, so I'll just echo David Hedrick:
"STAY AWAY FROM MY KIDS."
Yes, I am one of those parents who objects (strenuously) to President Obama speechifying during the school day. Yes, my school-age kids will be at home that day.
Now, before anyone gets started with the racist-reactionary-rightwingnut-conspiracytheory-antiAmerican accusations, let's think this one through, OK?
I have no problem at all with the idea of an American president addressing our children. To my knowledge, such a thing has never happened. I can imagine being a kid again, and being excited that the President would want to talk to us! When you're a kid, a lot of people talk over or around you. The idea that someone as important as The President might want to talk TO you might be pretty cool! Even as an adult, I think in theory it's a nice idea for him to reach out to kids and give them encouragement.
However, the minute you remove parents as the guiding adult and replace them with teachers, you've lost me.
If President Obama wanted to address my children, he'd have had more luck with something like this:
"Hey, kids! On Tuesday night, President Obama has things he'd like to say -- to YOU! He has an important message for you about your education and our future. At seven o'clock, there will be a special speech for America's kids! We want you to sit down with Mom & Dad and watch it together. And here are some ideas to help your family talk about it afterward!"
See the difference? Mom and Dad... family talk together... I think MOST Americans would have found this completely acceptable. I can almost guarantee that we would tune in, and we would discuss the message together.
Once again, the people making decisions for us don't remotely comprehend the problem with their latest idea. They want to do something that will directly impact our children, and yet they leave out the most important aspect of dealing with children - parental involvement. And they replace the parents with teachers.
I do NOT need a village to help me raise my kids. And I certainly don't want their values or political beliefs guided by teachers. I would prefer their teachers concentrate on TEACHING things like reading, math and history. (I would already consider it an improvement if they could manage JUST THAT. Our local school system spends half the year teaching toward the standardized testing, and precious little time actually educating students.) I'll take care of teaching them values and beliefs.
If President Obama wants to reach out to America's kids, I'm all for it. If he would like to address families and encourage discussion about goals, responsibilities and involvement in their future, I'm on board. If he wants to be the first President that reaches out to kids to help motivate them, then WE can do it as a team, and it could be a very positive thing!
But if he wants to collectively address children (as young as pre-K?!) WITHOUT keeping me as a parent on the team and right in the discussion? Well, you know my answer.
Stay away from my kids.
UPDATE: The media is reporting (good thing, for those with memories like mine) that GHWB addressed school students in 1991. One MORE case of the childish "Well, THEY DID IT FIRST!" Good grief. A few points here...
1. When GHWB did it, the democrats were not happy. I'm seeing video of Dick Gephardt losing his mind over the speech. If it was wrong then, it is wrong now!
2. (And I'll date myself with this one...) In 1991, I personally was not in school anymore so I dont remember this. Further, I had no children in school at this time. Let me state bluntly that if I HAD children in school at this time, I would NOT have wanted them wasting their school hours listening to Bush, either.
"STAY AWAY FROM MY KIDS."
Yes, I am one of those parents who objects (strenuously) to President Obama speechifying during the school day. Yes, my school-age kids will be at home that day.
Now, before anyone gets started with the racist-reactionary-rightwingnut-conspiracytheory-antiAmerican accusations, let's think this one through, OK?
I have no problem at all with the idea of an American president addressing our children. To my knowledge, such a thing has never happened. I can imagine being a kid again, and being excited that the President would want to talk to us! When you're a kid, a lot of people talk over or around you. The idea that someone as important as The President might want to talk TO you might be pretty cool! Even as an adult, I think in theory it's a nice idea for him to reach out to kids and give them encouragement.
However, the minute you remove parents as the guiding adult and replace them with teachers, you've lost me.
If President Obama wanted to address my children, he'd have had more luck with something like this:
"Hey, kids! On Tuesday night, President Obama has things he'd like to say -- to YOU! He has an important message for you about your education and our future. At seven o'clock, there will be a special speech for America's kids! We want you to sit down with Mom & Dad and watch it together. And here are some ideas to help your family talk about it afterward!"
See the difference? Mom and Dad... family talk together... I think MOST Americans would have found this completely acceptable. I can almost guarantee that we would tune in, and we would discuss the message together.
Once again, the people making decisions for us don't remotely comprehend the problem with their latest idea. They want to do something that will directly impact our children, and yet they leave out the most important aspect of dealing with children - parental involvement. And they replace the parents with teachers.
I do NOT need a village to help me raise my kids. And I certainly don't want their values or political beliefs guided by teachers. I would prefer their teachers concentrate on TEACHING things like reading, math and history. (I would already consider it an improvement if they could manage JUST THAT. Our local school system spends half the year teaching toward the standardized testing, and precious little time actually educating students.) I'll take care of teaching them values and beliefs.
If President Obama wants to reach out to America's kids, I'm all for it. If he would like to address families and encourage discussion about goals, responsibilities and involvement in their future, I'm on board. If he wants to be the first President that reaches out to kids to help motivate them, then WE can do it as a team, and it could be a very positive thing!
But if he wants to collectively address children (as young as pre-K?!) WITHOUT keeping me as a parent on the team and right in the discussion? Well, you know my answer.
Stay away from my kids.
UPDATE: The media is reporting (good thing, for those with memories like mine) that GHWB addressed school students in 1991. One MORE case of the childish "Well, THEY DID IT FIRST!" Good grief. A few points here...
1. When GHWB did it, the democrats were not happy. I'm seeing video of Dick Gephardt losing his mind over the speech. If it was wrong then, it is wrong now!
2. (And I'll date myself with this one...) In 1991, I personally was not in school anymore so I dont remember this. Further, I had no children in school at this time. Let me state bluntly that if I HAD children in school at this time, I would NOT have wanted them wasting their school hours listening to Bush, either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
