DIviders, not Uniters

[basildestiny]

You all may recall last year about this time, I was gearing up for the 2004 election. I signed up on the John Kerry website and worked really hard to promote the man that I felt was best suited for the job. I have since changed my mind and gone from a staunch Democrat to not being one. It was brought to my attention that I wasn't voting with my morals and ethics. And when I looked at my reasons for wanting to be a Democrat, it wasn't because I felt that side was right. It was because I didn't like what the other side was doing. I had taken a "them vs us" attitude and was determined to bring about some change. So I re-evaluated what was important to me. When I did that, I realized that I sided with the President. I didn't think he was a saint, but I felt he was closer to what I believed than John Kerry. At the very least, he did what he said. I could count on him to say something and do it.

That being said, I got an email this morning from John Kerry. I'm still signed up through his website. I've heard that someone even called from his campaign thanking me for my support. I wasn't at home to receive this phone call. But back to my point, the email today was entitled "Dividers, not Uniters" and spoke about how this White House was dividing the nation. Today's division was being lead by Karl Rove who classified conservatives and liberals as such: Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. This statement does not seem unfair or untrue to me today. I can understand what Karl Rove meant and true, he didn't use maybe the best phrasing. In honesty, as John Kerry says, we all united together after the attacks and were all Americans. However, 4 years later, this is what we have, exactly what Karl Rove said. And he said it nicely. He could have used harsher language to describe liberals if his goal was to divide the nation. Perhaps it was his goal, but John Kerry didn't quote the entire speech. Just quoted that part in particular to illustrate his point and I do not believe his point is illustrated.

But John Kerry takes it a step further. And says that our reaction to this should be a letter to the President requesting (if you really think that John Kerry would be satisfied with a no because it was only a request) that the President renounce Rove's claims. Then he took a step further by giving a speech in front of the Senate calling for Karl Rove's resignation. But that wasn't really what he said. He actually called for President Bush to fire Rove. Let me just ask the question that is the big pink elephant in the room for me. How is firing Rove going to unite the country? How is demanding the President renounce Rove's claims going to unite the country? Does John Kerry have any plans or ideas in mind that would unite the country?

The reasonable thing to do would be to say that Karl Rove may have used incorrect phrasing. Of course, he didn't mean ALL liberals and ALL conservatives see things this way. And it certainly wasn't anyone's initial reaction. But if you really don't think the nation is not divided something even vaguely along those lines, I challenge you to turn on the news or pick up a paper or go to a news website and see if you still feel that way.

The President certainly isn't a saint, but does he divide anymore than John Kerry?
~Bas

PS Was that any less of a collosal waste of time than Congressman Kurt Weldon's speech in front of Congress two days ago? Here is an excerpt. He was upset that he was banned from the Factor for life because he didn't call and let anyone know he wasn't going to make it and in fact the Factor had received an email saying he was 15 minutes away. It turns out that his staff had made a mistake. But instead leaving it at that, the people paid for this to be put on the Record.

Talk about spin, Mr. Speaker. So today, I sent a memo to Mr. O'Reilly explaining the facts. Now I would remind Mr. O'Reilly that the Secretary of Energy, an important meeting on nuclear issues in the former Soviet states, takes my top priority.

So Mr. Speaker, for the record, because I had some contacts from constituents or other members, I would put the summary of my statement to Mr. O'Reilly and the notes of my staff about their contact with Mr. O'Reilly's show in to the Congressional Record.

Such an over reaction.

Comments

[jkb.livejournal.com]

What possible evidence is there that Democrats didn't want to go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? In fact, one of Kerry's biggest criticisms of Bush has been that Bush let Osama Bin Laden get away and diverted our attention to a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, Iraq. Now Karl Rove is claiming that Bush's political opponents advocated a soft response to Bin Laden after 9/11, and he doesn't have a shred of evidence. He's just bashing Democrats. How can that be acceptable?

[basildestiny]

I have no idea what Rove said. I'm sure that I'll take the time after work to read it. But to be fair, I didn't read Kerry's speech either. My point was that Kerry took one statement of Rove's to defend his position and that statement didn't really back what he was saying. It made him look like a divider just like he was calling his opponents.

Since I haven't read the speech, I can't say it is acceptable. I don't even know much about Karl Rove to say yes or no on the guy. I did watch That's My Bush the tv show, but that wouldn't be fair. Just bashing Democrats isn't nice just like bashing Republicans isn't nice.

[jkb.livejournal.com]

Well, the reason Kerry took one statement of Rove's is that that's the statement that was incredibly insulting. It's as if someone said, "All Lithuanians are mentally retarded midgets" -- I don't think many people would complain if speeches about why that statement was insulting focused in on that one statement.

Kerry wasn't trying to "defend" any sort of position. He was stating that Rove's lying, outrageous attack on the patriotism of Democrats was unacceptable. Kerry has nothing to defend there.

[basildestiny]

Ok. So he isn't defending a position by quoting Rove. But then he takes a position that Rove should be fired.

What Kerry quoted Rove as saying wasn't that "All Lithuanians are mentally retarded midgets." He quoted him as saying "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." I've already said that Rove was mistaken if he meant immediately afterward, but that the country is divided like this currently. And having been on the liberal side and having felt EXACTLY the way that Rove said liberals felt, I am having trouble seeing his statement as insulting. I felt that way. I felt we had no right to be in a war with Iraq. I didn't want to prepare for war. That wasn't an insult to my patriotism. It's just an over reaction to something said.

But I can understand why Kerry might be on guard with Dick what's his name shouting that Gitmo treats people like the Nazis and then he gets attacked for saying that. I see a huge difference though between Dick's statement and Rove's statements. And I don't see Rove's statement as trying to be a blanket statement. Again, I base all of this on the information that Kerry gave me to inform me on the situation so I have no idea what was actually spoken in the speech. So when I get a chance, I'll look.

I am curious about one thing

[jkb.livejournal.com]

A lot of Bush supporters say they can count on President Bush to mean what he says and do what he says. I keep wondering why. Very seriously: why? This is someone who hasn't provided the funding necessary for No Child Left Behind, someone who said we were invading Iraq because they were involved with 9/11, until it was Weapons of Mass Destruction, until it was "terrorist ties," until it was "bringing democracy to Iraq."

During the campaign, when Kerry said Bush intended to privatize Social Security, Bush said that was a lie. Suddenly Bush's #1 priority is to privatize Social Security.

There's a huge list of examples of Bush changing positions and rationales. Kerry very rarely changes position on anything. But I'm sincerely curious as to why Bush supporters believe that he's 'steadfast' when there's so much evidence to the contrary.

Re: I am curious about one thing

[basildestiny]

I don't think Bush is steadfast like a rock. He's certainly not someone I would depend on to save my life. But neither is Kerry. No one in politics would actually be someone I would consider steadfast. The important things to me aren't Social Security or No Child Left Behind. While these may be important issues, they aren't what will decide my vote. My vote is decided, as sadly as I thought this rationale was last year, on the key issues to me of Gay Marriage and Abortion. The other issues, I have done no research on because I do not like politics so I do not stay on top of those things. It's so funny to me to see how I have turned around. It boggles the mind sometimes. But I have to side with my morals and have faith in God who is bigger than me.

Re: I am curious about one thing

[hobbit-ninja.livejournal.com]

My vote is decided, as sadly as I thought this rationale was last year, on the key issues to me of Gay Marriage and Abortion.

What is your position on those issues exactly?

Re: I am curious about one thing

[basildestiny]

I'll give my position, but I will give a caveat before my position. Everyone deserves to be loved. I don't hate anyone. I don't have the right to hate anyone. I get frustrated and appalled by actions, but I have no right to hate anyone and that is simply from a moral stance. I am no better than anyone else.

Being said abortion is not a woman's right. It isn't her body that is destroyed, it's the baby's body. I always felt that way as a democrat. I felt it shouldn't be used as an alternative to birth control or abstinence. Abstinence being the best choice. But I will go as far as saying now that children are a gift that should not be thrown away no matter the circumstances. It's not that I would want to have a child after being raped or that I want to die in childbirth, but rather that even these circumstances do not make murder ok. As a side, I think this society finds it more appalling to think that kittens or puppies might be aborted than a human baby. There's something backward about that.

Gay marriage should not be legal. And there is a difference between being gay and being transgendered or being dual gendered.

If you're curious

[jkb.livejournal.com]

about why this is such a brouhaha, one conservative blogger, Juan Cole, explains some of it at http://www.balloon-juice.com/ He asks, "So which is worse? Asserting that over 1/3 of the country wants to coddle terrorists, or making the assertion for purely political reasons?" He cites a lot of other bloggers, many of them conservative, explaining why what Rove said is obnoxious, and why it seems to be part of a strategy: as more and more information comes out indicating that the Bush Administration duped us into war in Iraq and that we're losing the war there due to bad planning on the part of the Administration, they will try to blame liberals for being "soft on terrorism." It's a deliberate strategy of demonizing opponents in order to pin blame on them instead of taking responsibility themselves. That's a lot of what is so obnoxious. Why doesn't Bush focus on finding Osama Bin Laden, as Kerry has been demanding for over a year? Why not prepare properly for war, as Kerry and other Democrats urged, and why not leave the weapons inspectors in Iraq to do their job instead of ordering them out and launching the invasion? Bush needs to take responsibility for his own choices instead of using Rove to set up the Democrats as the fall guys for his mistakes.

Re: If you're curious

[basildestiny]

Thank you, Joanna. I am still at work and thus still have not read what he said.

Re: If you're curious

[basildestiny]

Could I tell work I need to leave early so I can read what Karl Rove said? lol I'm sure they would say ok! :)

[spaghetti-os.livejournal.com]

Bas...:)

I think your feelings are very similar to mine. I feel...So fresh and so clean! ;)

[basildestiny]

LOL It's weird agreeing politically? What the? ;)

Re: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson

[basildestiny]

See, that's why I have a new filter. I have said things that shouldn't be viewed by people when I'm having an off day. I said I was in no way perfect. And that I shouldn't think myself any better than anyone. And yes, you may be right that I said exactly what you said in an earlier entry. But I am willing to let people learn from their mistakes so I think it's fair that I can learn from my mistakes and better my opinions. Another reason that I have a new filter is that I have too many liberal friends who any time I say that I object to things I believed as a Democrat they jump on me and say that I'm a hypocrite. Except they say that I am a hypocrite not because we've had a one on one conversations and discussed the topic and my current feelings on the matter. They say it because of what this party says or what that party says. Or what this media person says or what that media person says. I also said in my comment that I actually would consider myself an indepedent except that I don't ever see Democrats lining up with my values and morals. I don't think that anyone else represents me except myself.

Abortion. I'm not lying. I have changed my opinion since we had that face to face discussion. It's not the mother's choice because it's not her body that she's going to destroy. Matt and I wouldn't have a problem adopting. I don't see what your point is other than you believe that everyone who is not in your party hates children and wouldn't adopt them. That Republicans just believe in not killing babies, but don't care about them after they are born. I disagree with that, but could definitely agree that some or even a majority don't care. I can't speak for them since those people and myself don't share viewpoints. I believe I also said It's not that I would want to have a child after being raped or that I want to die in childbirth, but rather that even these circumstances do not make murder ok. As a side, I think this society finds it more appalling to think that kittens or puppies might be aborted than a human baby. There's something backward about that. I said that immediately after the part that you are quoting.

Gay marriage. I'm going to have to use the logic that you'll laugh at and I don't care. Laugh and mock me, I have to say what I believe no matter. I have to get over not saying what is right just so we can laugh and chum around. We don't even laugh and chum around anymore anyway. Gay marriage is wrong. That is what I believe. And yes I believe it because God said so. Why is gay marriage right? Is it just because that would be tolerant to allow gay marriage? I have nothing against anyone in particular. I love the person or I should love the people. Admittedly I fail sometimes at that, but no one is perfect.

All of this talk about my party this and my party that. I'm sorry that you dislike Republicans so much, Joe. But don't put everything you've ever hated off on me because I don't believe in the Democratic party anymore. What does your party believe in anyway? That we should tolerant everything and everyone? Is there anything that is wrong? I'm just curious. I know why I was a Democrat and it definitely was because it was a tolerant, "hippy" type party. But you know, I'm not in the Republican party, I'm in God's party and God's party is love. I'm sorry that I failed at that. I'm really sorry that I'm not perfect because then Jesus wouldn't have had to die for me. I don't know which person you are talking about from work. Was it a journal entry or was it something we discussed in person? I can't remember, but I'd like to so that I can be more aware when I am around that person. I'm a work in progress and I will have my moments, but who doesn't have those moments? I am a sinner just like everyone else. So I think it's a little unfair to call me a hypocrite. But you can do as you like.

to be continued since too long to post entire comment...

Re: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson

[basildestiny]

Lastly, journals aren't meant to be selective? My original journals were kept for myself only. I began posting mine online to share who I am. To get over my shyness. Other people keep journals for many other reasons. But this journal too often is me venting and that's the worst side of me. I don't want that to be the only side of me that people see. Maybe if people didn't read this to keep in touch with me, but they do. Maybe if I hadn't met people strictly through LJ and it's the only way they knew me. If I could actually talk to my friends so they could see what I really feel when I'm being rational and not what I feel when I'm frustrated at work, then I wouldn't worry. But when I say I'm a Christian and people know I believe in God and then all they see in my journal is my venting, that's not how I should be.

I'm glad you said your peace. I think you've known for a while just like I've known that our friendship will never be the same. I think that's something that began a while ago. I will love you as a person, but I know that our values are in different places. And I know that is your choice just as this change is my choice. I'm sorry that our friendship couldn't supercede.

[starlytebaby.livejournal.com]

damn, this journal is heating up :)

Ok, so I am a non Christian who is basically teaching myself to be tolerant of Christians....does this make any sense? Agree or not agree, but I thought I would let it be known. I think to be a non christian and call yourself tolerant is fine, but you have to technically be tolerant of Christianity as well, otherwise you are no better than a Christian intolerant of a Taoist. Make sense?

That being said, I completely and whole heartedly disagree with Janina on a lot of things now, but (and Joe pay attention) I am not closing the door on our friendship. Sure we cannot bash Bush anymore or talk about Gay pride...but things happen, people change and I am happy that Janina is happy for the first time in a long time. I have not heard her talk about Chris in awhile, so to read that in her journal earlier brought tears to my eyes.

Joe- This is Tiff by the way...people change, they just do and at first, I was having a hard time with this whole change thing too as most people consider my a crazy breastfeeding exhibitionist who would totally whip out a boob at a gay pride. Call my hippy, crunchy, granola, whatever...I take my kids to a Unitarian Universalist Church and my son can tell you the story of Buddha. Most Christians find that completely offensive, and that is fine...it is after all, against their moral beliefs. I see Jesus as loving everyone, I dont believe he is the actual son of God and I believe most of the Bible is a little backwards and probably a lot wrong. I take a lot of it non literally I suppose, but I cannot go up to a Christian who completely belives in it and say, "Well, you are full of crap and so is this book" because that would be the same as a Christian going up to a Taoist and saying "Lao Su was a moron and the Tao de Chung is full of crap" lol not sure if I am spelling ANY of that right.

So I guess my advice is be happy for her, please...be happy she is happy and leave it at that. Wish her luck on her marraige and children. A true Christian is not a crazy extremist and can be tolerant of others without being a jerk. Jesus was not a jerk. And Janina and Matt are not jerks.

[starlytebaby.livejournal.com]

America- technically was founded upon money...I did a report on this last year but I believe 9 of the 13 original colonies were started by joint stock companies for profit. The rest were a mix of religious persecution and joint stock profit. The forefathers by the way were mostly deist, their concept of God was slightly different than the Christian concept. This does not mean that since then God did not play an active role in civic life and government, but simply that it was never meant to be founded upon.

Abortion- I believe it is wrong, I could never bring myself to do it. Not sure I feel the government should legislate it.

Sex Ed- Plenty of parents DONT teach sex ed which is why kids keep getting pregnant. I feel absitence should be taught but condoms should be accessible in the event that teenagers take the risk. In fact teen pregnancy and STD cases have dropped since sex ed programs were implemented in schools and planned parenthood began giving out free condoms. Now birth control pills are a different story. Those are drugs that I feel should NOT be dispensed without parental approval as they can cause medical problems for some and can have some damaging side effects for others.

Gay marraige- I believe it is up to two people whether or not they love each other and as long as they are of age and consenting, by all means that is fine. I dont feel churches that disagree with gay marraige should be forced to marry gays. Not so long ago people were upset about biracial couples marrying. I personally do not see the difference between that and not allowing gays to marry. We are not talking about two different species here by the way, we are talking about two human beings. And being gay does not increase your risk of STD's, being promiscuous does. There are plenty of heterosexuals just as if not more so promiscuous. And the reason the STD rates jumped so high in homosexuals is because homosexuals had no reason to use condoms since there was no risk of pregnancy. Now that they know better and the ad council has done an excellent job putting out good medical info, those rates are dropping rapidly.

The hardest thing for a non christian is to not judge a christian. I think it is a great challenge, and that if you claim to be tolerant, you need to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. I am tryin myself to do that....perhaps other non christians should try that as well.

[basildestiny]

I'm really proud of you for trying so hard. I don't even see why we can't discuss abortion and gay marriage. It's not like I'm going to attack you with my fists or anything. You'll know that I disagree.

I think you have valid points in all of your comments except of course gay marriage. I do think parents need to take responsibility. I'll be glad to start one step at a time until parents take responsibility. That kind of a change isn't going to come overnight! It's not that I could possibly expect a dramatic overnight change. I'm willing to work toward a goal.

The only point that I will make on the marriage part is that I have nothing against interacial marriages. Man and woman is fine with me. I have nothing wrong with people in general actually. People should love each other. I just have a problem with sin, with the actions themselves. You can still love your children and correct them for misbehaving.

Anyway, sorry about all of the silly analogies, I just feel that written communication isn't the best way of expression. :)

[frit.livejournal.com]

I didn't respond to this post when you first posted it because I didn't have anything to say really. I just want to comment about one thing - your stance on gay marriage.

I respect you a great deal which is why this is somewhat difficult for me.

I do not believe that Church and State should ever be considered together. Here, gay marriages have been legalized but that doesn't mean that every church has to perform them and that is just how it should be in my opinion. The unions deserve to be recognized but there is nothing wrong with those religions who do not wish to recognize it - they don't have to. Obviously my preference would be that they did but I'm not going to force my views on anyone and I expect the same respect in return.

And yes, the bible does say that man shall not lie with another man as he does a woman but it also says you shouldn't eat shellfish, no meat on Fridays and all sorts of other things that are not applicable to today's society. Someone else pointed out a lot of things that the bible has said about various things so I won't go into that in anymore great depth.

I realize that this may be a moot point because I am in Canada and thus if I wanted to marry a woman I could, but it saddens me to find out that one of my friends would not support me in that marriage. I'm not going to defriend you over this, I think that's a silly thing to do however if you feel the need to defriend me I won't be offended.

[basildestiny]

LOL What is with my friends thinking that because I don't support gay marriage or that I am against abortion that either a) I can't talk to them anymore b) I am intolerant of their ways or c) I will unfriend them.

Church and state should be different entities. Just like Canada and the US are different entities. But that doesn't mean that Canada and the US will never have dinner together some time or maybe agree on something, meet up at a party, or something else. The United States in particular has gotten really caught up in defining what seperation of church and state means.

My opinion on church and state is simply my opinion. It is Biblically based and the Bible does say some things that simply no longer apply. However, they no longer apply because Jesus died for our sins and changed the way things could be done.

It's silly to think that I wouldn't support you. It make take me some doing, but it's not my place to judge you. It would be your choice to marry a woman. Since you already know my point of view, I wouldn't nag you about it. You have free will. It would be just like when a child says it is gay. The parents may not want to accept that decision, but they still love their child. That's exactly how I feel about my friends. Simply because I am a Christian and have Christian values does not mean that I will love my friends any less. I just may not love what they are doing. And would simply ask forgiveness if I was judgemental for everyone is judgemental and I will fall along the way. I can guarantee it.

And I especially appreciate your point that you don't want people to force their views on you. It's just what I said in a comment on another topic: at some point you have to be logical and ask 'how small is too small or is there such a thing?'

[frit.livejournal.com]

LOL What is with my friends thinking that because I don't support gay marriage or that I am against abortion that either a) I can't talk to them anymore b) I am intolerant of their ways or c) I will unfriend them.
Well, people defriend for things like this. I'm not saying you would or will, just that I'm aware that some people will and that I wouldn't be offended if you happened to be one of those people. :)

However, they no longer apply because Jesus died for our sins and changed the way things could be done.
I'm sorry but I fail to understand the logic here. This is not a judgement, I seriously don't understand. If Jesus died for people's sins then why is it okay to eat shellfish but it's not okay to be gay? Where is that line drawn to determine what is a sin and what is not a sin?

It's silly to think that I wouldn't support you.
My logic behind my statement is as follows. You stated that you believe gay marriage is wrong. You also stated that you would still love your friends regardless of who they loved. However because you believe that gay marriage is wrong you can never fully support me. Yes, you can be happy for me but you still believe that what I'm doing is wrong.

[basildestiny]

Yeah, definitely not one of those peoples. Not vindictive.

However, they no longer apply because Jesus died for our sins and changed the way things could be done.
I'm sorry but I fail to understand the logic here. This is not a judgement, I seriously don't understand. If Jesus died for people's sins then why is it okay to eat shellfish but it's not okay to be gay? Where is that line drawn to determine what is a sin and what is not a sin?
Ok, good questions! I was definitely unclear. Things which were traditions in the Old Testament changed in the New Testament. There are still truths; however, the prophecy was fulfilled that these things were commemorating. I am just guessing at this since I'm not exactly sure where these verses were taken. If you could provide more information, I'd be glad to take a look at them and see what was being described.

A sin would be something that God said was a sin. Again there are things that have changed. Especially being that Jesus lived and died and lived again. And whereas at one point, gays should have been stoned, they can now be forgiven as anyone else who sins and so should be shown love just like any other sinner. Clearer?

If by support you mean that I am happy that you are going to marry a woman and encourage you to do so, then you'll know that I disagree with you in that matter. If by support you mean that I am willing to help you and put aside my opinions because it is more important to me to show you God's love, then you have my support. Support doesn't have to be so black and white to only mean that I agree with you. I can support you and still disagree with you, can't I?