DIviders, not Uniters
Friday, June 24th, 2005 01:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
basildestinyYou 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-27 03:27 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-27 03:27 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-27 04:15 am (UTC)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. :)