Political Rant
Feb. 1st, 2006 06:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
blueeowynIf I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul. -Isaac Asimov, scientist and writer (1920-1992)
What a wise man in so many ways. This applies to preachers, politicians and people in general. Honesty and righteousness is important ... or at least it should be.
So many people today (especially those in power) say one thing and do another. They claim to be supporting their god or their country and the actual actions they take are the antithesis of what their god wants and/or what their country stands for. It is written in the New Testament that Jesus said "Love your enemies and pray for your persecuters" so I don't think that someone who claims to live a Christian life should be spouting off the idea that they should go kill all the 'heathens'. If a country's governing document states that unless power is granted to the government, that it resides in the people; then the leaders of that country should respect that and not grab more powers.
I find it sad that the best thing that one of the supporters of Alito's nomination could say was 'well, if he doesn't get confirmed, the next one will be worse' talk about the proverbial damning with faint praise. Didn't he realize that it could be read as 'Yes, Alito is the top of the dung heap, but he is still a pile of excrement'? While part of me enjoyed seeing a politician rather thoroughly make himself a buffoon; the fact that this idiot helps run my country does not make me happy.
There is a lot of talk about the mid-term elections and whether the republican party can take further control of congress or whether the democrat party can regain control (or at least get more balance). Why does it have to be like that? Why does it have to be about the party? Why can't we vote for a candidate based on his or her beliefs and statements? Granted, just because someone says that they believe X,Y, and Z doesn't mean that they actually believe it (or will vote that way), but it seems to me to be a better basis than "MY Party or Nothing" which is all too often how some people vote. And by that, I am also pointing a very accusatory finger at a few hundred people who sit in congress.
I also think that voting strictly on the party line is foolish for either party. Sometimes the person from the other party is more in-line with YOUR values/beliefs than the person from your party who got the most votes in the primary. What sometimes happens is that in a primary, there will be 5 or 6 candidates running and one will be rather extreme (like that guy who just got elected in Palastine) and the others will be fairly similar in many ways. What can happen is that the people who ARE extremists will all vote for the one candidate and the people who are determined to vote for the person who is most UNLIKE the other party will vote for the one candidate and instead of getting a fairly even split of the electorate, the results will be skewed towards the extreme candidate in the primary and possibly yield an extreme from Party A and a moderate from Party B. The Party B candidate may hold some values that are more in line with the stated purposes of Party A and the Party A candidate may not hold with a lot of their own party's tenets but people will still vote for Party A candidate simply because that is a vote for Party A. You can vote for a Party or you can vote for a Candidate. Personally, I vote for candidates based on who I think will do the best job (or at least the least harm).
I wonder what the furor would be if democrats took the house and senate and introduced an amendment to the constitution altering the supreme court. What if the appointment wasn't necessarily for life but was for a maximum of 20 or 30 years? It would still be a LONG time (and longer than most justices have been on the court) and would bring the time on the court back to something closer to what was reasonable and expected when the court was designed. For that matter, could we, as a country, have exams for potential justices ... maybe something similar to the citizenship test that people who want to become naturalized citizens take ... or the final exam from a college course on the constitution. Personally, I would really like to believe that all members of congress, the president, the cabinet, and the court could pass a citizenship test and a intro to the constitution test. I don't actually believe it, but I would like to.
I would like to see certain positions have qualifications attached to them so that the head of the education department can do basic math and english; the head of the treasury department and the chair of the appropriations committee can do basic math; the secretary of the state can find the major continents and at least 60% of the nations on the map; little things like that. Of course, if that were to be instituted, would politicians be taught to the test the same way that students are taught to the test in school (instead of being educated)?
As one of my favorite quotes says "Dear God, protect me from those to whom you speak directly." *sigh* I hate people who tar groups with a very broad brush (if you don't support the activities in Iraq, you are a traitor; if you don't support the heterosexcual marriage is the only kind idea, you are against morals and responsibilities). Feh
In other potentially disturbing links (for those who may not follow such things), the 2005 Stella Awards got announced and are available at True Stella Awards
What a wise man in so many ways. This applies to preachers, politicians and people in general. Honesty and righteousness is important ... or at least it should be.
So many people today (especially those in power) say one thing and do another. They claim to be supporting their god or their country and the actual actions they take are the antithesis of what their god wants and/or what their country stands for. It is written in the New Testament that Jesus said "Love your enemies and pray for your persecuters" so I don't think that someone who claims to live a Christian life should be spouting off the idea that they should go kill all the 'heathens'. If a country's governing document states that unless power is granted to the government, that it resides in the people; then the leaders of that country should respect that and not grab more powers.
I find it sad that the best thing that one of the supporters of Alito's nomination could say was 'well, if he doesn't get confirmed, the next one will be worse' talk about the proverbial damning with faint praise. Didn't he realize that it could be read as 'Yes, Alito is the top of the dung heap, but he is still a pile of excrement'? While part of me enjoyed seeing a politician rather thoroughly make himself a buffoon; the fact that this idiot helps run my country does not make me happy.
There is a lot of talk about the mid-term elections and whether the republican party can take further control of congress or whether the democrat party can regain control (or at least get more balance). Why does it have to be like that? Why does it have to be about the party? Why can't we vote for a candidate based on his or her beliefs and statements? Granted, just because someone says that they believe X,Y, and Z doesn't mean that they actually believe it (or will vote that way), but it seems to me to be a better basis than "MY Party or Nothing" which is all too often how some people vote. And by that, I am also pointing a very accusatory finger at a few hundred people who sit in congress.
I also think that voting strictly on the party line is foolish for either party. Sometimes the person from the other party is more in-line with YOUR values/beliefs than the person from your party who got the most votes in the primary. What sometimes happens is that in a primary, there will be 5 or 6 candidates running and one will be rather extreme (like that guy who just got elected in Palastine) and the others will be fairly similar in many ways. What can happen is that the people who ARE extremists will all vote for the one candidate and the people who are determined to vote for the person who is most UNLIKE the other party will vote for the one candidate and instead of getting a fairly even split of the electorate, the results will be skewed towards the extreme candidate in the primary and possibly yield an extreme from Party A and a moderate from Party B. The Party B candidate may hold some values that are more in line with the stated purposes of Party A and the Party A candidate may not hold with a lot of their own party's tenets but people will still vote for Party A candidate simply because that is a vote for Party A. You can vote for a Party or you can vote for a Candidate. Personally, I vote for candidates based on who I think will do the best job (or at least the least harm).
I wonder what the furor would be if democrats took the house and senate and introduced an amendment to the constitution altering the supreme court. What if the appointment wasn't necessarily for life but was for a maximum of 20 or 30 years? It would still be a LONG time (and longer than most justices have been on the court) and would bring the time on the court back to something closer to what was reasonable and expected when the court was designed. For that matter, could we, as a country, have exams for potential justices ... maybe something similar to the citizenship test that people who want to become naturalized citizens take ... or the final exam from a college course on the constitution. Personally, I would really like to believe that all members of congress, the president, the cabinet, and the court could pass a citizenship test and a intro to the constitution test. I don't actually believe it, but I would like to.
I would like to see certain positions have qualifications attached to them so that the head of the education department can do basic math and english; the head of the treasury department and the chair of the appropriations committee can do basic math; the secretary of the state can find the major continents and at least 60% of the nations on the map; little things like that. Of course, if that were to be instituted, would politicians be taught to the test the same way that students are taught to the test in school (instead of being educated)?
As one of my favorite quotes says "Dear God, protect me from those to whom you speak directly." *sigh* I hate people who tar groups with a very broad brush (if you don't support the activities in Iraq, you are a traitor; if you don't support the heterosexcual marriage is the only kind idea, you are against morals and responsibilities). Feh
In other potentially disturbing links (for those who may not follow such things), the 2005 Stella Awards got announced and are available at True Stella Awards
