Daniel weighs in on politics--Special Edition
Ordinarily, Daniel and politics don't mix. I've never participated in a protest. I never saw Fahrenheit: 9/11. On the war in Iraq I've said said next to nothing. And watching CSPAN is about as appealing to me as jumping in a volcano. Until about a month ago, I was completely apathetic about the political processes of our nation.
( Perhaps that's a good thing. )
( Perhaps that's a good thing. )
I do have one little thing I want to point out. News organizations such as the New York Times, Slate, NPR, and other public stations almost always lean to the left. And rather heavily to the left at that. I would tell you to watch FOX News instead, but general feeling there is that it leans to the right, and I don't want to be a hypocrite ;). But at the same time, if you were to watch FOX (and similar programs) as well as the stations you already watch/listen to/read, you would at least be hearing both sides of the story. I watch FOX mostly, but I do watch some of the other stations as well on a regular basis, because I want to give everyone an equal opportunity to state their case. You might even want to check out both liberal and conservatism. Now, due to my particular beliefs, I'm voting for Bush. And I know that your stance on gay marriage would make it almost impossible for you to vote for Bush, but I'm not here to try to sway your vote. I know you to be very firm in your beliefs, and again, I commend you for it. I just want to make sure you're hearing both sides. :)
Reply
Suppose you're right, and NYT, Washington Post, PBS, and others all lean decidedly to the left. It is still possible that they are correct in their assertions, just as FOX News could be correct in its assertions. What I try to look for is a concrete indicator, something that can't be twisted to say whatever the newspeople want it to (although it could simply be ignored). For example, I found the following in a recent New York Times editorial [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/10/opinion/10krugman.html]:
The administration claims to have a plan to cut the deficit in half over the next five years. But even Bruce Bartlett, a longtime tax-cut advocate, points out that "projections showing deficits falling assume that Bush's tax cuts expire on schedule." But Mr. Bush wants those tax cuts made permanent. That is, the administration has a "plan" to reduce the deficit that depends on Congress's not passing its own legislation.
Now either that paragraph is true or it is false. If it is false, then there is no arguement: NYT simply can't be trusted. If it is true, then the paragraph is a really good indicator that Bush's economic plan will not work as advertised; the deficit will become too great. But again how can I trust this information? An earlier paragraph puts me more at ease:
'Was this a wild accusation from a liberal think tank? No, it's conventional wisdom among experts. Two months ago Stanley Collender, a respected nonpartisan analyst, warned: "At some point over the next few weeks, the Office of Management and Budget will release the administration's midsession budget review and try to convince everyone the federal deficit is falling. Don't believe them."'
Of course, I have to once again accept that this paragraph is valid, that this Collender guy really exists and that he really is a respected nonpartisan analyst. But if he really is, then I have a piece of information that I can actually use.
I'd be interested to hear your views--do you think you could write an entry stating your case for Bush?
Reply
First of all, I'm not a big fan of the rich having a special obligation to society. Now my family is not rich in anyway, so that's not the reason I feel this way. I don't know if we even qualify for "middle class" though if we do, it's lower end of the middle-class. But even though we may not have as much as some, I don't want any hand-outs. The best comparison I have for this situation is this: pretend your a waiter at a restaurant. You're very courteous and patient with the customers. You are often give large tips for the extra effort you put into it. But then there are some other waiters that just go through the motions. They do what they have to do to just get by. They aren't tipped as much. Would you rather keep what you earn though it is more than what some of the others made, or would you put your tips into a big pool so that everybody gets the same share? Or think of it this way: In music, you can't have everyone on first. You need some on second and third to make it interesting. Everyone has an equal opportunity to get first, you just have to work harder for it. Now being second or third doesn't make you any less important. You just might not get as many solos. Now the first player doesn't give his solos to the 2nd or 3rd, because it's on the part that he earned. But even so, there are times when the solos are one 2nd and 3rd parts too, you know. ;) Now, I know those are very general comparisons and there are exceptions to every rule, but I've witnessed too many people in my life being the "bad waiter" but wanting those that make more to support them. Now I have no problem with charities, but taxing people just because they have more than someone else is something I don't like. Also, I know that there are some people with almost too much money, but again, it is THEIR money to do what they like with, and I don't want to tell them where or how they should or should not spend it. And I don't want it unless I earned it myself.
Now, as for specifically "why Bush"...well for starters, his tax breaks helped my family. We got paid back what he said we'd get paid back. And my family was pleased. Again, we're not "wealthy" by any stretch of the imagination, but his tax breaks still affected us.
I believe that GWB made the right decision to go to war. Those guys over there want us dead. There's no reasoning with terrorists. You can't talk to them and try to work it out with them. They don't WANT peace. They want us dead and that's it. Yes, war is a terrible thing and we have lost many of our people, but we would just be sitting ducks if we did not respond to the terrorists' attacks.
I also like the fact that Bush is a devout Christian and isn't afraid to admit it to the public. He's not pressing his religion into the government, so the separation of church and state is still there, however, as a Christian myself, I like the idea of a president who prays. I also am anti-abortion, as is Bush. Generally speaking, I have more views in common with Bush than with any other candidate.
As for Kerry, well, I have yet to find one thing that I like about him. Thing is though, I don't even know where the man stands. He really IS always changing his opinion. He's too busy trying to agree with EVERYONE that I have no idea what he TRUE feelings on ANYTHING are. The one that got me the most was when he said that life begins at conception but he has voted against the PBA 6 years in a row. My father, who is a Vietnam vet also (though was there QUITE a bit longer than Kerry), absolutely loathes the man. I dunno, that's just the gist of everything I suppose. I don't mean for this to be a debate, I'm just stating my views as you asked. :)
Reply
First of all, just because I disagree with your choice for Bush doesn't mean I think you were were wrong about your whole reasoning. You said the large networks were skewed to the left. Guess what? You were right. It seems that Dan Rather's Vietnam reports are almost certainly bunk. This is a big shame, because it takes away credibility from CBS and the press in general, which most Americans depend on most to get accurate information about the world.
Your rebuttal on rich people assumes that hard work always pays off, that the rich are like the waiters that worked hard for their share. Thus it isn't fair that the rich should give up some of their earnings to support those who do the minimum amount of work to get by. But wealth doesn't correlate with degree of work done, or with anything else for that matter. Some get rich over a lifetime by saving and making smart decisions. Others get rich overnight through speculation, a stock market boom, creation of a dot-com company, or an inheritence. Still others get rich by deceiving others or breaking the law. On the flip side, many people work hard and save all their lives but never get rich.
OK, you say, so maybe there's no way to tell how much rich people deserve to be rich, but it is still THEIR money to do what they want with it. Under normal circumstances I would agree with you. But currently the gap between the rich and the poor is widening; the super-rich are too rich, and the middle class is increasingly suffering a disproportionate tax burden. How rich is too rich? According to Kerry, if you make $200,000 a year you don’t deserve a tax cut. Last year Jerry Springer made a guest political speech on my campus. As you know, he is a very wealthy guy. He told us--in a serious tone, mind you--flat out that he didn't deserve the tax cut he got. He was rich enough that he could have absorbed higher taxes without any decrease in his quality of living.
Meanwhile, Bush has gone on a spending spree. And he's not slowing down: Billions more on defense. Billions more on prescriptions. Trillions on social security investments. Now I know the check your family received made them happy. But the checks gave rich people, who should have been happy to begin with, much more happiness than they gave your middle class family. There is actually one group the tax cuts would make sadder, though, and that group is your kids and grandkids, for they will have to eventually front the deficit bill.
Reply
As for Bush's spending, I'll agree that it's a lot, however Kerry doesn't seem to think that it's enough.
As for ssm, well, while my personal preference is to keep it all traditional (just because I'm a traditional kind of girl), I know I can't tell a person who they can or cannot love. I also know that the Bible is vague when it comes to homosexuality. For the first website you mentioned regarding this topic, what most people don't realize is that this verse falls into Levitical law, which basically means it was the law before Jesus came and rewrote all the rules. In as sense, the laws of the Old Testament are null and void (which is why I can eat all the pork I want ;)). As for the New Testament, there are three main ones that I am aware of: Romans 1:24-27; I Timothy 1:10 and Jude 1:7. However, Romans seems to be the least open for interpretation. But then again, we all sin, soo.... Anyway, I mostly agree with your 2nd website. For instance, ideally, kids WOULD be raised by their biological parents, but this is entirely impossible due to the death of a parent, divorce, adoption, etc. So that really isn't an argument at all against homosexual parents. Also, up until 3rd grade, I went to school with twins (a boy and a girl) who had lesibian moms. We were great friends, we play together after school, and I even met their moms. Though I will admit that I didn't actually know that they're moms were lesibans until a few years ago. I thought the one was an aunt or friend or something. But looking back, the twins were just as normal as other kids and we were all great friends. The main issue I have (and the website states this) is that kids of homosexual parents tend to experiment with sex more before marriage. I'm pro-abstinence so this doesn't fly well with me, but at the same time I know that it's hard to find even a hetero virgin these days. But yeah, to sum it up, while I'd like to keep it traditional (just because I like traditions), I know that I can't tell anyone who they can or cannot love, or how they should or should not live. So, Dan, I can only ask you to follow your heart, and no matter what your lifestyle, I hope you live happily ever after with the man of your dreams.
Reply
Reply
In that spirit, I'll see what I can do about exposing myself to more conservative news sources. It ain't gonna be easy--I'll probably grit my teeth a lot--but I'll give it a shot.
Reply
Leave a comment