listening to the Velvet Underground makes me think about how odd my life has been

[mynameisandey]

I lived on the east coast, in Western American, and Middle America. I've lived in a minivan to protest capitalism and voted Republican. I've spent entire summers watching television, and others catching rattlesnakes and riding a bike hundreds of miles. I've loved women, I've hated women. I've been cold, I've been hot. I've been consistent, I'

Comments

[lager_jager]

Your contact with liberals may just be because your friends are for the most part college age NoMos. Most young liberals, perhaps myself included, will get more conservative with age. Having little to lose or being supported by parents lends one to be willing to complain that the system needs to change. Ineffectual protesting of the status quo seems to be the left's drug of choice, aside from the actual drugs ofcourse. I'd go out and change the world for the better, but I really do have a lot of videogames to play.

I want a brain and a heart.

[msblackandwhite]

On the issue of age and political orientation, I've been told that if you are young and you aren't a liberal, you don't have a heart. Likewise, if you are old and a conservative, you don't have a brain. Does that imply that it's acceptable to have to heart when you are past the age of 30? Or that when you are younger it's unreasonable to expect that you can think critically? Psshaw. Well, I'm conservative and I have a heart and a brain.

Re: I want a brain and a heart.

[lager_jager]

Yeah, thats a quote by Churchill. I don't think that conservative folks are heartless or aged liberals are stupid, I think a lot of these things are issue based. Most conservatives I know want to just remove welfare, and the liberals think this is mostly heartless. I think for the most part that having poor people starve to death is bad, above and beyond the reason that they die. Saying that we don't value the lives of those who in many cases (e.g. the inner city underclass) don't have the ability to protect their own lives is a grave step. I don't see how one can make anti-abortion arguments and still be against welfare. Do they only care about the lives of the unborn? I think both sides are hipocritical about one thing or another. I'm a pro-life democrat, and thats not always a fun place to be. In general I think that those issue based decisions that are harmful are made based on flawed or incomplete information with a dash of self interest (as are virtually all decisions) and not just a bunch of evil men plotting to

Re: I want a brain and a heart.

[mynameisandey]

I'm a pro-life independant. I despise the idea of pro-life being solely pro-life. It's not just about protecting unborn children, which is important, it's about responsibility. Two people old enough to create a human being probably know how babies are made. I'm pro-choice, people should make wise choices, but abortion is ex-post facto if you will. people should be well aware of the risks involved in their activities and rather than shrugging them off and makeing personal or economic excuses. From my religious viewpoint, it would be remiss of me not to say that unborn children are the most important side of the issue, but in the cold political world I cannot see a valid argument for abortion being beneficial to society

[ordinarymachine]

Throw labels out the window. Isn't everything about the choices you make? You have to exercise your free will in the way see you best. Why would you want to limit you choices by labeling them. You're not a liberal or conservative or constructionalist...you are a human being. Don't sell yourself short Draper.

labels

[mynameisandey]

I believe in labels. I don't believe in following labels in their entirety and purity. Pure constructionalists believe that no political theory is good or worthwhile. I mentioned I don't believe that. Labels are an easy way of giving a quick reference of beliefs. Finding labels that fit you and fitting yourself to labels are two different things. If I know that I like riding a bicycle and call myself a cyclist, no problem. If I call myself a cyclist and decide I need to shave my legs to be a cyclist, that's an unhealthy use of labeling. (unless I do it for aerodynamics).

find many labels, give and take ideas from them. Don't define yourself by them, but do use them as a quick easy reference. That's what they are best for.

[lager_jager]

No, everything isnt about the choices you make. About half of your limitations are ascribed statuses. Those who can overcome those ascribed statuses are few and far between, and congratulations to them, but without labelling you have no language. Its all idiogramatic, so when you say use it "best" that is a label, when you say he's a "human being" thats a label. If you want to ditch labelling why bother being anthropocentric in your view of Andey? Without labelling isnt being a human just a choice he made? Come on man, without labelling you have an amoral society, because there cant be good or bad. Some labelling is harmful, I'll use the terrorist example since I think its the easiest. Calling anyone who kills anyone else in Iraq/Israel/Saudi Arabia etc a terrorist is harmful because the word has normative connotations which inherently bias the majority of folks against all arabs or against the sometimes legitimate cause for which they fight (palestinian state etc). The problem is the deeper meaning that people ascribe to labels, we

[heartseeker]

I wish you could leave a comment... but not have it be a comment to a post... just a comment in general. That way it's not one of those, "you got me all interested with your words, enough to say something" things, and it can simply be, "hey, I was thinking about you, how are you?"

Oh well
Hey, I was thinking about you, how are you?
and your words, dude... interesting. ;)