I have plenty to worry about throughout the day, job security, bill paying, saving for my daughters education all the way down to getting out of work before traffic gets bad, hoping they don’t run out of eclairs at the bakery and keeping my weight in check. I’d say I run the gauntlet of worries and think that I’m pretty average, some stuff is important some stuff not so much but it got me thinking about social issues in America, do people really worry about them?
For example, a lot of right wingers are fervently against gay marriage, you see them in TV interviews, protesting on the streets and talking to you about it whenever they get the chance. I’m curious as to whether or not John and Martha are in bed at night and John looks over and says “Martha I don’t think I can take another day if these fags can get married”. If that is the main worry that these people have then two things jump out at me, they must have their lives so sorted out that they don’t have real worries and secondly I’m jealous.
I’d like to be able to say that the left is better but of course we aren’t, I totally believe in climate change/global warming, it’s hard for me to get concerned though when they say the ocean is going to raise 1/40th of an inch in the next 25 years, it’s kind of a let down and doesn’t really endear you to main stream America. If you have “normal” worries, then the ocean raising tenths of inches doesn’t really jump into my Top 10.
I guess I can see why these worries would be number 1 if you were a gay couple trying to get married or a scientist whose job it was to deal with climate change, but for normal Americans who are struggling with high unemployment and home foreclosures it’s hard to imagine why these issues are such hot button.
My Christmas wish is to find a politician who deals with real US “day to day” worries and not one who panders to our political extremes. I know it makes good television and a lively debate, but I don’t think I’m alone when I say there are more important issues to worry about.
15 Comments.
I think being against gay marriage has more to do with being in a group, and signaling to others in the group that you’re loyal to the group and the supposed principles of the group. That’s it. And throw in a healthy dose of projection, where the “issue” (read non-issue) of gay marriage becomes the lightning rod for all sorts of real legitimate worries they’re not quite brave enough or well-informed enough (etc.) to face head-on. So, no need to be jealous. Global warming is sort of the same… if you don’t believe in it you’re an obstructive profiteer or a backward idiot and not part of the group. Different group, same dynamic. The difference is, if gay marriage happens, so what? Whereas if climate change happens, that will screw up your life. Your “day to day worries” will soon include a bunch more worrying about food prices and such. Some will blame the gays for that, you mark my words.
All the social issues I see as a smokescreen so politicians don’t have to deal with real issues, like creating jobs, putting judges in seats, passing laws which would actually help people with troubled mortgages, prosecuting warrantless wiretapping, combatting voter suppression efforts, et al. Because Americans are generally poorly informed, they vote with their emotions, so all ya gotta do to motivate the masses is incite or inflame them about abortion or gay marriage or evil-right-wingism and they toss their brains out the window and pull the lever. Until Americans become much more informed and less emotional I don’t see things getting better. Maybe if a charismatic smarty like Alan Grayson or Martin O’Malley gets the presidency they might single-handedly able to push the country to cover the important issues which will make peoples’ lives better, but until that happens, I don’t have much hope.
To KJP:
Put down the eclair and step away from the pastry counter.
Your glib dismissal of the magnitude of predicted sea level rise suggests that YOU should stop worrying (and writing) about the unwarranted, irrational concerns of others but, rather, start educating yourself about THE main factor in your daughters’ future.
KJP: So your Christmas wish is to find a politician who won’t have any important goals but will help guarantee your morning eclair? Why how forward thinking and noble of you.
But as this is the case, lets think of a very well minded pro-eclair politician for you. This person recognizes that In the not too distant future there are a number of threats to the availability and pricing of the vital morning eclair. First is that global warming, will not just raise sea levels* but also decrease the amount of farm-ready and arable land used for the growing of eclair ingredient while also causing starvation and mass migration in poor sections of the world thus creating wars, causing the re-purposing eclair ingredient based farm-land for basic edible food farm land (the horror) and farther directly and indirectly reducing the availability and increasing the cost of eclair ingredients via many pathways that I can elaborate upon if you need me to spell it out for you.
This forward thinking pro-eclair politician might also realize that eclairs are fairly energy intensive to make in the modern world. The ingredients may actually travel thousands of miles (no joke) and the factories used to partially or fully process them or parts of their ingredients require energy. Notably there is an oncoming energy crisis due to over-dependence on a predominantly dwindling oil-based energy infrastructure. As such this wise pro-eclair politician will help invest heavily in energy conservation, legislation to protect and encourage local sourced foods and farmers (even though said politician doesn’t actually give a rats ass about the local farmers in his or her rabidly pro-eclair agenda), alternate energy sources, ect…
Indeed this wise, long view, forward thinking, pro-eclair politician whom you desperately wish for ends up looking not much different from any serious progressive reformer. Oh well.
*incidentally it is estimated by the IPCC that the ocean level rise in the 21st century could be as high as 1 meter and there are good arguments to how that is even a pretty low-ball estimate. The next twenty five years then will see WAY more then 1 inch of sea rise, and even a foot would cause more then enough damage to the global economy that it will be felt in your eclair budget and eclair availability schedule even though you might be too busy eating eclairs to figure out that this is part of the reason why eclairs are getting harder and more expensive to come by. More importantly the effects of climate change are multifaceted, so the same effects causing the ocean rise that you foolishly don’t think effect you are causing a multitude of other things that will also each independently work to ruin the precious fairly selfish and shallow things that you actually do care about.
TED!!! I am all for having more people add content to your blog, and I love that there are many different people who post here often with radically differing views. I am also all for the “if you don’t like it don’t look at it rule”. But that being said, many of the people who actually do post on your blog … GOODNESS GRACIOUS …
Your line up consists of people like:
1) Alex the Tired who does almost nothing but try to subtly reinforce rightwing talking points from a psedo-liberal stance or argue against all the non-corporately restricted media and information sources and any and all other web 2.0 features that are just about the only way for people to exchange non-propaganda these days or otherwise have a voice and opinion for themselves that can be heard (major lulzy irony points for him using web 2.0 to get his message out as it is the only way he has to exchange information or get his voice out. Guess he wants society to finish completely forgetting that he has an opinion, a life, thinks, or even exists,.)
2) KPJ: who has just thrown out this rant that contains all the core hooks and selling points (though tuned down a little bit as to be easier to swallow) to Edward Bernays’ psychoanalyst formed propaganda created at the turn of the previous century to help break up consolidated progressive movements and reduce people to sedated self centered consumerism (A primer here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9167657690296627941 )
If these people aren’t paid instigators, then the crap they put up here just happens to be identical to what paid instigators get paid to put up.
Someone,
First, I have to confess that I almost cannot follow your practically indecipherable babbling. Use periods. Stick to one main thought per sentence. Edit what you write before you submit it. It isn’t my job to attempt to parse the meaning out of whatever it is you’re trying to say.
Second, there is nothing subtle about my points. I have said repeatedly the same basic thing: The Democrats are too timid. The Republicans are bullies who know exactly how to run the timid. The Democrats need to grow a pair AND stop behaving like Republicans (hint: keeping Gitmo open is not Democratic-appearing — I’ll leave out the immorality of imprisonment without charge or day in court — and when the Dems don’t actively resist it at the top of their lungs).
If the Dems can’t man up and win a fist fight, they need to take a lesson from Judo, and use the enemy’s momentum against him. Let the Republicans go ahead and do whatever they want. Gut the infrastructure, wipe out social security, deport everyone tanner than a piece of copy paper. Cut to the end of the story and let’s cure everyone of this frickin’ delusion that the Republican strategies lead to anything other than unmitigated disaster. Wake the lumpen masses out of their stupor.
Third, I’m not arguing against “non-corporately restricted media and information sources” mainly because most of these much-vaunted sites in question are not information sources. They help themselves to the information produced by corporate sites (NYTimes, Fox News, CNN, BBC, etc.), slap an anecdote and some snark on it, and pretend they’ve just done journalism. Someone’s endless diary entry over at DailyKos about a friend in the hospital isn’t information: it’s an ANECDOTE. The plural of anecdote (I think I’m stealing from Carl Sagan on this) is NOT evidence. Someone telling us all how the planet is heating up, again, isn’t news. Mainly because that’s out there already.
Furthermore, Huffington Post is as corporate an entity as FOX News. Arianna worked her gang of slaves until she had something she could sell to AOL for $300 million. Those peons got “valuable” experience. No money, because pretty much no one pays anyone anymore — certainly not Democrats. So, no, I don’t applaud the “non-corporate” business model that’s just a gussied up version of slavery. If you applaud it, you need to pull you head out of your ass.
Fourth, “blah blah just about the only way for people to exchange non-propaganda these days” is a phony rallying cry that has been going on for decades. There has ALWAYS been an alternative press in this country. It started with someone named Peter Zenga. And that alternative media built its reputation by real journalism techniques: research, FOIA requests, facing down intimidation (something the Democrats could really stand to learn), and coming in day in and day out to produce the paper. And to do that, they had to have revenue.
Now, all the alternative media are folding. Why? Because of this bullshit worthless Web 2.0 crap that has cut off their ad revenue. The web steals and steals from the “dead tree” media, and keeps pretending that when the last real paper up and dies, the 2.0 version of journalism is going to be able to do ANYTHING. Bradley Manning is still rotting in prison. Julian Assange has turned into some bizarre soap opera. All those people in Gitmo are gonna be there til the day they die. Why hasn’t Web 2.0, the Great and Powerful, done anything?
Oh, wait, I know, it’s just like I keep getting told about the Dems. I have to give it time. Another 30, 40 years, then we’ll probably see some incremental improvements.
@alex
The Democrats are NOT the ones keeping Gitmo open (other than a handful of Blue dogs that I could count on one hand). This has been repeatedly proven, yet you keep spouting this tired B.S. And I will NEVER stop calling you on it.
Second, I love how your entire plan to stop the Republicans is to let the Republicans win. The Republicans know full well that they cannot govern this country under the current system of government, which is why, if we are foolish enough to play into their hands by giving them power-exactly what you propose- they will finish turning this country into a fascist theocracy.
Thanks, but NO THANKS.
The left could get every last item they wanted if they got a clue about how elections work and how long changes actually take, but as you’ve demonstrated they’d rather punish others for their own lack of understanding.
You’d make things worse to “wake up” the “lumpen masses” when the reality is that it’s the far fringe left who is deeply, terminally, asleep, and stuck in dreams of revolution that will never happen (good thing too, cause they’d lose) that lead to a new golden age where they get everything they want instantly, and the left refuse to wake up to reality.
@Alex
Forgot to mention your luddite old-man, “Get off my virtual lawn.” schtick is getting old and tired. The Internet is here to stay- adjust your business model to it, or deservedly die.
Get over it already.
Whimsical must agree with the Republicans if he says President Obama isn’t keeping Guantánamo open: i.e., that the Joint Chiefs, when ordered to close Guantánamo by President Obama said, ‘You’re from Kenya, so you’re not our Commander in Chief, and we only take orders from the real President, President Romney.’ Republicans nutcases who post to the various forums (or, in the case of the nutcases, againstums) keep saying that Obama not only didn’t order the assassination of Osama, he ordered the military not to hurt his BFF, but the military disregarded his orders since, of course, he’s not really the Commander in Chief. And (according to the nutcases) the Joint Chiefs said the assassination was classified ‘Top Secret’ so it was a violation of national security for President Obama to announce it on national TV.
What really happened was that President Obama was warned that if any atrocity was ever committed under any circumstances by any inmate of Guantánamo released or transferred on his orders, he would be held fully responsible. So he retracted his order to close Guantánamo, on the recommendation of his own advisers.
Which makes him responsible for keeping Guantánamo open.
Unless you agree with the Republican nut-cases that the Joint Chiefs do not recognize President Obama as Commander in Chief and refused to close Guantánamo after he ordered it closed.
Whimsical, unless you consider Obama a blue dog democrat you are full of crap. Obama made the choice to leave it open, Obama has made the choice to continue the policies of the Patriot Act, Obama has made the choice to assassinate foreigners he doesn’t like, and yes, even American citizens, as long as you know, they aren’t on American soil when he does it. So I take strong issue with your fantasy that somehow Obama would have been an actual liberal, if just those big bad blue dogs had done their job.
I agree with Gavbrown, most social issues are a smoke screen. Have you ever wondered why politicians waste time talking about stuff they know they can’t change like Abortion, Gun control, and various other social issues that are split about 50 50 and stuck where they are give or take small actions? Because making people hate each other is much easier.
@michael
Proof? As far as I am aware the order to close Gitmo is still extant and has never been rescinded. But given that the Republicans have made clear they will never allow it to close, I wouldn’t blame him if he had.
@patron
You’re full of it. Obama did everything in his power to close Gitmo. The rest of the debunked crap and the strawman you posted isnt worth a response.
Whimsical, please look up the definition of straw man argument, and I don’t know what the hell you are talking about debunked bs…. for the rest of it, Obama bragged about renewing the patriot act. Obama has also admitted to authorizing the killing of an American citizen, and many foreigners, that is fact, Obama did those things, he was proud of those accomplishments….. So, whatever it is you mean by straw man argument I think you best rethink, and as for the debunk blah blah blah, yeah your wrong, sorry.
Folks, don’t waste time interacting with the retarded Whimsical. Just listen to him go on about “Blue Dogs” here, and that should make it clear what an idiot he is. No one – and I mean NO ONE – has even uttered the words “blue dog” in three years. There’s a reason for that. They’re not relevant anymore. Yet, Whimsical still uses them as some sort of cogent argument to defend his savior, hero, nanny, and god: The One.
Whimsical likes to pretend that HE and ONLY HE knows how change comes about. Too fucking stupid to live, that’s all he is. You can’t even address this idiot, ok? He’s just too fucking stupid. Don’t engage him. Why waste your time? Your time is better spent doing anything else.
Aww, poor little plant. Are your right wing masters being hard on you for your continual failure to spark the revolution they want?
Good
@patron, I’m afraid you’re the one that needs to look up the definition of Straw Man argument, if only so you’ll stop using them. Might as well look up the rest of the junk you posted too, it’s all been debunked, but I’m not in the business of doing people’s research for them.