(no subject)
Sep. 4th, 2004 07:04 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vicarzI know that this long post will be ignored - it's a Saturday and no one reads on the weekend. It's 6:40 AM and I've been up for an hour. Why? "What sin hath I committed..."
I'm torn. As I'm studying constitutional law, I'm finding myself really wishing
I had known, studied, and cared about history and government earlier.
I could serve in this country, in politics. That I made a bigger difference.
At the same time I'm sick of all this. I have a huge urge to run out to the club tonight and just be a sexual object. Show my meat, attract and shoot down, drink to get high, use sex for power and then later that night mix the two. I feel like I'm the most beautiful person that has ever thought about these things. I think more people need to stare at the hard work I put on this body, it's delicious. All this cerebral time makes me want to go primal.
I'm baffled by what conservatives want in this country. I'm trying to understand what they are actually voting for. I cannot believe it is the platform - the platform which is contrary to the economic interests of almost all of those who vote for it. I think I'm reverting to the redneck b-b-q analysis of why people vote for the guy with the family-in-church picture. I don't think you have to be smart to tackle politics, but it may help. It's damaging debate and understanding the issues that face our leaders that the populace wants to see all of our arguments, and even character issues, in black and white. THIS is RIGHT. THAT is WRONG. The people that address complexities of the situation, the good and the bad sides of a complex issue, get shouted down by those that would turn political debate into the equivalent of professional wrestling scripts.
I love debating with intelligent people, I love to lose for crying out loud. I love to learn through debate and interpretation of known facts and the discovery of those unknown. I don't mind arguing with literate conservatives, those that have facts to back up their assertions, and will be able to discuss pros and cons of their views. Most however seem merely to scream with passioned voices, lacking the ability, or perhaps desire, to reason. At the same time, I have to say that intellect is worthless if you cannot then use that intellect to communicate with someone that may not share your skills. The facts are perhaps complex, but I'm trying to learn how to use the basic facts to counter rhetoric. I want to be able to argue with the average person and come to an understanding - to find the ground where we can agree on some points, perhaps make a world where we all can live.
I'm having fun reading over Lincoln's early decisions. The man was a friggin bastard - he violated the laws of this country, and FLIP-FLOPPED LIKE MAD. He broke the laws to steal property - taking possession of ships and their cargo when there was no war! To prevent votes that might have gone against his beliefs (which were not consistent with the constitution) he prevented congress from meeting. He went back and forth on slavery for property rights reasons, using the weapon of slave-freedom as a coercive tool against states that threatened independence (while fathering children with his slaves). In fact, the more I study early constitutional decisions, the more I'm absolutely amazed to find out that most of the most famous founding figures - those unassailable men of stature - all made contradictory decisions, broke the laws, and in many cases were genuine asses of their time. Kerry flip-flops? Does that make him as admirable as Washington, Lincoln, Madison...all of whom flip-floppwed, but also were law-breakers?
I think about running for office. I do not believe in the conscience of any of our leaders, demo or rep and even the nutty green. I do know me, and that if I were ever in office that I would do the best I could for the general good as I saw it. Now I don't know if that good would be by doing what you're supposed to do - representing. You're not supposed to push your views in office, you're supposed to support the views of those who elect you, and/or uphold the laws of the country. I think what I feel like doing is what most actually do - they do what they think is right, and hope to find the law to fit their pre-conceived notion.
At the same time these thoughts occur to me:
1) I recently served as the president of GALLA, and said and did things based on the role I was supposed to fill. My left-wing views would not best serve that group, and I picked stances that included as many people as I could - inclusive, rather than exclusive views. My god that was annoying, but felt that it was my duty in that leadership role. I didn't just act based on my belief system, I conformed to the role I was chosen to fill.
2) This is exactly what I complain about our leaders doing. Throughout the history of this country we have made decisions with and against the laws that founded it. Many of these decisions have led to the 'right result,' or at least that which we are accustomed to. How different would our lives be if we had a national bank? If states were allowed to cecede from the union? If slavery was still legal? If ultimately we conform to an undefined sense of right vs. wrong, is there any reason to have laws at all, or do we just constantly have people in office who do what they think is right? What if that 'right' is to eliminate elections because they know in their heart of hearts that they are the best person(s) to run the country? What if the next person to fill the shoes is 'evil?'
3) I'm afraid that the people that run the country often are not representing the populations they serve, and a lot of the time I'm glad they're not representing. The ignorant people in this country, from racist homophobic rednecks, to lazy welfare suckers, would wish things to be done that I tend to think would destroy the country or the rights of many of its citizens.
4) I'm sure that most people in high office are serving business and other special interests, and that special interest groups have far too much power in this country. I mind less when those interests are my own.
For instance - I support gay marriage, while most of the country does not. To me the issue should end at "If you don't like gay marriage, then don't marry a gay!" but most people want to prevent the very existence of those personal freedoms. So in that case, is it a special interest that is running politics to their advantage, or is it a case of protecting a minority from a majority that would abuse it's power over them? At what point should a minority be protected? What if Rhode Island wants to cecede from the union?
(Do most people know that we invaded Hawaii with no legal reason to do so whatsoever? We just invaded them and kidnapped their leaders for the sake of Dole Pineapple's business interests (Yes, Bob Dole's family) - but Kuwait was wrong?)
4a) At the same time, I understand by a view of recent history that you can't just run in to office and do what you want. You cannot just make laws based on your desires, you cannot just buck the system by grabbing the reins. This was proven by the Gingrich congress, which not only conceded defeat in their agenda - but by and large violated their promises not to run again. You can't just fight the powers that be - but I don't know how to tell the difference between the necessary legislative compromises to ensure that SOMETHING gets done, and insane special-interest agendas being given higher precendential value than they deserve.
Perhaps I'm the Manchurian candidate, raised by drag queens! Soon, my darlings, a bomb of FABULOUSNESS will be set off in Washington to send waves of bee-you-tee-full out across this rainbowey land! You can go to church if you want, sisters, but you can throw on a dress and kick up your heels too! Now break out those platforms and let's work!
I'm torn. As I'm studying constitutional law, I'm finding myself really wishing
I had known, studied, and cared about history and government earlier.
I could serve in this country, in politics. That I made a bigger difference.
At the same time I'm sick of all this. I have a huge urge to run out to the club tonight and just be a sexual object. Show my meat, attract and shoot down, drink to get high, use sex for power and then later that night mix the two. I feel like I'm the most beautiful person that has ever thought about these things. I think more people need to stare at the hard work I put on this body, it's delicious. All this cerebral time makes me want to go primal.
I'm baffled by what conservatives want in this country. I'm trying to understand what they are actually voting for. I cannot believe it is the platform - the platform which is contrary to the economic interests of almost all of those who vote for it. I think I'm reverting to the redneck b-b-q analysis of why people vote for the guy with the family-in-church picture. I don't think you have to be smart to tackle politics, but it may help. It's damaging debate and understanding the issues that face our leaders that the populace wants to see all of our arguments, and even character issues, in black and white. THIS is RIGHT. THAT is WRONG. The people that address complexities of the situation, the good and the bad sides of a complex issue, get shouted down by those that would turn political debate into the equivalent of professional wrestling scripts.
I love debating with intelligent people, I love to lose for crying out loud. I love to learn through debate and interpretation of known facts and the discovery of those unknown. I don't mind arguing with literate conservatives, those that have facts to back up their assertions, and will be able to discuss pros and cons of their views. Most however seem merely to scream with passioned voices, lacking the ability, or perhaps desire, to reason. At the same time, I have to say that intellect is worthless if you cannot then use that intellect to communicate with someone that may not share your skills. The facts are perhaps complex, but I'm trying to learn how to use the basic facts to counter rhetoric. I want to be able to argue with the average person and come to an understanding - to find the ground where we can agree on some points, perhaps make a world where we all can live.
I'm having fun reading over Lincoln's early decisions. The man was a friggin bastard - he violated the laws of this country, and FLIP-FLOPPED LIKE MAD. He broke the laws to steal property - taking possession of ships and their cargo when there was no war! To prevent votes that might have gone against his beliefs (which were not consistent with the constitution) he prevented congress from meeting. He went back and forth on slavery for property rights reasons, using the weapon of slave-freedom as a coercive tool against states that threatened independence (while fathering children with his slaves). In fact, the more I study early constitutional decisions, the more I'm absolutely amazed to find out that most of the most famous founding figures - those unassailable men of stature - all made contradictory decisions, broke the laws, and in many cases were genuine asses of their time. Kerry flip-flops? Does that make him as admirable as Washington, Lincoln, Madison...all of whom flip-floppwed, but also were law-breakers?
I think about running for office. I do not believe in the conscience of any of our leaders, demo or rep and even the nutty green. I do know me, and that if I were ever in office that I would do the best I could for the general good as I saw it. Now I don't know if that good would be by doing what you're supposed to do - representing. You're not supposed to push your views in office, you're supposed to support the views of those who elect you, and/or uphold the laws of the country. I think what I feel like doing is what most actually do - they do what they think is right, and hope to find the law to fit their pre-conceived notion.
At the same time these thoughts occur to me:
1) I recently served as the president of GALLA, and said and did things based on the role I was supposed to fill. My left-wing views would not best serve that group, and I picked stances that included as many people as I could - inclusive, rather than exclusive views. My god that was annoying, but felt that it was my duty in that leadership role. I didn't just act based on my belief system, I conformed to the role I was chosen to fill.
2) This is exactly what I complain about our leaders doing. Throughout the history of this country we have made decisions with and against the laws that founded it. Many of these decisions have led to the 'right result,' or at least that which we are accustomed to. How different would our lives be if we had a national bank? If states were allowed to cecede from the union? If slavery was still legal? If ultimately we conform to an undefined sense of right vs. wrong, is there any reason to have laws at all, or do we just constantly have people in office who do what they think is right? What if that 'right' is to eliminate elections because they know in their heart of hearts that they are the best person(s) to run the country? What if the next person to fill the shoes is 'evil?'
3) I'm afraid that the people that run the country often are not representing the populations they serve, and a lot of the time I'm glad they're not representing. The ignorant people in this country, from racist homophobic rednecks, to lazy welfare suckers, would wish things to be done that I tend to think would destroy the country or the rights of many of its citizens.
4) I'm sure that most people in high office are serving business and other special interests, and that special interest groups have far too much power in this country. I mind less when those interests are my own.
For instance - I support gay marriage, while most of the country does not. To me the issue should end at "If you don't like gay marriage, then don't marry a gay!" but most people want to prevent the very existence of those personal freedoms. So in that case, is it a special interest that is running politics to their advantage, or is it a case of protecting a minority from a majority that would abuse it's power over them? At what point should a minority be protected? What if Rhode Island wants to cecede from the union?
(Do most people know that we invaded Hawaii with no legal reason to do so whatsoever? We just invaded them and kidnapped their leaders for the sake of Dole Pineapple's business interests (Yes, Bob Dole's family) - but Kuwait was wrong?)
4a) At the same time, I understand by a view of recent history that you can't just run in to office and do what you want. You cannot just make laws based on your desires, you cannot just buck the system by grabbing the reins. This was proven by the Gingrich congress, which not only conceded defeat in their agenda - but by and large violated their promises not to run again. You can't just fight the powers that be - but I don't know how to tell the difference between the necessary legislative compromises to ensure that SOMETHING gets done, and insane special-interest agendas being given higher precendential value than they deserve.
Perhaps I'm the Manchurian candidate, raised by drag queens! Soon, my darlings, a bomb of FABULOUSNESS will be set off in Washington to send waves of bee-you-tee-full out across this rainbowey land! You can go to church if you want, sisters, but you can throw on a dress and kick up your heels too! Now break out those platforms and let's work!
