Today on Blogcritics
Home » Values my…..Eye!

Values my…..Eye!

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

I keep hearing this value issue and people from the left just screaming how it’s the end of the world, the sky is falling. Holy Mackeral!

Exit polls seemed to consistently show that people were looking at values as a deciding factor in who they voted for this year. The left takes this to mean that the religious right is now taking over the country! Depending on which poll you look at on CNN.com it’s either 26 or 40 % of people say they attend services at least once a week. I believe the 26%. That’s not a big chunk of the voting block folks. I’ve also covered the Supreme Court issue before. It’d be 7-2 right now on the conservative side if justices voted the way they were appointed.

Here’s a definition of value: A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable. Anything in there say religion? I don’t see it. The deal for me as far as values goes would be what I saw from the swift boat veterans. And even if you try to tell me half of what they say is a lie I say that’s fine the other half is enough to let me know that this guy should never ever be president!

It was Kerry’s’ ENTIRE chain of command! I did 20 years in the navy and I guarantee you I can find at least one person that I worked for that would stick up for me! You would think that a guy running on his war record could have come up with a few more buddies to back him up! I saw to many people that served with him that said he was no good! Again, even if you only believe half of them, the other half is enough!

You know he came down here where I live for a swift boat reunion and couldn’t get a photo op? That was before the book. None of the guys he served with were willing to have their pictures taken with him!

I’ll tell you this about military life. Navy life. You sure do forget a lot of the BS over time. You remember your last command as a good command even though you thought it kinda sucked while you were there.

And you remember most of the guys you were stationed with as pretty decent folks, but I think there might have always been one or two guys…that you just didn’t like. Listening to all those other veterans, that was the feeling I got from them.

He’s never signed standard form 180. WHY NOT? What’s he hiding? I’ve heard rumors, but I’ll be nice and not put them here.

And that’s the values I’m talking about. You can’t put it in words. It’s an “I just don’t like him” kinda feeling. I honestly think that a person I wouldn’t want in my backyard for a barbeque should not be president of the United States of America.

So Mr. Kerry, you are not invited to my next barbeque!

Powered by

About Andy Marsh

  • http://thebmrant.com Matt

    Andy,

    Why all of the credence placed on exit polls, when they have been historically inaccurate? I love how Republicans like you screamed on Election Day that the exit polls were bullshit (and you were right), but now you trot out this moral horseshit for all of us to digest. Plus, if the exit data about moral issues is correct, isn’t this the lowest % of people to cite morals as their main issue since the 1992 election?

    Also, its high time you let the Swift Boat thing go. The election was a month ago. Our guy made some mistakes 30 years ago. That doesn’t make him any more unfit for command than Bush’s love affair with nose candy does from less than 20 years ago.

    We have an All-DUI executive branch, but they seem to have done well for themselves in terms of commanding.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    I’m not the one placing all the credence on exit polls. I didn’t call it morals, I called it values.

    I keep reading about this values issue and I was giving my opinion on what value I may have been talking about had I been asked.

    And just because I can’t stand kerry doesn’t necessarily mean I’m a republican.

    I’ll let go of the swift boat “thing” as you call it, when kerry signs the SF-180.

    Making a mistake is one thing, being a traitor to your country is a whole different thing.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    The exit polls everyone is citing listed “moral values” as one of the choices people could select for their top voting issue.

    It wasn’t just morals and it wasn’t just values. It was the combination.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    ok, here’s a definition of moral. It still fits. It says nothing about religion.

    moral – Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    and here’s an even better one.

    moral – Conformed to accepted rules of right; acting in conformity with such rules; virtuous; just; as, a moral man. Used sometimes in distinction from religious; as, a moral rather than a religious life.

    Even excludes religion!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    bhw – how about a moral compass similar to the political compass on your blog?

  • http://thebmrant.com Matt

    I said nothing about religion, so I’m not sure why you are even bringing it up.

    Obviously your morals and values and mine are different, because I have a much bigger problem with our president still having trace levels of coke his system than I am a senator who came back from a war and decided it was wrong.

    Oh, yeah. You’re not a Republican. Right.

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    hmmmm, so what’s worse…cleaning a bathroom with a flag, or having sex with a frozen chicken?

    oh, that’s not the point?

    ;-)

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    No I’m not. I’m a retired miltary type that respects the opinions of prisoners of war that had to withstand the torture they did because an officer in the U.S. Navy said that our military was full of WAR CRIMINALS!

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    so andy, were’d ya end up on that moral compass?

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    I’m a retired miltary type that respects the opinions of prisoners of war that had to withstand the torture they did because an officer in the U.S. Navy said that our military was full of WAR CRIMINALS!

    Huh? They withstood torture because the enemy tortured them, not because of anything said by John Kerry. Did the torture start before or after Kerry made his comments?

    Americans should NOT keep their mouths shut because some people think it might “aid or comfort” the enemy. They should speak their minds if they think a war is unjust or if war crimes are occurring. The enemy will do what the enemy will do no matter what anyone else says.

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    no, no bhw, you’re supposed to keep yer mouth shut as you face dc and genuflect toward the pentagon.

    don’t worry, all of this will be spelled out in the handbook they’ll be passing out at the liberal internment camp.

    ;-)

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Results

    Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.37.
    Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
    Your Universalising Factor is: 0.50.

    What do these results mean:

    Your Moralising Quotient is an aggregate measure of your tendency to condemn the actions described in these scenarios as morally wrong. A score of 1.00 indicates a fully moralising position. A score of 0.00 is a fully permissive response.
    Your Interference Factor is an aggregate measure of your tendency to judge the actions described here as being the legitimate target of societal interference in the form of prevention or punishment. A score of 1.00 indicates that you think that every act described in these scenarios is subject to societal interference. A score of 0.00 indicates that you think that these acts are essentially a private matter, and that societal interference is inappropriate.
    Your Universalising Factor is an aggregate measure of your tendency to judge moral wrongdoing in universal terms. A score of 1.00 means you have indicated that the act is wrong regardless of prevailing cultural norms and social conventions. A score of 0.00, on the other hand, means you have indicated that whether an act is to be thought of as wrong is largely a matter of social norms, and that it is quite possible that what is wrong in one culture may not be wrong in another.

    Overall analysis:
    I puzzled the results machine.

    Are you thinking straight about morality?
    Although you do not evaluate the actions depicted in these scenarios to be across the board wrong, it is not entirely clear why you think that anything in them is morally problematic. You don’t think an action can be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. Yet the actions described in these scenarios are private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn’t involve harm. Possibly an argument could be made that the people undertaking these actions are harmed in some way by them. But you don’t think that an action can be morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. More significantly, when asked about each scenario, in no instance did you respond that harm had resulted. Consequently, it is a puzzle why you think that any of the actions depicted here are questionable morally speaking.

    Where I fall on the chart.

  • Shark

    Andy: “…a person I wouldn’t want in my backyard for a barbeque should not be president of the United States of America.”

    A person who would write such mindless drivel is not worth reading.

    Bye.

    PS: Who is this “Kerry” person anyway???

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    then don’t read it shark!

    Did someone hold your face to your computer screen and MAKE you read it?

  • MCH

    Re comment #12;

    I concur with bhw that “Americans should speak their minds if they think a war is unjust or if war crimes are occurring.”

    The following letter, titled “Fighting the war in Vietnam all over again,” was written by a decorated combat veteran with PTSD and appeared in our local newspaper prior to the election:

    “I’ve spent a few years in and out of VA Hospitals and I know that I shouldn’t be writing this letter. When I was discharged from my last stay trying to heal 30-year-old invisible wounds, the doctors told me that when I got back home to never watch Fox News and avoid all politics. But one day, earlier this year, I woke up and discovered that the 2004 campaign for president was suddenly all about Vietnam.

    That was interesting because I thought we had silently agreed a long time ago to never mention it again. It had all that nasty stuff like trumped-up lies, deaths, deficits and a nation really angry at each other. Oh yeah – there was also about two and a half million uniformed men and women involved and a lot of them were screwed up from that chemical stuff and the uglies of people killing each other.

    But after decades of quiet, it was back on page one, on all the channels and every radio talk show.

    At first it was a little difficult to decipher. One candidate was a decorated Vietnam vet, but he was bad because he came home and spoke out against the war in 1971. If I remember it right, there were also a few other thing goings on around that time. You guys who are old enough may remember the Pentagon Papers, Kent State and Jackson State.

    Now the other candidate did not go to Vietnam. His pop got him into the National Guard to fly jets, but they had to take away his pilot’s license because he wasn’t showing up for drills and exams. Yet he was good, because as Commander In Chief he led us into victory in Iraq. Oh yeah, he also brought back all that nasty stuff again. You know…trumped-up lies, deaths, deficits and a nation really angry at each other.

    You’re right, I can’t fool you. Like Kerry, I was one of those Vietnam Vets Against the War. As a matter of fact, Vietnam turned me against all war.

    Oh yeah, just one more thing. Senator Dole, I admire your courageous service to your country in war and in the Senate, but you got it wrong when you say that John Kerry owes an apology to the U.S. Senate. Sir, the U.S. Congress owes an apology to John Kerry and to the rest of us who belong to the ‘Brotherhood of the Paddies.’

    And by the way, tell them to put back the appropriations into the VA bill that they just cut-up because there are a lot of us who still need help and it looks like they’re going to have a lot more patients for the next 30 years.”

    Just for the record, I’m a Vietnam era vet and I too was against the war when I got out over 30 years ago, in addition to being opposed to this current invasion of Iraq.

    – MCH

  • http://www.kolehardfacts.blogspot.com Mike Kole

    Hey Andy, that moral compass thing was fun. I’ve never thought of myself as amoral, but within the narrow set of scenarios offered, well… When I saw the results, I laughed out loud.

    “Results

    Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.07.
    Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
    Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

    What do these results mean?

    Are you thinking straight about morality?”

    Heh.

    “You see very little wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. However, to the extent that you do, it is a moot point how you might justify it. You don’t think an action can be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. Yet the actions described in these scenarios at least seem to be private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn’t involve harm. Possibly an argument could be made that the people undertaking these actions are harmed in some way by them. But you don’t think that an action can be morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. More significantly, when asked about each scenario, in no instance did you respond that harm had resulted. Consequently, it is a puzzle why you think that any of the actions depicted here are of questionable morality.”

    Of course I think I’m thinking straight about morals, but then, so does everybody else. ;-)

  • http://screenrant.com Vic

    Andy,

    Fascinating quiz… even moreso was seeing where I compared to most responses. Must be a lot of Liberals taking that quiz. ;-)

    My results

    Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.73.
    Your Interference Factor is: 0.40.
    Your Universalising Factor is: 0.80.

    The averages:

    Moralising Quotient is: 0.23.
    Interference Factor is: 0.14.
    Universalising Factor is: 0.23.

    I would have had quite different results if I’d taken the test in my 20’s.

    Vic

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    I wanna be like Mike [Kole]:

    Results

    Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.07.

    Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

    Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

    People, go have sex with your brother/sister or the frozen poultry in your kitchen. Matters not to me.

    Oh, and girls, keep pushing those boys off the swings.

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    i forgot my numbers but i ended up in the extreme (imagine that!) of the lower, left (imagine that!) quadrant.

    permissive.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    I kept wondering on that quiz, I don’t care if someone has sex with a frozen poultry, but would I then feel the same about eating over at their house? THEN I’d have a different answer!

    I post recipes on my blog. I’ll never be able to talk about stuffing a bird, without grimacing, from now on.

    Also, that question about eating your dead pet, I answered that it was morally wrong for me, but could care less about anybody else. If I was supposed to apply these questions solely to other people, then my answers would have been much more liberal than they were.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    The test was confusing at times, but I think you were supposed to apply the scenarios/questions solely to other people. Based on the feedback I got with my score, it looked like they didn’t want you to infer anything about the scenario beyond exactly what they told you about the people involved and the circumstances, and I think that includes putting you in the place of the people in the scenario.

    So, I’m not sure I was supposed to think about who got harmed outside of the family who ate the cat and the cat itself, for example, and I did. I thought the people who got harmed were the cat owners. But the feedback said I wasn’t supposed to think about stuff not specifically mentioned in the scenario. But then it WAS mentioned in the scenario that the cat was owned by a family other than the one who ate it. So I don’t know.

    I also thought the question about the girl and the swing was potentially misleading. I answered “no” to that question, that the girl was not morally wrong to push the boy off the swing. But that’s not because I thought the boy wasn’t harmed but because I think children can’t be expected understand and/or act upon morals the same way adults can. If the scenario had adults or even teenagers in it instead, I might have answered that question differently.

    Or maybe that question dealt with the “universalism” piece, that morals are morals no matter what the social context. If you answer “no” to that question, it implies that you see morals contextually and not universally, I guess.

    Yeah, that’s it.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    oh, if it’s solely about other people and I never have to eat over at their house, then my answers would have probably been as low as yours.

    I don’t know why but I assumed the girl was 10 or 12, although it doesn’t say any age. Heck, my daughter is two and she knows it’s wrong to hit, punch, kick, etc. Kids should know it’s wrong early on. Doesn’t mean they will behave, but they should know. I answered that one is morally wrong. But I don’t apply the same moral standards from an adult to a child. Ergo, any reprimand would be different than if a 30 year old woman pushed him off. (maybe cuz he ate her cat).

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    I agree that kids should know that it’s wrong to push/hit/etc. But even though they can recite the rules, they can’t always process what those rules really mean or apply them in real-life situations. They are by biological definition self-centered for several years [on a scale; some lean empathy earlier than others].

    And their impulse control isn’t the same as an adult’s.

    So I guess I was looking at it as was it morally wrong from the girl’s point of view: she wanted the swing, so she got it for herself.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Me:

    Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.27.

    Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

    Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

    What do these results mean?

    Are you thinking straight about morality?

    Although you do not evaluate the actions depicted in these scenarios to be across the board wrong, it is not entirely clear why you think that anything in them is morally problematic. You don’t think an action can be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. Yet the actions described in these scenarios are private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn’t involve harm. Possibly an argument could be made that the people undertaking these actions are harmed in some way by them. But you don’t think that an action can be morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. More significantly, when asked about each scenario, in no instance did you respond that harm had resulted. Consequently, it is a puzzle why you think that any of the actions depicted here are questionable morally speaking.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    ROTFLMAO.
    RJ, if that is your score, you either cheated (morality, anyone?) on an online test, or the moralizing you throw my way on every topic we intersect on, comes from some other issue.

    You’ve moralized to me on gay relationships, gay behavior. You’ve moralized to me on gay promiscuity. You’ve moralized on the ethics of gay people. You’ve moralized on my past life experiences I have shared here. You’ve moralized on feminists, Ms. Tek, Mac Diva, God the list goes on.

    This shows me the test is a little too narrow in scope to be reliable.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    The test was fun.

    I got a very paradoxical result, which might explain a lot to some of you:

    Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.10.
    Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
    Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

    Are you thinking straight about morality?

    You see nothing wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. Consequently, there is no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. However, it is interesting to note that had you judged any of these acts to be morally problematic, it is hard to see how this might have been justified. You don’t think that an act can be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. The actions described in these scenarios are private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn’t involve harm. One possibility might be that the people undertaking these acts are in some way harmed by them. But you indicated that you don’t think that an act can be morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. So, as you probably realised, even this doesn’t seem to be enough to make the actions described in these scenarios morally problematic in terms of your moral outlook. Probably, in your own terms, you were right to adopt a morally permissive view.

    But then the only thing I viewed as morally wrong to begin with was the schoolyard bully and I also put “I don’t know” for the incest one, which I only answered that way because I thought it might have the potential to affect family dynamics in an adverse way in the future. So for what I do find morally objectionable about private behavior, I universalize 100% of. The result didn’t make sense to me until I read the explanation that Universalizing is a factor of how many of the things you viewed as morally wrong you connected to social norms. That makes some sense to me. When I believe something is morally wrong, I often think of it in societal terms and believe in universal norms, e.g., non-discrimination.

    I don’t really understand why those of you who had higher moralizing quotient scores wouldn’t universalize what you believe is wrong privately. That’s interesting to me. The principle of societal interference is interesting as well because it explains the “yuk factor” thing the essay talked about: we don’t want to interfere unless there’s harm to someone involved, yet we can find something yucky based on social and private norms.

    I wonder if any vegetarians answer the dead chicken question differently as a result of their beliefs, because that would involve a universal morality and possibly interference.

    Steve: the explanation for RJ might be that he doesn’t believe in social morality and norms, but he does believe in personal judgment of others unsupported by a larger moral system of any coherence. That would explain a lot, especially in the censorship discussion about the application of group rules and morality to one’s own behavior and choices.

    That is all.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    “In line with Haidt, Koller and Dias (1993)* – though implemented in a much less rigorous way in this activity – it is possible to combine the interference and universalising factors to establish a more sophisticated picture of a person’s moral intuitions (see diagram on main page). A fully moralised position endorses full interference, and universalises across the board. A fully permissive position rejects both interference and also any universalising tendency. An enforceable-conventional response sees interference as legitimate (presumably as a mechanism to enforce important social norms), but rejects any universalising tendency. A personal-morality response makes use of universal claims about right and wrong, but tends to see these as being a private matter and not as being a legitimate target of societal intervention. Where you fall in terms of these four factors is indicated by the blue square on the diagram on the main results page.”

    I guess I’m a personal moralist, as is Steve; Mike Kole and BHW are fully permissive and RJ claims to be; Vic is fully moralized.

    That is all.

  • http://www.kolehardfacts.blogspot.com Mike Kole

    Like BaB, my only problem was with pushing someone off the swing.

    The questions were extremely narrow, with only the swing item having any ramifications for anyone outside of the principle actor. The morality question was about you the voyeur and your willingness to get involved where no involvement was particularly warranted.

    The idea of brother/sister sex definitely grosses me out, and would be even more revolting to me if I had a sister, but a societal problem in the strict context of the question as it was posed? Nah.

    It would be an interesting thing to use the same metrics and then pose many questions about actions that impact non-willing participants. I probably would come off as a moralist in those cases.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    I didn’t start pushing kids off of swing sets until I got a lot bigger! Like in my 30’s.

    I thought it was an interesting little quiz. One point I found interesting was one question concerning God and using a female pronoun to describe her. Don’t start, it was only an observation!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    I didn’t start pushing kids off of swing sets until I got a lot bigger! Like in my 30’s

    I much prefer those merry-go-round types of playground toys, where you can get the kids to hang onto the metal bars, then you spin it around faster and faster until they throw their heads back and scream in abject terror, the wind flapping their cheeks like the g-force of an aircraft. That way, when they fall it is because they couldn’t hold on, and I did not touch them directly, absolving me of all immorality which directly affects others..

  • Gee Dubs

    I not inviting that yellow belly (kerry) to my barbeque either. Anyone who throws his medals accross the fence is no hero in my book. Just curious though, just how far did he throw his medals. I mean, did he throw them so far that he could not sneak back in the dead of the night and retrieve them?

    Just wondering.

    GW

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    maybe he threw his arm out or somethin

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “ROTFLMAO.
    RJ, if that is your score, you either cheated (morality, anyone?) on an online test, or the moralizing you throw my way on every topic we intersect on, comes from some other issue.”

    What “moralizing” have I offered? I don’t care who you fuck, or how often, or in what positions. And I don’t mind the concept of “civil unions.”

    But I, like the vast majority of Americans (and people all over the world), simply oppose GAY MARRIAGE.

    That doesn’t make me a “moralizer.” It simply means I have an opinion that differs from your own.

    “You’ve moralized to me on gay relationships, gay behavior. You’ve moralized to me on gay promiscuity. You’ve moralized on the ethics of gay people. You’ve moralized on my past life experiences I have shared here. You’ve moralized on feminists, Ms. Tek, Mac Diva, God the list goes on.”

    Cite?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    But I, like the vast majority of Americans (and people all over the world), simply oppose GAY MARRIAGE.

    on moral grounds. But that wasn’t even what I was thinking of.

    “You’ve moralized to me…
    Cite?

    I don’t save the links to the threads.

    Using this definition of morality:
    Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character or behavior…

    And I don’t remember the gists of the conversations, there have been too many, but I for one have never brought up gay sex. However you have gone out of your way in the conversations (awhile back) to let me know you thought gay sex was disgusting. I’m sure it was related to a gay marriage issue, but I wouldn’t swear to it. I do remember that gay sex wasn’t relevant to the conversation. Several conversations went like that. It was one of the reasonings in your argument, whatever that argument originally was.

    You’ve thrown comments out of the blue about gay men wanting to be scout leaders so they could go after little boys in the woods. You moralized (inaccurately) on character. You constantly moralize on gay men with AIDS comparing them to say, heterosexuals who you constantly defend, who life a life and have a belief system that you don’t even have yourself.

    RJ, I don’t want to get into it with you right now, but you have continually condemned all gay people for the actions of young single promiscuous gay men, you’ve brought up the fact about what I had to do to survive in the past, in a judgemental way, irrelevant to the topic at hand….

    No matter what anybody or any quiz says, you pass moral judgement on me, in just about every string of comments where we cross paths.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    I answered the questions on that test honestly. I posted my results verbatim.

    Was the test imperfect? Yes.

    Was I dishonest? No.

    Disagree with me all you want. But don’t accuse me of lying or falsifying test scores. That’s beneath me.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Don’t take offense, it’s an online quiz not a SAT. I really don’t think you cheated because like most of us would be curious as to where we rank, I’m sure you were too.

    I don’t think that quiz amounts to much in accuracy though, more fun than reality.

  • bob2112

    Hey Andy, I’ve come full circle.

    Right after the Bin Laden video thing, I saw something in Blogcritics that mentioned it being fall & the time is now to plant for spring. I immediately lost interest in the election. (Of which I offer you & yours a humble concession to the defeat of my hopes.)

    I did expect Bush to win. But I tried to express enthusiasm for the opposition, of which I differ from in many ways, i.e. my socialistic tendencies.

    Losing myself in my immaculate garden of over 400 perennial bulbs, Walla Walla sweet onions, garlic, shallots, & various shrubs, I didn’t even care who won. I voted for Kerry but I did not care.

    One day my basement toilet broke & prevented me from getting into my Zen gardening. It was right around the announcement of Condoleeza Rice’s nomination for Secretary of State. I was furious & confused. I went to my mother who then said that she would give her the benefit of the doubt, being that it is very hard for a black woman to ever be considered for such a position. Then the left started belittling the position & all cabinet positions were a minority was nominated.

    Pick-a-ninny jokes suck no matter who is telling them.

    I was even more upset when I saw the Marine shooting the unarmed wounded Iraqi in the mosque. Not because of the way he’s being railroaded, but for how anyone in his position, including myself, would do the same thing. I read something about “Dead-Checking” & it made me think. If I were on this assignment, without a choice, I would shoot anything that moves. Especially after being shot in the face, & probably seeing some friends killed or wounded by possibly women & children. Man Andy, I woke up!

    I hate this war, but I am an American first & foremost. I believe that we are going to win in the end. I still believe that we did 9/11(I don’t care if you think I’m a nut case) I think it is as fishy or more as ‘Remembering the Maine. As an American, I can only say that I want a victorious end to every mission at hand. I don’t like the way it’s going, but I could only imagine what we went through during WWII when nothing went right for some time before we changed the tide & annihilated the enemy. No one can beat us but us. I believe that even if we all are stupid sometimes, & seem to not be able to get it right here at home, no country is better than America, & the world knows it. We will find a way to economically, militarily, & diplomatically resolve all this & rule another 200 years. I hate some of the methods the neo-cons use, but it is their grit that will preserve this country. Someone has to brainstorm a solution to the world catching up to our, yes, barbaric ingenuity! No one can kill the opposition as efficiently & absolutely as Americans. No one in their right minds would sanely wish American might on their soil unless it was to rid the majority, left alive, of an oppressor. Iraq & Afghanistan are prime examples of the new pain you will experience when you fuck with The United States of America.

    I still dislike Bush, but he is the closest we have gotten to a leadership that will attempt to take color out of the equation in our society. It is the individuals to the right, who continue to perpetuate division that I want to rid this country of. So far, the Administration appointments to minorities are kind of a new Civil Rights Act. A fig leaf to give a person of color hope that there is no barrier or ceiling preventing them from achieving most of what one puts their mind to in America. I am not sure if it was carefully thought out to win loose cannons like me over, but it is having an effect.

    A Victory Garden, Andy! As ugly as we are, we have to love ourselves, because we are all we got!

    I am not joking around this time.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    We will find a way to economically, militarily, & diplomatically resolve all this & rule another 200 years.

    Rule what? Or who?

  • bob2112

    In my comment about ruling for another 200 years, I believe it is the nature of all Americans, to know they are the best at everything possible in the world!

    Don’t be a dork, & attempt to lessen the power of that statement. You already know in your heart what I meant.

    I fixed my toilet & I’m getting back in the swing of ignoring the war, neo-cons, & self-righteous progressive shits feeding the system as we listen to Wal-Mart commercials on Air America Radio (Like I am right now!)

  • bob2112

    Can my turn around be significant enough to warrant a response or reaction? I so want to be corrected or convinced that the confusion I am experiencing is merely confusion.

    I wrote so many anti-republican pieces on this site. I’ve got to be the same person. It was only a month ago I screamed of Bushicans, internets, & Koolaid Krusaders. Some one help me to understand what is happening to me.

    Values are important to me, & if it is so easy to jump ship from a ‘progressive’ point of view, then what is the point of caring about peace?

    Is there anyone who can assist me with an opinion? Instead of the usual, “bob2112 is such an idiot, I’m not going to waste my time working his lame ass up!”

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    I immediately lost interest in the election….I did expect Bush to win.

    I expected Bush to win too. As far as losing interest after the election, personally I have too much at stake to lose interest, however I have noticed that all the political blogs from the left, both the ‘professional’ pundits and the ‘armchair’ pundits, blog about 1/10th what they used to.

    There is no way you can win your ideology to the masses if you only do it on election year and up to an election.

    I hate some of the methods the neo-cons use, but it is their grit that will preserve this country.

    Personally, I would disagree with their grit preserving us. I hope to have time to expand more on this later.

    So far, the Administration appointments to minorities are kind of a new Civil Rights Act
    A fig leaf to give a person of color hope that there is no barrier or ceiling

    One would say that Colin and Rice got their position on their merits, not on a ‘handout’. Wouldn’t you say?

    I so want to be corrected or convinced that the confusion I am experiencing is merely confusion…..Some one help me to understand what is happening to me.

    Bob, it is my belief that if your ideology is swinging based on this election, then your ideology wasn’t very strong to begin with. I have my beliefs about what is right, and when the majority tells me otherwise, that means I stand alone, that doesn’t mean I change what I believe.

    Would Jesus have changed his values to save his life? Would Ghandi? And no, I am not putting myself in their league, but I am saying you either believe in something or you don’t. If you cannot adhere to your values in the face of adversity, then they really aren’t your values to begin with.

    Values are important to me, & if it is so easy to jump ship from a ‘progressive’ point of view, then what is the point of caring about peace?

    If it is so easy to jump, Bob, then there is no point. What values are important to you specifically? How does the left address those values? How does the right?

    Right now the left is needing to do some serious restructuring. The ideology is true, though Bob. The ideology is strong and still valid. What needs to be restructured is how those values are presented, and exactly WHICH of those values are important to the left. One of the main problems of the left, is that it tried to cater to everybody. You’ve heard this often from the right. It’s one of the things they can’t stand about the left, trying to be all encompassing. The majority of voters who vote against gay equality are quite often Democrats. Yet Democrats pander to the gay community. We saw it happen again this election. ‘Lefty’ Dean freaked everybody out so they rushed to someone who was perceived to be more in line with the masses, with mainstream America (Kerry). Only when the Right dug deep to find what 30+ year old dirt it could to destroy the reputation of the Senator did the left realize that they can’t placate the Right. Should the Left go left, the Right tears them apart for being too liberal. Should the Left go towards the middle (Clinton), the Right tears them apart. As long as the Left reaches out to the Right, the Right will snap at the fingers with jagged teeth. There has never been an exception to this that I am aware of.

    The left needs to find the values it supports. Then the left needs to hold onto those values through thick and thin. Otherwise the left needs to abandon their ideology and join the flock in the middle.

    Bob, I suggest sitting down by yourself, with NO influence from the left or the right. Think about what is important to you, and what you perceive to be important for the betterment of all humanity. Then look at the left and look at the right. DON’T LISTEN TO THEM, BUT LOOK. What are their actions towards those values? Who do you most agree with? When you answer that question, THAT is where you need to be. I hope it is on the left, but if you need to be on the right, then you should go.

    I’m working on an essay, presenting it from the viewpoint of a conversation with Jesus (over dinner). It’s a serious essay, and won’t be filled with rhetoric, no Nazism, no screaming, just analysis, fact, statistics and proven instances of crimes against democracy. I hope to have it done very soon. I’d appreciate it if you’d read it when I blog it here in the next day or two. It’s tentatively titled The Death of Democracy, but may end up being The Death of Progressivism.

    Find your own values Bob, not the values of those around you, and stick with them.