09 November 2012

my response to... well, see for yourself.

 I'm not sure I want to open an email entitled, "Why Obama won." Who knows what could be in there? For my part, I am thankful for a lot of things, but most especially that Richard Mourdock was defeated in red-as-Kentucky-and-Tennessee-and-Oklahoma Indiana. It's not a large leap from "the product of rape is the will of God" to "rape is the will of God," and from there it's just another tiny step to the right till I need to put on a burka. That Romney and the entire Republican party didn't immediately distance themselves from Mourdock is, to me, tacit agreement with his public sentiment, even though Romney's campaign did say they don't see eye-to-eye on every issue with the Indiana Senate candidate. I'm actually stunned that the presidential race was as close as it was. I'll be shaking my head over that for a long time.

 So why did Obama win? Bob says it's because the Republicans nominated Romney. Yeah, that's pretty cut and dried. But I think Obama won in 2008 because he ran an internet campaign. The voting demographic is changing, as it always does. The far-right-wing older white male (yes, I mean you) is no longer an overwhelming majority. Even Strom Thurman and Bobby Byrd, in their later years, backed off their former KKK affiliations. Another reason Romney lost is he never outlined any specific plan except to "undo" what Obama had done in the past 4 years. That's negative campaigning in the extreme.

 Four years ago, with a Democratic House and Senate, President Obama made many efforts to be bipartisan... enough so that he pissed off a lot of his supporters whose POV was, "you have the power, now ram through the promises that got you elected; never mind that bipartisan shit, because the other side isn't going to play and everyone but you seems to know it." Then in 2010 he lost that Senate majority because of exactly that; he'd disappointed his constituency. Now with the House in conservative hands, was the chance for the Republicans to also reach across to compromise and act bipartisan. Instead they filibustered every damn move Obama made, and still he was too polite to simply ram things through with his veto power.

 Finally, Romney lost because the right is going further right all the time, Bible-thumping right, while the voting public is becoming more progressive. The idea that all gays are predators, for one thing. That's not a progressive view, nor is it accurate. The idea that "God" is always on "our" side is something Bob Dylan exposed as ridiculous more than 40 years ago, for those who didn't already realize it. Extremism, or, more to the point, extreme conservatism, is ugly no matter if it's pushed by Christians or Muslims, and I'm frankly surprised that you, as an atheist, buy into these *extremist philosophies.

 *I could have used a better word there, maybe "radical;" because I'd already used a form of the word extreme a line or two earlier and that's repetitive and just plain bad writing. I do like my qualifiers, though...

 My own beliefs continue to evolve. I don't believe a religion. I like bits and pieces of some religions; Buddhism is attractive in the "know thyself" aspect and in being responsible for your own deeds. What really pisses me off about almost all religions is that they put human life above all other life on the planet, in the universe. I don't see animals and plants as disposable. I think, if the Ten Commandments actually came from a higher power, "Thou shalt not kill" was not meant to apply simply to humans, but to all life.

 Okay, now that I've said my piece, I guess I feel more comfortable opening your email to see what you have to say.


 ***
an hour later

 I mentioned to someone (I'd invited her to a Christian sponsored knit/crochet group, making squares for blankets for the homeless shelter, which I feel is a non-denominational pursuit, or should be - doesn't matter, so far nobody's attempted to pray with me, and I haven't felt the need to mention I'm not Christian, I just go contribute to the blanket squares collection while passing an hour or two in a group I'm new to.), that I'm not either when she wanted to demur because she's another belief. I told her basically what I mentioned to you earlier - that I think all life forms deserve the same respect _as_life_forms_ as people are supposed to give each other (which most people fail miserably at anyway - and here's the *real* challenge! Treat the bugs and weeds like you thought you're supposed to treat other people! Wow!)) and that charity should be non- or cross-denominational. Ooh, look, I nested parentheses. Anyway, she said what I describe as my belief sounds Wiccan to her.

 So the other day on ebay I found the definitive primer on modern wicca, Drawing Down the Moon, by Margot Adler for a dollar twelve, plus $2.99 shipping and now I'll see what it is I'm supposed to be sounding like. For under $5, delivered. One of Edgar Cayce's fans, an adult when I was a mid-teen, once gave me examples of when she's felt "helper spirits" or "angels" or "imps" playing with her, giving her what she asked for but not what she wanted. I somehow feel that the imps put that book out there for me. But for now I'm reading silly crime fiction, like Kathy Reichs and Michael Connelly.

 I thought the Hunger Games was okay, but no better than the Twilight books. Nice gimmick. Book 3 (of HG) could have continued as character-driven fiction for ever and ever, I would read them all. Do I sound ADHD? What was I talking about? Oh, defining myself.

 Does anyone else read 4 books at one time, alternating them however mood strikes? How is that different from watching 4 TV series weekly?

 Gotta go (wine glass is empty).

 meow.

 what follows is something entirely different. It shows I'm too lazy to look for a place to submit feedback. If we have to google ourselves if we want to find out what's being said about us, then shouldn't outfits like Blogger have to google themselves too? Feedback forms. Mpfffff.

 Dear Blogger-dot-com. Thank you for the "open html tag" warning, and the neat way it refreshes itself.

1 comment:

Eileen said...

As a Canadian I watched the results of the election with some interest, but certainly less than had I been a voter.

While I haven't paid a lot of attention, I was NOT impressed with Mitt Romney, especially some of his off the mike remarks.

As for reading, I tend to stick to a couple of books, one in the living room, and one in my bedroom. Did not enjoy the Hunger Games and prefer Deaver (can't remember his first name) for crime mysteries or even real life crime to Kathy Reich.

But I get the need to have more than one book on the go - because sometimes I want something light and fluffy to read!