Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal rdewald's Journal: Reflections on the Rep Con 54

Journal by rdewald

I've been keeping quiet about it, but I went under a sea change politically during the Republican convention. No, there's no need to check to see if Hell Froze Over, but I resolved a personal/political issue that has been threatening my political tranquility since they started going after Clinton for his Whitewater investments.

The convention was helpful. It was as if the Republican party is an awkward, shy, teenager that finally felt safe enough to emerge from an oppressive shell of self-doubt and go to the prom. It unknowingly left it's fly open. This little bit of unintentional disclosure exposed it's greatest lingering vulnerability at a time when it believes to be putting on it's best possible face.

It is interesting that every bit as much as the Dem Con was a success (which is not much), the Rep Con was a failure (also not much). Both parties demonstrated a shallow, pandering lack of a spiritual/emotional center, much like what happens when new rising entertainment starts first get co-opted by the publicity and advertising industries. It is as if the message overtakes the messenger and suddenly everything becomes focuses on the audience, who squirms under the spotlight. You don't go to a concert to be on camera, you go to see a show.

I more often support Democratic candidates because I believe government has a place in the collective effort to better the collective. I don't think we can rely on the marketplace to always and unfailingly produce the best results for either individuals or the collective. Because of my Buddhist spiritual roots, I think the individual is an empty concept, an illusion that one must simultaneously grasp and let go. The middle way is the Tao, and the dynamic, complicated, and nuanced messy path of hurting collective rights here and individual rights there is the best that man can do to accomodate and respect the needs of the collective and enable the unique expressions of individuals.

How much of this did you hear in Boston? What I heard was how much better John Kerry will be at being George Bush than George Bush has been.

I may be a Buddhist at heart, but as a social animal I judge my actions and make my social decisions according to JudeoChristian ethics (which aren't all that different from Buddhist ethics, I just learned the JudeoChristian versions first). Republicans talk a lot more about how these principles guide their policy, which I find comforting, but the fly is open on their tuxedo and they don't seem to check themselves in a full-length mirror before going out.

There are ten commandments, not nine. Do not bear false witness agaist others is one of them. The Republicans have adopted Clinton's transparent tactic of re-defining "truth" so narrowly that anything other than a literal, objective, statement that is incontrovertably contrary to fact is asserted as acceptably passing the test for acceptable political discourse. Just as "sex" had been defined by Clinton as only the penetration of a vagina by a penis, "freedom" gets defined by Republicans as only Faith in the consequences of the exercise of US military and economic power.

I rather like blowjobs, I consider every last one I've had as a sexual experience. I see a lot of strength in allowing one's self to get hurt in a transaction in service to a greater good. There are things that are more important than the US getting it's way. Being able to stand by and refrain from the use of brute military and/or economic force when it is wrong, expecially when said force can easily overwhelm the opponent, is strength. Our troops prove this point on the ground in Iraq, every day, I'm sure.

I am a values voter. I vote for the more perfect choice based on my dim, seen through a glass darkly (1 Corinthians 12), understanding of Christian values.

The ends do not justify the means. Being right is not the same as doing right. Being right is about one's reconciliation with the Creator. Doing right is about being the Creator's representative on earth.

Who would Jesus bomb?

Bush and Cheney honestly believe that having a government in Iraq that is friendly to stability in the world's oil market is vital to the security and economic interests of the US. They're right. They're wrong to the extent that they assert that military and econmic control of the region is the only path to protect these interests. We could apply our significant intellectual and economic resources to development of alternative energy sources that are naturally under our control. We could use less petroleum, and we could have made a lot of progress towards these ends in the 10 years and with the multi-billions of dollars we are now committed to spending in Iraq. This is where their fly is open. They believe that this is so much tree-hugging nonsense.

They also seem to believe that the war in Iraq has something to do with terrorism. It didn't on 9/11, it didn't in March of 2003, and it doesn't now. These are facts. Blind Faith in a theory that has been proven wrong by objective facts is not strength, it is tragic weakness. Great civilizations have been destroyed by the very same mistake. This is bearing false witness. Christians consider this a sin for a good reason--it is destructive.

The "no child left behind" crowd kicked 300,000 poor children out of after-school programs. This is a fact. To assert concern for failing schools while refusing to fund them adequately is bearing false witness. To assert that the government can't afford to fund these programs while it gives not one, but two, tax cuts to the very people who least need the money is just ugly, selfish and wrong. Read the Book of James. Note where the prophet says "I will see your Faith through your works."

Which children would Jesus send away?

Our enemy in the world, if it can be defined at all, is fundamentalism, hatred and absolutism. We are attacked by people who believe that they are so right that it is okay to kill people in order to achieve their understanding of God's plan. So, what do we do? Go kill people because we believe that, while it is regrettable and sad, it is okay to kill people in order to achieve our understanding of God's plan. Don't forget to notice that Bush believes that "freedom" is God's gift to the world. Freedom's spread, as he envisions it, is Bush's Jihad. He has become what he fears most.

Why? Because he is human. He is a work in progress. He is not sufficiently introspective to understand his own weakness, he looks within and sees only strength.

It is wrong to clear-cut forests and call that the "Healthy Forest Initiative." This is bearing false witness. It is wrong to call deregulation of polluters the "clean water" initiative. The facts are that fish are dying in New Jersey that were fine just four years ago. It is bearing false witness. It is sinful.

Last year, my Congressman, Charles Rangel, tried to get the tax cut for the 200,000 millionaires in this country reduced from $88,000 to $83,000 so that we could afford to double the number of container cargo inspections in the US. The White House and the Republican congress opposed it. The $5,000 of our money given to millionaires (a million dollars earns $5000 in interest in a regular savings account in a few months) was MORE IMPORTANT to the Republicans than inspecting cargo containers for bombs, chemical agents, and other weapons. This is a value judgement. To make these decisions while asserting to be single-minded in the pursuit of terrorist attacks is bearing false witness. It is a sin.

They destroyed John McCain's reputation with the voters of South Carolina long enough to win a primary, they destroyed Max Cleland's reputation long enough to elect Chambliss in Georgia, and now they've turned their sights on John Kerry with the hope that they can sustain damage to his reputation long enough to win this election. All three campaigns are based on lies and distortions. All bear false witness. All are sinful.

So, what I've recently understood is that my politics are not partisan. I do not have a political party. I don't respect militaristic displays of flag-waving jingoism from any party. That's all I'm getting. I have to make a choice, I will make a choice based upon my estimation of what moves us closer to a more perfect union. I'm not going to chicken-out by insisting on perfection and using said insistence to demonize them all, I am making a choice based on which is more perfect.

Who would Jesus vote for?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Reflections on the Rep Con More

Reflections on the Rep Con

Comments Filter:
  • I ask you this: Would Jesus vote for someone who supports abortion? -kz
    • You can't phrase a question like that and expect and serious discussion. There's more than one issue to consider, and neither is even remotely close to a true Christian's ideal candidate.

      I could just as easily ask "Would Jesus vote for someone who has caused the deaths of 12000-14000 people by waging a war for questionable reasons?"

      • i only phrase the question that way for two reasons:
        1. It's how the original poster phrases his questions
        2. It is the immediate response that almost everybody I know who is pushing for bush would ask right away
        Now your question is an excellent response (I'm just waiting for a good chance to ask my pastor that one), but I still think you (we??? not sure where i fit in on all this) need to come up with a more compelling reply to persuade the true fundamentalist.

        -kz
    • Jesus would vote for those who support unfit parents' (crack hos, beaters, ragers, unwed teenagers) rights to have unlimited numbers of children. Foster home was good enough for me, so it should be good enough for them.

      Killing a lump of cells is a sin, and people who do that should be killed.

      • Nobody is against people having the right to have as many kids as they want. And I don't think anybody is against having as few as they want either (hint: stop having sex) </play role="Devils Advocate">
        • Every woman's egg unfertilized is a sin against the kingdom.

          If Jesus were president, he'd outlaw menstration and force single men to marry and then impregnate unattached women. By the time of the second coming, there would be that many more followers of His way!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Would Jesus vote for someone who takes from the poor to give to the rich? Because that's what Bush's tax cuts are about.

      The average member of Bush's cabinet saves approximately $42,000 as a result of Bush's latest tax cut. The median household income in the US in 2001 was $42,228. So half the households had incomes less than that amount, half had incomes more than that amount. This means that the average member of Bush's cabinet saves more than half the families in the US make.

      Who pays for this tax cut? E

      • I'll just hit on a few points in your post, since it seems quite directed at me. For the record though, I was trying to imply by the subject of my original post that this isn't me speaking as much as it is those people I know who's knee jerk reaction to somebody saying that would vote for kerry is "But... But.... He supports... ABORTION!!!????!!!????"

        Would Jesus vote for Bush? I doubt it. Would Jesus even vote? Go out and look at the main thread... sbuckhopper has some great comments on this. [slashdot.org]

        Economi

      • Because that's what Bush's tax cuts are about.

        Gaaah!! Another spounting of unfounded facts. I have got to go download that IRS tax code spread sheet. For the most recent incoma tax changes, taxes went down for everyone earning under $100,000 a year and up for those over that number. How do you get you statement????

        I make under $40K a year. My taxes went DOWN. I even got a check as a refund against the previous years filed income taxes.

        Are you telling me your federal income tax went up? NOT state.
        • The reason that state and local taxes have risen is because Bush cut federal money in those areas.

          Yes, federal taxes are lower, but guess what? You're more than paying for it in the increased local taxes.
        • You don't get it, do you? You might have been given a few hundreds of dollars now, but you'll pay for it later. The US national deficit is growing by $1 trillion a year.

          That's $3,500 of new federal debt for every man, woman and child out there in a single year, and that debt has to be repayed one day, and repayed with interest.

          When that day comes, and when the day comes when welfare, social security and other safety nets go bankrupt, it won't be the Bush's and the Cheney's of the world that will suffer, i
          • it will be you and people like you who've worked hard their entire lives who'll suffer the consequences.

            Oh no it won't. I know that SS is going to implode and I am not counting on receiving a single dime from the Fed when I retire (assuming I get to retire). I set up my own IRA some four years ago and have been meeting the maximum yearly deposits as sonn in the year as I can afford to.

            I am disappointed at the spending I see this government doing. In this point I agree completely with you.

            jason
            • So you won't suffer, if everything goes to your plan, and if some future government doesn't raid your savings as a means of bailing itself out, but what about others?

              And even the best laid plans can go awry. What happens if you're hit by a car driven by an uninsured driver tomorrow and are in a wheelchair for the rest of your life? Would you still feel confident that you'll be secure in your old age?

              Social Security, etc aren't just for the people that are down on their luck today, they're insurance polici
              • Where does this entitlement to SS payments come from??? Where does the constitution say that the federal government must provide some small measure of financial care for all citizens till they die?

                This care is a luxury and not a right. If I could opt out at this very instant of all SS taxes and forever be stricken from the ability to receive any SS payouts, I would. I would get my 8% back in my paycheck and put it to the use I see fit. If not my judgement, then I would invest the money in a managed acc
                • As I said before, more than 1 in 5 children in the US live in poverty. Think about that. The is a greater percentage of childhood poverty in the US, the most powerful, most wealthy nation on the planet, then there are in virtually every other developed nation.

                  Doesn't it make you sad that the US, the country with the most, does the least to ensure that its future generations get the best possible start in life? The least to make sure that those that need a helping hand get it?

                  If a nation doesn't have a dut
            • I set up my own IRA some four years ago and have been meeting the maximum yearly deposits as sonn in the year as I can afford to.

              And what makes you think that the Cheney's et. al. of the world aren't going to pull a Ken Lay and leave you as a small-time investor holding the bag?

              • Because they do not manage my fund. They do not have access to it. It is an IRA account held at my credit union.

                I am sure there are ways that someone could just take the money. But then again, the account is FDIC insured (which I do think is a useful government program). If the account held any securities I would be out of luck because these are not FDIC insured, only cash (up to $100K oer person, per bank).

                jason
                • If there is a run on the FDIC it will go bankrupt. If the market as a whole is sucked down, instead of just the stock of one large company, there's not much that diversification is going to do for you. I do not mean literally that one or two people will pull down the market, but the deficit and its consequences may well do so, and conceivably in a way that leaves the super-rich relatively untouched.
                  • Quite right. In such extreme cases, everyone is screwed, I would say even the rich, whose monatary wealth is all paper stock certificates, would be taking on up the tail pipe if the markets collapsed.

                    I do not have total faith in anything contrived by some guys/gals in a meeting room. That is where God comes into my life. I realize that there is only so much I can do to safe guard my future. There is only so much above what I can do that the government can. And above that there is nothing that anyone c
      • Would Jesus vote for someone who takes from the poor to give to the rich? Because that's what Bush's tax cuts are about.

        Would Jesus lie and say that money is taken from the poor and given to the rich, when neither is true? In fact, nothing is taken from poor people, and nothing is given to rich people. What's true is that rich people are allowed to keep more of what is theirs. As to things being taken from poor people, I can't think of any social programs that Bush cut, and he certainly didn't take any
        • Would Jesus lie and say that money is taken from the poor and given to the rich, when neither is true? In fact, nothing is taken from poor people, and nothing is given to rich people. What's true is that rich people are allowed to keep more of what is theirs. As to things being taken from poor people, I can't think of any social programs that Bush cut, and he certainly didn't take any more of their money.

          Well, what do you think the national deficit is? It's risen by $3,500 per person in a single year, and
          • It's risen by $3,500 per person in a single year, and that's debt that's going to have to be serviced by everyone, not just the rich

            This is what the poster of this journal entry would call a "lie." Poor people don't service the debt, because they don't pay federal taxes (except for payroll, which doesn't service the debt).

            I am not in favor of the current GOP policies of deficit spending. I am just calling things what they are, and no money is being taken from the poor. If you said it was being taken f
            • Let's just say that I've known for some time now having read your back-and-forth discussions with others (in your own journal and elsewhere) that I know that we'll never see eye-to-eye on this and other issues. I'm happy with that, so let's just agree to disagree and quit playing word and morality games right now.

              I will say that I'm not happy with being called a liar, but given that you probably would argue that you haven't called me a liar, even mentioning it is probably enough to have you reaching for th
              • I will say that I'm not happy with being called a liar

                Yes, well, that's your right, to be unhappy. I don't like people twisting facts to serve their own political purposes, and I call them on it when I see it.

                If the overriding, if not only, function of a government isn't to help its people then what is it?

                It certainly is not! Read the Declaration of Independence, which is the foundation for all American governments (federal, state, county, municipal, etc.). The purpose of government according to th
                • Obviously, I was too subtle for you in my last post. Serves me right for being so damn polite. I'll be clear as crystal this time around.

                  Get lost. Fuck off. I don't like people twisting facts either, and you've done just that yourself. That makes you a hypocrite. Want an example? Well, by assuming that people who aren't paying taxes today won't ever be paying taxes tomorrow and they they won't be sharing more than their fair share of the annual debt being accrued by the US right now.

                  This conversation is o
                  • I don't like people twisting facts either, and you've done just that yourself. That makes you a hypocrite. Want an example? Well, by assuming that people who aren't paying taxes today won't ever be paying taxes tomorrow and they they won't be sharing more than their fair share of the annual debt being accrued by the US right now.

                    You were asserting that poor people are, or would be, paying for it. When I said that was false, I was not saying it is not possible that it could happen, only that it is false t
                    • Saddam Hussein and his regime were responsible for zero American lives lost to terrorism. Yet you assert (elsewhere in this JE and no doubt elsewhere in other JEs) that the invasion of Iraq was about combatting terrorism. But it's me not you that's spouting off about things that I really have no clue about?

                      That's really the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?

                      I'm a pseudointellectual who want to twist things so that your side looks good and the other side looks evil?

                      Oh look, Mr. Pot is at it again.

                      B
                    • Saddam Hussein and his regime were responsible for zero American lives lost to terrorism.

                      Perhaps. We know that Hussein and his regime AIDED terrorists who were responsible for lives lost to terrorism (e.g., Abu Nidal). There's some evidence that Hussein was involved with the first WTC attack in the 90s (Google for Laurie Mylroie if you wish to research it; I am not saying it's true, but the claims have largely not been discredited, as best I've been able to tell).

                      Yet you assert (elsewhere in this JE a
    • The problem with that question is that Jesus was very firmly NOT INVOLVED with worldly politics. He knew that God's kingdom was not of the earth. He most likely would not vote at all. Your question is way too narrow. It assumes that one single belief on a single issue would be the deciding factor. Jesus, better than any of us, could see the truth in all the acts and beliefs of the candidates and make his decision. If he did vote, don't you think he would write in the best person for the job all around
    • Who supports abortion?

      Supporting the notion that government should keep out of decisions made by doctors and mothers is not the same as supporting abortion. That kind of duplicitous and false argument would also support the notion that government allowing people to decide to buy bullets is supporting murder. Don't even try it with me.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • How much of this did you hear in Boston? What I heard was how much better John Kerry will be at being George Bush than George Bush has been.

    Just as a comment, I honestly think that this may be intentional. The press has been saying all along that this election is going to be decided by "swing voters." This means that both have to appeal to the moderates.

    So this is what I think his plan is:

    1. Strongly liberal people are going to vote Kerry anyway. No matter what he says, they all hate Bush so much th
    • awesome post. good thinking points (for me, at least), especially that last few.
    • Part of the problem is the electoral college, it needs to be abolished, we should go to straight popular vote for the President, that would really change the character of campaigns.

      Would Jesus vote? I don't know. That's not really the point of the question. I was posing it in the style of the "What Would Jesus Do?" verbiage that is popular on bracelets and such. It is meant to inspire the same kind of reflection on core values when making the decision of voting for President.

      I remember George Bush say

  • Facts? (Score:2)

    by pudge ( 3605 ) *
    They also seem to believe that the war in Iraq has something to do with terrorism. It didn't on 9/11, it didn't in March of 2003, and it doesn't now. These are facts.

    If it is a fact, prove it. Prove that getting rid of Saddam Hussein will not lessen the effectiveness of terrorists to move freely in the Middle East, and will not encourage and enable other governments in the region to act decisively against terrorism in their own countries. That's an opinion, not a fact.

    The "no child left behind" crowd
    • I'm not your fact-checking service, my friend. You're entitled to your opinion of what the facts are, I'm entitled to mine. Every assertion I have made is available for verification via the web. I'm confident of my conclusions. I expect no one to take my word for it. If you want to take the time to refute my assertions, you can post the linkage yourself.

      I also can't prove a negative, which is what you ask me to do in several of your invectives. We all have to live with a modicum of uncertainty.

      "The
      • I'm not your fact-checking service, my friend. You're entitled to your opinion of what the facts are, I'm entitled to mine.

        YKUTWIDNTIMWYTIM.

        I also can't prove a negative, which is what you ask me to do in several of your invectives.

        Exactly. That's the point. You called something that is unprovable a fact. You were, in fact, bearing false witness when you called something unprovable a fact.

        "The high road" is your characterization, not mine.

        Yes, it is. You were attacking those who hem and haw an
        • YKUTWIDNTIMWYTIM.

          I have no idea what that means.

          I appreciate your criticism, but I think it is unfounded. Thanks for taking the time to comment.

          • I have no idea what that means.

            Yes, I know. :-)

            It means, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." You are using the word "fact" to mean something other than "fact."

            I appreciate your criticism, but I think it is unfounded.

            It's very sad to me that you think something can be considered a fact, despite the truth -- you conceded this yourself -- that it cannot be backed up.
            • Is it also sad to you that billions on the planet do this all the time? Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc all believe in a God (or Gods) and consider His (Their) existance to be a fact but where's the proof?
              • Is it also sad to you that billions on the planet do this all the time? Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc all believe in a God (or Gods) and consider His (Their) existance to be a fact but where's the proof?

                I misspoke; thanks for the nudge. I didn't mean it is sad to believe something without proof, but that it is sad to assert it as such to those who would require it. I have no problem with someone who says they believe it to be true that Allah is the one true God, but if they told me it is a fact

  • McCain (Score:2)

    by pudge ( 3605 ) *
    So much else to talk about, I forgot about McCain and Cleland.

    There is no evidence *of any kind whatsoever* that the Republican Party or Bush's campaign had anything to do with the smears on McCain. Similarly -- many people forget -- the same kind of smear campaigns were attacking Bush at the same time (calling him, among other things, anti-Catholic).

    As to Cleland, it is simply false to say the Chambliss ads -- as many people have said -- questioned Cleland's patriotism or compared him to Hussein or Bin
    • You've done a good job of making counter assertions to each of mine now. I think you can rest assured you've covered all the bases. I appreciate very much your criticism and that you share your views here. I honestly didn't expect this JE would get much comment and instead, I think largely thanks to you, it is the all-time winner.

      Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. What was absent in South Carolina, as is absent now, is George Bush (being a leader who truly believes that Jesus C
      • Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence

        True, but that doesn't justify blaming him for the attacks.

        What was absent in South Carolina, as is absent now, is George Bush (being a leader who truly believes that Jesus Christ is the world's foremost political philosopher) standing up and denouncing the push-polling in 2000 and the Swift Boat Veterans Against Kerry now.

        And McCain did not denounce the push polling against Bush, either. Further, the 527s are different, because given the lett
    • A problem with conspiracy theories is at the time they're proposed there's not enough evidence supporting them. Never-the-less, they sometimes do turn out to be correct. So while I don't have a tinfoil hat, I am a skeptic and wish more people would be too. I also wish they'd try to take things with a grain of salt depending on the source.

      I haven't seen the Cleland-related ad and know little about it. How likely is it the ad implied by showing pictures of Hussein and Bin Laden, that Cleland was with the
      • How likely is it the ad implied by showing pictures of Hussein and Bin Laden, that Cleland was with the enemy and against the troops pictured by voting against the bill Bush supported?

        I don't think so, at all. The implied point is not that he was with the enemy or aiding them, but that he was not doing enough to support the troops. That's a very different thing. The former is virtually treason, and the latter is poor judgment. There's a world of difference.

        As for supporting the President, isn't it p

Slashdot Top Deals

Every young man should have a hobby: learning how to handle money is the best one. -- Jack Hurley

Close