glimpse


Blog For Free!


Archives
Home
2007 May
2005 August
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January

My Links
Greeneyedgrrl's Blog
pensiveapollo's blog
SERRV
Beliefnet
Dictionary/Thesaurus
NOVICA
Steps to Recovery from Bible Abuse
USA Today
PlanetOut
Southern Poverty Law Ctr
Sisterstalk
National Public Radio
Utne
Mother Jones
The Progressive Magazine
Confessions of a Christian Agnostic
Webcrawler
The Onion

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images


Sponsored
Blog




moon phases
 

What does your candidate REALLY believe about abortion? Do you know?
10.26.04 (6:18 pm)   [edit]

I got this from beliefnet.com.  I had mentioned it on another blog and decided I would just post it  since one individual couldn't get to the article.  I thought maybe others had the same problem, so here it is....an interesting and enlightening read....


What Do They Really Believe on Abortion?
Bush and Kerry aren't telling their full positions on this crucial moral issue

It might be hard to understand the candidate’s position on health care policy or social security reform but after four debates we at least have a clear sense of their positions on abortion. Kerry wants the decision about abortion to be between "a woman, God and her doctor." Bush wants to reduce the number of abortions by encouraging adoptions, creating a "culture of life" and banning partial birth abortions, right. Pretty clear, right?

Not really.

President Bush, for instance, left out something rather important. The Republican Party platform endorses a constitutional amendment banning virtually all abortion – even those occurring in the first few weeks of pregnancy. The platform endorses what’s known as the "Human Life" amendment, which defines life as beginning at conception.
Bush’s failure to mention this small detail was probably not a stress-related oversight. GeorgeWBush.com doesn’t mention it either.

Kerry left out something important, too. Though he has been a pro-choice purist during the campaign, in 1997 he voted for Sen. Tom Daschle’s "comprehensive abortion ban act of 1997" which would have outlawed abortions on “viable” fetuses. Most medical experts believe that fetuses usually become viable by the beginning of the third trimester.

The ACLU attacked the bill as "unconstitutionally narrow" because it didn’t allow enough health-of-the-mother exceptions. (Republicans opposed the Daschle amendment too, ostensibly because it gave too much authority to doctors to determine “viability,” but more likely because the Daschle amendment could have derailed the partial-birth ban, which seemed such a political winner.)

Two pro-life academics Stephen C. Meyer and David K. DeWolf wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the Daschle amendment would have stopped more than 10,000 abortions each year. (By comparison, estimates for partial birth abortions range from a few hundred to 1,500). The writers declared, "For Americans who want to limit abortion on demand, a historic opportunity stands open in Congress. Whether pro-life legislators seize this opportunity will depend on whether they prefer symbolic victory or substantive reform."

Had the Daschle-Kerry approach been in effect during the last four years, there would have been roughly 40,000 fewer abortions than occurred under Bush!

Suffice it to say, Kerry did not mention this in the debate and I couldn’t get the Kerry campaign to say whether he still agrees with that 1997 vote.

Why do the campaigns obscure their positions?

Though President Bush has of late remained quiet on the ban, in earlier years he has said he must first change public opinion before more dramatic steps could occur. Some conservatives have said this strategy is working: the partial birth issue is "the Uncle Toms Cabin of the abortion debate" – the extreme example that will turn public opinion against a horrible evil.

But there’s a flaw in the analogy: abolitionists made no secret of the fact that Uncle Toms Cabin proved the need to, well, abolish slavery. Bush, by contrast, forgets to mention that part. More likely, he simply doesn’t want pro-choice voters to know.

Meanwhile, he uses targeted advertisements in pro-life counties and highly symbolic language to signal to pro-life voters that he’s one of them. Even his cryptic reference in the second presidential debate to opposing judges like those who gave us the 1857 Dred Scott decision may have been part of the abortion calculus. To most Americans, the Dred Scott decision (which decreed that slaves were, legally speaking, property not human beings), is ancient history. But it is commonly cited by pro-life activists as a near-perfect analogue to the Roe vs. Wade case. In all likelihood, Bush’s mentioning of Dred Scott was intended to excite not blacks but pro-life voters.

Kerry’s reticence is a bit more mysterious. Early in the campaign, his campaign seemed to operate on the assumption that the only people who really base their votes on abortion are at the extremes. They weren’t going to win hardcore pro-life voters, they figured, so their first priority was to reach pro-choice soccer moms and take in feminist pro-choice campaign contributions.

More recently, the campaign has become more conscious of an awkward fact on the ground. Catholics are an important voting bloc in battle ground states. The Catholic percentage of the electorate in key states: Pennsylvania (30%), New Jersey (45.9%), Ohio (28%), Michigan (28%), Wisconsin (34.4), Minnesota (28.7%) and New Hampshire (38.2%).

Catholic politics are complicated. Many Catholics don’t care much about abortion as a political issue and many are pro-choice. But pro-choice Catholics seem far more conflicted about it than other pro-choice voters: 73% oppose partial birth abortion, more than the population as a whole. Many other Catholics are liberal on social and economic issues but pro-life on abortion, and therefore conflicted about whether to vote for Kerry.

So far, Kerry has tried to solve this political riddle symbolically not substantively. His strong statements during the debate that even though he was pro choice he held deep "respect" for the pro-life views of the questioner (debate two) and the Catholic bishops (debate three) was an attempt to show he’s not emotionally hostile to the pro-life position. He’s attempting to appeal to conflicted Catholics by showing he’s angst-ridden, too.

It’s hard to know based on these positions what these candidates would actually do as President. Is Bush really a right-wing pro-life hardliner who’s kept his real views quiet so he can be re-elected and then ban abortion and appoint a gaggle of Scalias to the court? Or is he a political pragmatist who has no intention of banning abortion but just wants religious conservatives think he will?

Is Kerry a doctrinaire pro-choice purist who only voted for the Daschle amendment to give himself cover? Or is he actually a centrist who will embrace compromise once he’s elected and needn’t fear the wrath of pro-choice activists?

Given how late it is in the campaign, it’s strange to say: we really don’t know how either of these men would approach abortion in the next four years.

Steven Waldman is the Editor-in-Chief of Beliefnet.com, the leading multifaith spirituality and religion website.
 
big eyes peering over me
10.26.04 (6:05 pm)   [edit]
big brother and big sister are always letting you know they are there. it's scary the things they have the power to do. recent events at work have reminded me of that even more. so much so that i became paranoid about my looking at tblog at work. and to what i might have said about certain people i work with. i happen to know they can look at whatever all employees are doing online at any time they so choose. it happens. i know. i've seen it happen and i'm sure i'll hear about it again. i don't spend a lot of time on here, i don't have the time to do that, and i work hard everyday. sometimes, i might get on tblog for a few minutes a day to see what my favorite bloggers are up too, or maybe even to post something quickly. it's my break, if i smoked, i could go smoke. or i could just go pick my nose or go hear the latest gossip with the rest of them. i could even journal in a notebook. but i am not supposed to journal online. because it's not work related. what is the bid deal? it's a stress reliever. it's MY break. it's for short periods of time. it helps me have a better day, thus, it helps everyone else have a better day. i'm not looking at porn or doing anything illegal. i'm just trying to get through the day sometimes. so, please get those big eyes off my back and let me be. please? i'm not hurting anyone here!
 
Is this really happening in America?
10.24.04 (11:43 pm)   [edit]

Check out this article that appeared in the recent issue of THE PROGRESSIVE magazine.....SCARY STUFF! 


October 16, 2004




Three Teachers Evicted from Bush Event for Wearing "Protect Our Civil Liberties" T-Shirts



About 20 years ago, the former editor of The Progressive magazine, Erwin Knoll, wanted to make a point about the lack of free speech in shopping malls. So he and a few colleagues and friends distributed copies of the Bill of Rights in a mall in Madison, Wisconsin. They were arrested for doing so.


A recent action by three teachers in Oregon reminded me of that perfect snapshot of lost freedom.


On October 14, they decided to attend a Bush rally at the Jackson County Fairgrounds near Medford, where they teach. They wanted to see their President, and they also wanted to stand up for First Amendment rights, since they had heard on NPR that the Bush campaign was curtailing such rights all along the trail.


So they came up with an ingenious idea. They obtained tickets for the event, and they made and wore T-shirts that said, "Protect Our Civil Liberties." Alas, they were not allowed to hear the President. In fact, they were threatened with arrest.


I talked with two of the three teachers, Tania Tong and her sister, Candice Julian, both of whom teach special education to elementary school children in Medford. The third is a student teacher named Janet Voorhies, who works with Tong.


"We didn't want to come up with anything that was offensive or antagonistic," says Julian, who says it was her idea to have the shirts say, "Protect Our Civil Liberties."


"We were concerned about stories we had heard about people trying to go to participate in rallies and being denied access because they had paraphernalia that said something about Kerry," Tong explains. "We wanted to voice our opinion in a way that wasn't degrading to anybody. The shirt was really kind of benign."


They picked up their tickets the day before the event, but even there they had a hard time. The woman handing tickets out raised a question about Julian being from Ashland, a liberal town. "She asked me if I was going to protest or whether I was going to vote for Bush," says Julian. "And she said, 'I'll give you the ticket if you don't protest.' "


Julian agreed that she would not disrupt the event.


On October 14, they proceeded to the fairgrounds. They showed their driver's licenses and tickets at the first checkpoint. Campaign officials "were scrutinizing our T-shirts," Julian says, but they let the three in.


At the second checkpoint, which consisted of a metal detector staffed by the Secret Service, more questions arose.


"People came up and said, 'Do you know this is a Bush rally? We're concerned about your T-shirts,' " recalls Tong.


"We asked them why.


"They said, 'We don't want anything that's going to cause a disruption.'


"Then they asked, 'Are you going to vote for Bush?'


"And I said that I was undecided and my sister Candice said she was choosing not to answer because it's a personal decision."


The campaign officials said they could go in if they could guarantee they would not make a scene, Tong says. "We assured them that we did not come with any intention of being disorderly, so they said fine and said they respected our differing opinions," she recalls.


At that point, the three teachers assumed they were in, and that they could take their seats and listen to the President.


No such luck.


"As we were walking over to sit down, a woman grabbed me by the arm from the back and grabbed my shirt," Tong says. "She said she would have to look under my shirt for offensive language. I told her she wouldn't find any there. She still looked. Then we walked about two more steps and a man came up and asked to see our IDs again and then made a comment abut my sister living in Ashland. But he gave us our IDs back, and we proceeded to sit down."


Campaign officials did not leave the three alone, however. They followed them to their seats, and when Janet Voorhies got up to go to the bathroom, she was tailed, Tong and Julian say.


When Voorhies did not return promptly, they became concerned and got up to see what was going on.


"A guy had Janet by the elbow and was leading her away," says Julian.


"And he said to us, 'Give us your tickets.' "


"We said, 'Why?' And I put the ticket behind my back, and one of the guys who had been following us ripped it out of my hands."


Seeing what happened to her sister's ticket, Tong put hers down her pants, she says.


Campaign officials then told all three women to leave.


"They said it was a private event, for invited guests," Tong recalls.


"We said we were invited because we were given tickets.


"One said, 'You don't have tickets anymore.'


"We said, 'We did until you ripped them out of our hands.'


"And we asked him, 'Are you offended by our shirts?'


"He said our shirts were 'obscene.' "


Tong and Julian say that about ten men, including Secret Service officers and sheriff's deputies, proceeded to surround them.


"They weren't letting us move anywhere," Tong says. Campaign officials told law enforcement, "These people need to leave," she recalls.


"We asked what would happen if we didn't, and the police said we'd be arrested for disorderly conduct," Tong says.


So the three teachers headed away.


"They walked us out past the parking lot and said if you come back, we're going to arrest you," Julian says. She told one of the men, "I just wanted to see my President." And he said, "You're just going to have to watch him on TV,"


"The more and more I think about it the more and more I'm really ticked off," Julian says. "I should have the right to exercise my First Amendment rights. We were of no risk. The Secret Service had already screened us, and they had let us through. It had nothing to do with security. It had everything to do with us having differing views."


Tong is equally angry. "I'm just shocked that the statement on our shirts is even controversial," she says. "I thought that was one of our founding principles and that we have certain rights and freedoms that should be protected."


The Bush campaign and the Oregon Republican Party did not return calls and e-mails for comment.


Deputy Michael Hermant of the Jackson County Sheriff's Department says he doesn't know who was involved in this incident. "There were so many agencies there you couldn't believe it," he says. "Agencies from out of state, out of county, every available agency within the county, plus Secret Service. I have no way of knowing" who escorted the women out of the event or why.


"I can't imagine why the campaign would have asked them to leave," says Dave Fidanque, executive director of the Oregon ACLU, who stresses that the event was on public property at the county fairgrounds. "For a Presidential campaign to eject people who are not being disruptive seems out of character with the America I know."


--Matthew Rothschild

 
alabamians are the fattest in the nation
10.21.04 (3:59 pm)   [edit]

a recent study (as reported by Nation Public Radio) shows that Alabama has the highest percentage of overweight people in the nation.  It says that more than 28% of the state's residents are obese.  13% of our high school students are overweight!  That's just amazing!


Now, just to give you an idea.  The term obese means "very fat", not just a little chunky.  I have a scale that shows where a person falls on the scale by their height and weight.  For example, a person who is 5'7" and weighs 155 or below, that is considered acceptable weight.  That same person at 5'7" who weights anywhere from 155-188 would be considered overweight.  Between 190-220 lbs.would be obese.  And between 220-250 lbs. is severly obese.  Anything over that is considered morbidly obese.


I'm 5'9", and according to my scale, I can weigh up to 165 and still be acceptable.  I can't imagine gaining 20 lbs, but the Depo shot did it to me once!  Never say never!  So, by looking at this scale, for me to be considered obese, I would have to weigh over 200 lbs!  Holy cow!  I can't imagine!  And don't want to! 


Anyway, that's my tidbit of news today.

 
flu shots
10.21.04 (3:44 pm)   [edit]

Does it just seem odd to me....that America can't handle getting flu shots for Americans, and Bush's plan is to get them from Canada....the very government he ridicules from their health care system....how it's not as good as ours....but yet, Canada is the one we turn to for help.  hmmmmmm, interesting.....

 
christians and southern football fans....one and the same
10.20.04 (9:59 pm)   [edit]
for some reason, i started thinking about the similarities between southern football fans and christians. i'll use the university of alabama as my prime example b/c there are more of them here than anything else.

alabama football fans have hats, t-shirts, bumper stickers that claim they are number 1, and all other kinds of fan wear. so do the christians. bama fans are die hard...their team is number one no matter what....every other team is scum of the earth and a target of ridicule. christians do the same things with other religious beliefs (teams). they think they are the ONLY team and that everyone else is scum, and ridicule is their specialty. bama fans will fight over their team. so will christians. bama fans will declare their team is the best, as their beer bellies fall out from under their bama sweatshirt. christians often declare their team is the ONLY real team, while their sinful/hypocritical ways will be falling out all over the place. All the while, the bama fans will fight tooth and nail, although they themselves have never played football, or worked out, been to a gym, or been an athlete at any time of their life.....but somehow they have all the answers, are the armchair quarterbacks, and the expert coahes. Sometimes they offer their limited experiences from the peewee football league when they were 10 yrs old. christians often do the same stuff. they are quick to point out the faults of others, neglecting their own flaws, and preach as if they actually know the playbook by heart (the bible). the ole plank in the eye trick. all the while, they don't really practice what they preach, they just like to feel superior to everyone else. bama fans are quick to run off a coach if they don't win every single game and do everything just so. christians are ready to run off their preachers/pastors if they don't please them as well. i see so many things coming together here..... alabama's team wins and these bama fans boast all over creation, strutting around, and rubbing it in everyone's face. christians often do the same....strut around like they are the shit, boasting about themselves so much that no one can stand to be around them, even their own kind. they rub their beliefs in everyone's face and tell everyone else they are number one, and you're going to hell, ha ha! but, let a bama fan's team lose, and they get all quiet, and then drag up the past of a time they won, or blame the referee for costing them the game on that one call, or blaming the coach. let the christians face a defeat by way of a jimmy swaggert, or jim baker, or some other religious goof and they get quiet, or say they had a bad feeling about that person all along, or say that the devil made them do it..it was eve, eve made them do it! or let them have someone question them about scripture that they haven't considered in it's context, or how some scriptures just aren't real clear and other scriptures seem to contradict others....they get quiet about the contradiction and/or get all puffy about you saying anything could be unclear about the bible. get on the topic of the unquestionable word of god. no mistakes, no misunderstands, no questions, just the word infallible...and everyone's opinion.

i haven't figured it all out yet, but i'm beginning to think that maybe, just maybe, the top bama fan that happens to be a christian of this kind might just be the anti-christ.
 
christian agnostic
10.18.04 (8:20 pm)   [edit]
I've recently discovered some writings by a Rich Mayfield that has seemed to express how I feel about some things. It's been refreshing to read his thoughts and gives me some hope for Christianity. Wish I knew more people that think like this around here.
I wanted to share one of his daily writings from his website www.christianagnostic.com :

October 17
I have found that Jesus has revealed to me a God of such enormous grace, that I am freed up to love those who are different than me, who think differently, look differently, even believe differently. I do not feel compelled to convince them to change. My only compulsion is to follow Jesus and he is leading me to the joy of discovering a life of acceptance, kindness and love.

Is there a criteria by which we may judge our actions and the actions of others?

I believe there is, and it has nothing to do with our heritage, our language, our political systems or our religious doctrines.

It has everything to do with compassion.

Where you find compassion, you find the God of Jesus, the God of all creation.

I remember reading a story from Leslie Weatherhead of a Hindu man, bright, caring and devout, who, when he heard the story of Jesus said, "I have known him all my life and now you have told me his name."

Jesus is our means for sharing the Good News of God’s love. To exclude others for using other means is to ignore the very message of Jesus.

"He had compassion," Luke tells us and calls us to do the same.

We must never let our words, symbols or doctrines about compassion replace our acts of compassion.

We must remember we worship Christ and not Christianity.

How could we ever exclude, demean or eliminate anyone in the name of love?

 
wife beaters....and NOT the tank top kind
10.13.04 (8:22 pm)   [edit]
I have an employee, I'll call her Samantha, who is married to a real asshole. He's abusive to Samantha in every sense of the word....verbal, emotional, physical, and sexual. A real piece of work. Samantha was sexually abused by her own father, as was her 2 sisters. Her first husband was abusive as well. Now she has husband number 2 and he's playing out the wife beater part to a T. She takes care of her daughter and HIS daughter, luckily, they don't have kids together. She works full time and takes care of everything. He won't hold a job for more than 4 days at a time, and has total control of her paycheck and every second of her day. He recently made some comment to her when he was trying to force her to do something sexual that she didn't want to do....he made some comment that he could understand why her father took it from her. I couldn't fucking believe what I was hearing. He is scum of the earth if I have ever seen it.
I can not for the life of me understand why women stay with these losers. I've studied it, heard the stories, see it over and over, but I still cannot comprehend it.
I remember one thing that helps me understand it to some degree. I remember being in a relationship that I had committed myself to and felt I had to stick it out because I had given my word, basically, that I was committed. I could not see a way out, outside of being cheated on. I was so beat down (verbally/emotionally) that I could not see a way out. Death or having a justified reason to get out of it. How stupid was that? But I didn't have the strength, at that time, to get myself out of that awful situation. Lucky for me, she cheated on me and gave me my reason I needed. I can't understand why I needed that reason then, but it was my first committed relationship and I just didn't have anything to draw from. My parents were they kind that believed in sticking things out, no matter what. Needless to say, I learned my lesson the hard way, and haven't forgotten it. I still can cringe just thinking how ignorant I was, and how bad I must have felt about myself to allow that to happen.
Anyway, back to the topic of Samantha....I was talking to my partner about the situation yesterday and we had a flashback to our recent company's annual meeting/dinner. I remember that Samantha came and brought her loser husband. That sat alone at the table next to us and I knew it was b/c Sam knew nobody wanted to sit with him. I felt bad for her and asked them to join us, so they did. I remember that he seemed so full of himself. And he talked about how he sang in this group, said he won some contest singing one time, and was bragging about how they go around singing at different clubs, but he didn't feel right about singing in clubs where they served alcohol, b/c he was a Christian he stated that he felt if you are a Christian, then you are Christian [u]all the time.[/u]
And there you have it.
He can't sing in a place that serves alcohol b/c he's a Christian, but he can fuck his wife a week after she had a hysterectomy or fuck her up the ass with any object he desires even when she says NO. Yep, we don't have enough of these good Christian men around here. Makes me wish bad things on him and I don't like to do that. Makes me wish someone would stick some big object up his ass and see how he likes it. Makes me wish Sam would do him up Bobbit style.

I hope she gets out of that relationship before she gets killed. I hope she isn't waiting for some "good reason" to leave his loser ass. I hope she and her daughter makes it out of this with the least amount of damage possible in this situation. I wish....
 
dreams, visions, premonitions, or just plain ole crazy
10.07.04 (9:00 pm)   [edit]
I've had a few strange things happen over the years. Times where I just had a feeling about something and trusted it and I was right. I've also had times where I actually dreamed about something happening and within 24 hrs, it did. This week I had such an occurrence. I dreamed that something was wrong with my tire one night and it didn't blow out or anything, but felt like it was moving to the side, sliding out to one side of the car. I'm driving to work that next morning, turning onto the highway, and it happened....my tire was moving, like sliding to the side, just like in my dream. It turns out my tire was flat and had an old nail was in it. I got the tire fixed and went on my way. The next morning, the same tire was flat. Turns out the folks who fixed the flat the first time had damaged the valve and all the air leaked out. So, I got it fixed again. If it's flat tomorrow morning, I'm not going to work. The only difference between my dream and reality so far was that the tire caused me to have an accident.

One time when I was in undergrad school, I was driving home in the wee hours of the morning and I was very sleepy. I feel asleep at the wheel. While asleep, I dreamed about this dog that walked out from the bushes right in front of me. The dog walked out from nowhere, it seemed, and just stood there and looked at me. That woke me up. Within 1 minute of waking up, the dog I saw in my dream walked right out in front of me just like it did in my dream. Let me tell you something, I had NO problem staying awake the rest of the way home that night. I was wide eyed and freaky!

Other stuff has happened that are a little more bizarre, but I usually don't get into that lest they come get me and take me away in a straight jacket. People just look at you like you are lying, or like they think you are c-r-a-z-y and nod their heads. I just don't trust many people with stuff like that. It's not good to advertise stuff like that unless you plan to open up a palm reading/psychic business, or just want to try and impress some people with strange stories.
But, for me, it sure serves it's purpose. It makes me think there is someone watching out for me and those I care about. It lets me know that our minds are way underutilized in this world. It lets me know there is way more than meets the eye. I may be crazy, but I feel like I've been spared a couple of times b/c of it for some reason, so I am thankful for whatever it is. I can't explain it, or grasp the wholeness of it, but I know it's there. So, call me Cleo and send me some money and maybe good fortune will come to you! hee hee! Naw, I'm afraid it doesn't work like that! Too bad, I could use the cash....But I'll settle for living and breathing today!
 
tooting the horn for greeneyes
10.07.04 (8:27 pm)   [edit]
A big congratulations to greeneyedgrrl for being selected by the community as the Mental Health Professional of the Year!!!!
That's my grrl!

It was a well-deserved award. She didn't have a clue that she was getting it and it was fun to watch the surprise and see her be recognized among professionals (and the community) as being the awesome person that she is.

And how fitting, she was dragged into attending the Candle Vigil with the pretense that she was needed because they feared a particular client may show up who is known to cause trouble...heckling, abnoxious, making a scene kind of client. She kept her eye on the door all night, just waiting on this client to show up so she could take care of it for everyone.
And then, she found a homeless client sitting on the park bench outside, and since it was cold that night, she went to her car to get a sweat suit out for her. Later, we sat and talked with the client and my greeneyed grrl assisted in getting a warm bed for the night (even though it was not the ideal place, it was a warm bed and a meal). The client was a 71 yr old lady who was a pistol. It was quite entertaining to talk with her. She had spunk and was funny as hell. I didn't feel like I was working at all. But we ended up being there until after 10pm with her until her transportation got there.
That is only a very tiny view of what makes my grrl the best! And what got her a deserving award. She's got character that the average joe can only read about in books. Fairy tales of principles and valor and all that is good in this world and beyond.

I was telling my grrl last night how she has more character than anyone I have ever been with/dated/whatever....she's a better person than me, and I'm very proud of who she is. I feel like she's long overdue at work to be recognized.

So, this is me tooting the horn for greeneyedgrrl.....
Hey baby, you rock! :!:
 
Liberal is not a dirty word
10.04.04 (9:12 pm)   [edit]
I recently did a blog commenting on how Bush kind of favors a monkey. Somehow that blog got deleted when I was looking at it. Anyway, someone commented that I was calling Bush a monkey and that liberals are getting desperate. My comment back to him was that I didn't call Bush a monkey, but said he favored one and acted so childlike that I could see him reaching under the podium during the debate and grabbing a banana and throwing it at Kerry. Maybe like the Saturday Night Live character, MonkeyBoy, he could jump on the podium and chew up the banana and spit it at Kerry. Maybe he could try that the next debate.
Anyway, the guy who commented on my blog was calling me a "lib" like it was a bad thing. I'm sure he also thinks any woman who uses her brain and believes in women's rights is a women's lib bitch. I commented back to him that I was indeed a lib.....I believer in the women's lib, I am a lover of liberty and justice, and I even had a friend named Lib once. I'm just eat up with it! But it got me to thinking about how the conservatives just hate the liberals and I recently read a blog written in the "you might be a redneck if" style, only using "liberal" as the noun. It was an interesting mix of ideas that I thought didn't really go together entirely and was very stereotypical. Enough so that I could visualize who this person was.....white male who was not in the lower classes. He forced me to stereotype who he was! I would be surprised if he wasn't a non-poverty level white male, but it could happen.
This made me look up the actual definition of liberal, since so many stereotypes were being given and so much hate and venom seems to be out there for liberals. So, okay, what is a liberal?
The dictionary I am using for this purpose is The Oxford Pocket Dictionary and Thesarus, copyright 1997.
Liberal - 1) ample, full; abundant. 2) generous. 3) open-minded. 4) not strict or rigorous. 5) broadening (liberal studies). 6) favoring political and social reform. [i]n.-[/i] person of liberal views.
The thesarus gives these words: [i]adj.[/i] 1) lavish, plentiful, profuse. 2) bountiful, giving, magnanimous, unselfish, unsparing. 3) fair, broadminded, unprejudiced, unbiased, tolerant, relaxed, permissive, impartial. 4) flexible, lenient, casual. 6) progressive, freethinking, humanistic. [i]n.-[/i] progressive, libertarian, reformer, independent, freethinker, leftist, left-winger.
Libertarian- advocate of liberty.

So, there you go. Liberal is NOT a dirty word. The world thought Jesus was liberal. The world thought Columbus was liberal. And so on, and so on. So, call me liberal. Look it up, that's not an insult. The opposite of open-minded is close-minded. The opposite of progressive is not where I want to me. The opposite of tolerant, flexible, freethinking, independent, unbiased, unprejudiced, unselfish, and fairness is not where I want to be. So, go ahead, call me liberal, that means you are on the other side of these words....prejudiced, biased, intolerant, inflexible, selfish, unfair, etc.... So, when you call me a LIB, you are calling yourself all these other things. I'm not calling you anything, you are taking care of that for me.
So, in response to being called a lib, well, thank you very much! :wink: