BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


The American Culture Wars

 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Chiropteran
19:32 / 05.11.04
i think it's a misreading of christianity or any authentic spirituality to think we have the obligation or the right to change someone who doesn't want to be changed.

All the same, I think we also have the obligation to limit the amount of damage they are able to do to us and the world, in the meantime.

I have no desire to take away their god, but they had better not try to take away mine. It's a gut-level, territorial, defensive reaction, but there it is. It's hard to co-exist peacefully with someone whose deepest-held beliefs preclude peaceful co-existence. (As usual, my comments are properly directed only at certain factions and individuals within the greater Christian community - I have a tendency to be over-general in my language, but I know that there are many Christians who are content to make Salvation "available" without trying to force it on anyone.)

~L
 
 
---
20:05 / 05.11.04
If we are right and they are wrong, why is it so absurd to think that we can MAKE THEM SEE?

I agree with you Jack, and I loved your post further up aswell. I read someone who stated that 'this is a rescue mission' in the Temple too and it's stuck in my head for a couple of days. I think it's one of the most important points : that they are us, and that no matter what happens, we should try to help them if it's possible, help them to help themselves. If we can't think of many good ways to do that then maybe our own minds aren't as clear as we sometimes like to think that they are.

In short : Mr Fear, I don't think it's absurd to think that at all, but I'm guessing from here that the only reason for the current failing is that we don't see so clearly ourselves. Maybe we shouldn't take it personally because it's just the way that it has to be, that we needed this kick up the ass because we didn't try hard enough collectively like they did, but yeah it's hard to see it like that, I know.

I guess we're still learning, and that right now we have the biggest incentive ever to finally see what we're capable of, and also if we have as much compassion and creativity as we like to think that we have.

Sheesh, and I'm English/British/WhateverI/WEwanttobe aswell. You people have really got me wrapped up in this one this time. I keep thinking how much the rockbands who tried so hard to spread the message about Bush must be pissed off right now. And everyone else of course.

Of course, if the voting machines got rigged then that's probably why we are in this mess. They only need a few hackers to beat every single one of the rest of us, something worth remembering. Those machines should be protected a lot more. I'd love to know the truth about the voting of the last 2 elections, and the fact that people have sweated it out in confusion for so long each time. Imagine if the hacking scenario did happen and then it was logged and given to the public. Can you imagine that? But this is me leaving the point.......

Don't let them fuckwits push you into a civil war.
 
 
lekvar
22:33 / 05.11.04
I have to admit to a sensation of dismay at reading this thread.
It may just be me, but I see this focus on the religious aspect of the election to be the conservatives framing the context of the national debate again. The conservatives will use the "culture war" shamelessly because it can't be won, much like the war between Oceana, Eastasia and Eurasia can't be won, and liberal candidates will run around trying to play catch-up and trying to explain exactly how religious they really are, honestly, see I'm going to church.

Don't get me wrong, I recognize that the established base of religious voters is huge and well organized, but I think it's the organization, not the religiosity that played in their favor. Most of the Republicans I know couldn't quote you a verse from the Bible beyond John 3:16, and that's only because they see it waving around at every football game. The same goes for most Christian I know too, actually. Press them on why homosexuals shouldn't have domestic partnership/marriage rights and you'll get that tired old line about "Adam and Steve."

Liberals have lost their traditional base, labor. Groups like MoveOn have stepped up to the plate in order to build a new outreach, but so far they are preaching to the choir, and limiting itself to a typically highbrow dialogue. I think over the next four years the 527 groups will get their act together in order to orchestrate a more coherent movement, which should help.

But I'd just like to point out that framing the debate around religion won't help. We're not going to get the endorsement of the pulpit, the synagogue, the mosque, until we start to lean away from the values that make us liberal.
 
 
ibis the being
23:10 / 05.11.04
Damn, I just wrote a long post and accidentally closed my browser. AARGH.

Basically, I said -

But I'd just like to point out that framing the debate around religion won't help. We're not going to get the endorsement of the pulpit, the synagogue, the mosque, until we start to lean away from the values that make us liberal.

I agree with this, but I don't think framing this debate around religion means necessarily becoming religious to compete. Democrats have to address the religion issue if they ever want to compete in a major election again. It's one thing to concede that they can't "win the South," but it's another to have their heads in the sand regarding the fact that the Republican party has joined forces with what's almost like a third party - Religious Right - to become a Superparty much more powerful than the old donkey. I heard on Natl Public Radio today that the infamous Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, is on the "short list" of nominees for the head of the RNC. There's a good article on Reed in Atlantic online which I'm going to post separately so I don't fuck it up again ---
 
 
vajramukti
23:10 / 05.11.04


I can't help but agree there as well.


this whole culture war scenario is one frame to look at this through, but i think you have to take it to another level.

it's pretty clear that the monied interests of the elite will play any card, stoop to any bald faced lie, apply any scummy tactic imaginable. this divide and rule shit is just the latest damn thing.

earlier in this thread, somone mentioned the phenomenon of global peak oil. i defy anyone to google that up and read for twenty minutes without wanting to run to the toilet and puke with dread.

global capitalism is in it's endgame phase. right now the powers that be are gearing up to fight for what's left of the pie and leave anyone who won't join the slave labour pool to die from climate change, starvation, war or plague.
the truth is, we are all history's victims. red america is just the easier mark for the global con. the rest of us are hamstrung by this idea that we're living in a 'civilisation' when in actual fact it's what a delightfull blogger recently called " some serious orwellian shit ".

i really think this time, they've gotten too arrogant. if they'd allowed kerry to win, we would've all gone back to sleep for another four years. maybe they're too desperate now. maybe they realise the game is coming to a close. but instead, they've tipped thier hand, and i think in the weeks and months ahead we will see that a great many people will come to understand exactly what is happening.


then you will have a real culture war. at the very least.
 
 
ibis the being
23:17 / 05.11.04
Sorry, the Atlantic is subscription only. But I stumbled on this short piece on the Harvard site. The following excerpt is Ralph Reed saying almost exactly what diz said upthread -

Reed's message is that faith as a political force is not anti-democratic, but rather the "very essence of democracy." In his latest book, Active Faith, he writes, "To look at America today is to Ralph Reed (pictured): The cheerful face of Christian conservatism?witness a nation struggling against forces as dangerous as any military foe it has ever faced. The threats, however, come not from without, but from within. Families are disintegrating, fathers are abandoning their children, abortion is the most common medical procedure in the nation, and young people attend schools that are not safe and in which they do not learn. In the inner city illegitimacy is rampant, drug deals are openly conducted on street corners, hopelessness is the norm, and children are shot by marauding carloads of juvenile gang members. There is no economic solution to this social chaos &emdash; it is a collection of moral problems that require moral solutions." Reed advocates a spiritual renewal for America, writing that "our time as people of faith has finally come."
 
 
lekvar
23:19 / 05.11.04
On the other hand you have a predominantly white heteronormative middle class that's feeling increasingly less privaleged. They see California's "majority minority" status and worry about their property values. They actually think that illegal imigrants are lazy, but they're taking our jobs!. Divorce rates hover somewhere around the 50% mark but the gays are threatening the sanctity of marriage! Every knee-jerk reaction yuo see from the middle class has it's basis in a sense of fear, but that fear is rooted in loss of status. Think of the language of their arguements: It's always someone trying to "take" something. Take our guns. Take our freedom. Take our jobs.

When you realize you're in deep shit, the easiest thing to do is blame someone else, and Rush is standing there with his finger pointed at us saying, "it's their fault!"

So we as liberals have to figure out some way to make Middle America understand that we aren't simply trying to take, but take away something that doesn't work and replace it with something that will.
 
 
grant
02:02 / 06.11.04
Well, that and the whole "we're not actually killing babies" thing. That'd be important too.
 
 
grant
02:03 / 06.11.04
I still think y'all are shorting religion by assuming its somehow necessarily or fundamentally right-wing or conservative.

I mean, Liberation Theology? The Christian Right hates this stuff: Liberationists view capitalist nations as sinful specifically because they have oppressed and exploited poorer nations....
...To go along passively with oppression rather than resisting and attempting to overthrow it - by violent means if necessary - is sin.
 
 
---
02:05 / 06.11.04
I just found this on Millarworld and had to link to it : Hijacked
 
 
lekvar
04:45 / 06.11.04
Don't get me wrong, grant, I don't think that we should completely ignore religion (well, actually I do, but I know my position is a minority one), but I also think that other potential avenues, perfectly valid ones, are being ignored.
 
 
lekvar
05:51 / 06.11.04
Upon re-reading, I realise my response dosent make a whole lot of sense. What I meant to say is, I see Jack Fear, and diz agreeing with you.

But I see in the media repeating the Fox/neocon line that the next 4 years are about morals.
 
 
Ganesh
06:20 / 06.11.04
In that case, the left needs to reclaim "moral values", show that there's there's more to "morality" than gays, guns and abortion. Allowing the term to be straitjacketed into the claustrophobic rhetoric of right-wing US-domestic sexual/social panic is a mistake. There are debates to be had about the "morality" of the deficit, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, mass-murder of Afghans, Iraqis, etc., etc.
 
 
lekvar
07:57 / 06.11.04
If you can actually get them to care about the morality of the deficit, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, mass-murder of Afghans or Iraqis I will pay your ticket over here and nominate you for president. All that stuff, that's happening somewhere else, over in the middle east somewhere. The second they start caring beyond muttering "damned towelheads" they're ours!
 
 
Ganesh
08:14 / 06.11.04
Well, presumably the first step would be a concerted effort, by the Democratic Party, to expand the whole concept of "moral values" - to show that 'What Would Jesus Do' encompasses more than domestic or sexual issues. Grant's 'Liberal Theology' link seems apposite. While I think it'd be a mistake for the Democrats to 'get religion' wholesale, they need to gain proficiency in utilising Scripture proactively rather than defensively.

And yeah, I think 'what would Jesus think about Guantanamo', etc. seems a reasonable place to start.
 
 
ibis the being
18:44 / 06.11.04
I understand what you're saying Ganesh, and the spirit of reconciliation and compromise it's coming from. However, though I have no quarrel with the idea that spirituality and religion have innate value and beneficial effects for the individual, I still don't accept that they have a place in government. Everyone seems to be discussing Democratic strategy with the core assumption that we've got to incorporate religion somehow. I think, on the contrary, we need to remind people that separation of Church and State is one of the basic tenets of American democracy, and all the reasons why that is so. Not to mention that we should be pointing out that America does not support theocracies in the rest of the world, and how can we be a theocracy while criticizing others? I know that Fundamentalists categorically reject cultural relativism, but I don't care - we need to hammer home the idea that stripping Americans of civil rights and legislating morality is no different, in the bigger picture, than forcing women to wear burqas and denying them the vote.

The Religious Right is having a party right now because their particular religion is strong and in power, but if a Catholic were in power they'd be up in arms about the Pope getting his nose in American government. Everyday Christians need to be persuaded not that Democrats are moral and spiritual too, but that religion and government should NOT mix.
 
 
Ganesh
19:13 / 06.11.04
However, though I have no quarrel with the idea that spirituality and religion have innate value and beneficial effects for the individual, I still don't accept that they have a place in government.

Perhaps you mistake me. I am also of the opinion that Church and State should be kept utterly separate. The point I'm making is that the concept of "morality" should be reclaimed, opened up. I think Democrats should give thought to the "moral" dimensions of their policies (and they are plenty: if anything's "sinful", it's disenfranchisement of the poor and helpless, mass-murder of the innocent) and be prepared to explain themselves in these terms, if challenged by the Scripture-slinging Christian Right.
 
 
lekvar
20:23 / 06.11.04
We've tried the moreal route, if I'm reading you correctly.
It's moral and just to give women equal pay for equal work. The call us "feminazis."
It's moral and just to support the underclassed and the unfortunate (sez so in the Bible, right?). Clinton appeases the conservatives by giving us "welfare reform." They give us retoric about "welfare mothers."
It's moral and just to try to bring more minorities into the middle class. They end affirmative action.
I can do this all day. Really.
Love thy neighbor? Do unto others? Turn the other cheek? The who scream the loudest for a pound of Saddam's flesh are the ones who have their panties in a bunch about not being allowed to have the ten commandments in courtrooms, and might I add, tend to overwhelmingly support the death penalty.
The Bible has become a tool, not a guidebook.
 
 
Ganesh
20:48 / 06.11.04
I guess I'm not talking about simply saying 'X is moral/immoral' and being agreed/disagreed with, but engaging with the opposition on a long-term basis, and gradually showing them that 'X is moral/immoral' - being equipped to counter the inevitable Biblical objections as well as advancing arguments based on evidence and practicality.

I'm well aware that I'm probably - and extremely irritatingly - saying stuff that's been said many times before. I'm sorry. I don't mean to be preachy. I suppose I just don't see many alternatives. I guess that, from the point of view of the Democratic Party, it'd be good to follow both routes: establish a clear pro-choice pro-gay rights agenda on secular grounds; and be prepared to argue the case on non-secular grounds ie. without simply dismissing religious objections outright. That seems to be the way to go.

But I'm a naive Brit, so I'm quite prepared for flamey goodness if this has all been discussed before. Flame me!
 
 
Cherielabombe
08:34 / 07.11.04
I think one thing we also have to consider is the media itself in the U.S. As an American who's lived in the U.K. for two and a half years, I can tell you that there's a much wider focus on global news in the U.K. than there is in the U.S. NBC, ABC and (though braver) CBS are not reporting enough about the war and about the disasters of the Bush Administration for the average TV-News watching American to get pissed off.

To find out more information about the rest of the world, you have to look on the internet, you have to scour the newspapers. Those activities take a bit of work and, actually quite understandably, not everyone is going to want to or be able to do that.

So I think a big key to change is getting the media to change. The media in America is no longer liberal, and even Rush Limbaugh knows it, as evidenced by the fact that his homepage said something like "new media helps us win election." (I looked, I'm a glutton.)

I'm not exactly sure how we go about doing that, but it's something to think about.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:33 / 07.11.04
I think there has certainly been too much moral relativism voiced by the 'left'/'liberals' over the past four years. A lot of people here and elsewhere were saying that what was wrong with Bush and the neocons was that they saw the world in terms of good v. evil, and that was wrong. This was never going to wash with a large number of people, partly because deep down they know it's just not true: good v. evil is the fundamental narrative of human existence.

What we should have been saying instead was the truth: Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfovitz, etc are evil! They are wicked men... evildoers. They hate freedom, they are the enemies of freedom. These terrorist evildoers will destroy our world if they can, so much hatred do they have in their hearts... So they must be hunted down, and stopped.
 
 
Cherielabombe
15:53 / 07.11.04
Fly, I think you've got a good point there, but as we know it's a lot less simple than "good" vs. "evil," black vs. white, etc. And I actually think that moral simplicity is part of the APPEAL of Bush. It's easy to call someone easy but it takes a little mental work to look at the issues and analyze them, and more than that, it's not as if the left has any great solutions to "the war on terror." Bush does: "They" are evil, they are "enemies of freedom" and we have to stop them. And that simplicity appeals. People want concrete answers and solutions to their "problems" and Bush is providing them, whether we agree with them or not.


How do we get people to see that it's not necessarily so simple? I really don't know.
 
 
alas
23:21 / 07.11.04
I don't know either, Cherrybomb. What I do in my classes, reaching my 70 privileged kids a term, or trying to, is to highlight the pleasure, the humor, the joy in seeing things in complex terms.

Part of what makes us liberal is the joy we get in encountering something or someone genuinely "other" from ourselves--some new way of being in the world, a new piece of art or a new kind of vision that we hadn't thought of, something not cliched. Something genuinely "new," in that old modernist "Make It New" sense of the word. That's where my joy is--figuring out that new thing, trying to see how it ticks, aware that I will never completely get it.

Since I'm a good liberal of course I'm distrustful of the kind of consumption paradigm that the economically "liberal" market economy takes--the "how can we make some serious cash off this 'new' thing? Let's see, last year we tried the whole Hindu deities on bikinis thing, which was sorta mixed... Maybe this year we can do something with that whole Kabbalah thing that Madonna's into?"

Part of why we get so angry with this "red state" culture is that it is old. It's familiar. Many of us here grew up in it. We know their fucking arguments. It's beyond cliched. It's bad art. We are "tolerant" because we know we can always learn from the "other" but this particular other rejects all otherness as sinful, and we had James Dobson's words drilled into our heads every time we got in the car and heard AM radio!

So of course we don't view that culture in the same way as a new, disturbing but thought provoking film, or the influx of a new immigrant culture.

But I take a little hope from two things. One: some of the christians are ALSO concerned about the commodification of everything, even if they wouldn't use that term and even though they may not even have words to address that concern--they're not hearing about it on Christian radio stations except in terms of the immorality of Hollywood. But they do usually know a little bit of the bible, and part of what attracts them, even if it IS just John 3:16: For God so LOVED the world that he gave his only begotten son . . . Love! Sacrifice! Not doing everything for "the Almighty Dollar" as I've heard from more than one conservative soul in my home town. They often DO get that--I know my sister does.

Second, this morning I had a another in a series of commiserating conversations with one of my best friends from college, Allison, who also lives in the red zone and feels like she's completely alienated from the people all around her. And she told me about one of her other friends, who I've heard about for years and who sang in Allison's wedding. Last I had heard, this friend of Allison's had had 5 kids by three fathers and had found Jesus. She was proselytizing and evangelizing and Allison was just rolling her eyes. Well, now, probably somewhere between 5-10 years later, this same friend is a Buddhist with a gay son and another son with serious drug problems, and a Kerry supporter. (Ok don't say "with friends like those . . ." Hear me out!)

America is a "just passing through" culture. There's a strong belief in the possibility of re-creating the self, of "conversion" into a new being, on all sides of the cultural divides. Academics can think of Ben Franklin, Malcolm X--or their own introduction to critical thinking, even. Pop culture people can look at Madonna's series of perhaps cynical but still fairly convincing re-creations of herself. Or the classic Oprah story of survival and change. And christians have the central narrative of conversion to christ; some even speak of a daily conversion--the idea of having to re-encounter the Christ each day, to not be arrogant about having "gotten" it once. They do exist, those folks.

Now, don't get me wrong, this part of US culture is both good and bad, obviously. The upside of it for us, and it's a small upside, is to remember that at least some of the evangelical support is like that woman with her 5 kids. It's soft. It's on the lookout for the next best thing, it's open to a goal of achieving a fuller realization of personal potential.

Unfortunately, people like that woman are probably not necessarily the ones you want to have organizing the get out the vote drive or setting up a phone bank, since God knows if they'll stick with anything once it ceases to be "new" in a kind of face-slapping way . . . (And, ok, I know that sounds a little condescending so I'll just acknowledge that this is a part of my own personality, too, and none of us find genuine commitment to be an "easy" task.) However, I suspect these "soft" evangelicals are there, all over that carpet of red, and they may be more open to hearing a message if we can communicate also the joy and freedom and love that we find here.

Sheeesh. That sounds horribly pollyannaish. Please bear in mind I'm just trying to figure out how to survive in Ohio in very dark times ...
 
 
FinderWolf
15:44 / 08.11.04
Karl Rove said today that Bush is "serious" about getting a Constitutional amendment passed that marriage is between a man and a woman.

It seems like they're determined to target gays. This does not sound good.... Nazi Germany, here we come!
 
 
FinderWolf
15:46 / 08.11.04
And when I say "seems like they're..." , believe me, I know this is **hardly** a surprise. But I'd hoped they'd try to implement other conservative stuff in their agenda first (financial things, domestic issues, raze the environment some more, etc.) and not go for the gay thing so quickly...I figured they'd maybe trot out the amendment idea in 2 years or so, right before the Bush admin. becomes a lame duck...
 
 
ibis the being
16:15 / 08.11.04
It seems like they're determined to target gays.

Check out this piece on Matt Daniels from Time Magazine's story on "Winners and Losers" of the election.

Matt Daniels has almost no chance of accomplishing his goal, but pursuing it has made him a player. He's the guy who wrote the Federal Marriage Amendment, which opposes gay marriages. After successfully blocking a more radical version of the amendment that would have outlawed gay civil unions - and risked alienating moderate voters - Daniels' Alliance for Marriage won Bush's support with language that simply defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Although clearly happy that the President was reelected, Daniels, 40, says he's glad the election is finally over so that people will stop seeing his amendment as nothing more than a wedge issue. "There are those who constantly allege that our fundamental motivation is some sort of campaign agenda," he says. "Well, they're not going to be able to say that anymore."
 
 
FinderWolf
16:44 / 08.11.04
And now, it's back the Scopes monkey trial with Evolution vs. Creationism, Round II! Thanks, conservative midwest & south!!

from Yahoo news:

ATLANTA - A warning sticker in suburban Atlanta science textbooks that says evolution is "a theory, not a fact" was challenged in court Monday as an unlawful promotion of religion.

The disclaimer was adopted by Cobb County school officials in 2002 after hundreds of parents signed a petition criticizing the textbooks for treating evolution as fact without discussing alternate theories, including creationism.

"The religious views of some that contradict science cannot dictate curriculum," American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) attorney Maggie Garrett argued Monday before U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper. The trial is expected to last several days.

But a lawyer for Cobb County schools, Linwood Gunn, held up a copy of a textbook's table of contents Monday that showed dozens of pages about evolution.

"The sticker doesn't exist independently of the 101 pages about evolution," Gunn said. "This case is not about a sticker which has 33 words on it. ... It's about textbooks that say a lot more than that."

The stickers read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

One of the parents who filed the lawsuit, Jeffrey Selman, said the stickers discredit the science of evolution.
"It's like saying everything that follows this sticker isn't true," he said.

The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) ruled in 1987 that creationism was a religious belief that could not be taught in public schools along with evolution.

Gunn said he expects the warning will hold up in court, saying it "provides a unique opportunity for critical thinking."

"It doesn't say anything about faith," Gunn said. "It doesn't say anything about religion."
 
 
ibis the being
18:30 / 09.11.04
A writer at one conservative weekly has a solution, one he calls "A Modest Proposal," to our problems - expel the blue states from the country.

Mr. Thomson, who incidentally thinks Abraham Lincoln was a horrible President, and that Fahrenheit 911 is "the most bogus, deceitful film documentary since Herr Hitler and Herr Goebbels gave propaganda a bad name," thinks that America is irreparably broken, which of course is the fault of liberals ("It's as if the genes of liberals have rendered them immune to all forms of filth").

Thomson has an actual plan for expulsion, outlined here -

U.S. Constitution is not easily changed, primarily because so many states (75%, now 38 of 50) must agree. Yet, there are 38 states today that may be inclined to adopt, let us call it, a "Declaration of Expulsion," that is, a specific constitutional amendment to kick out the systemically troublesome states and those trending rapidly toward anti-American, if not outright subversive, behavior. The 12 states that must go: California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, and Delaware. Only the remaining 38 states would retain the name, "United States of America." The 12 expelled mobs could call themselves the "Dirty Dozen," or individually keep their identity and go their separate ways, probably straight to Hell.

I'm not sure I wouldn't be happy to go. I know that people on Barbelith keep urging reconciliation, but I can't get past how much so many Americans hate us. Maybe I've listened to too much Rush Limbaugh.
 
 
Jack Fear
18:47 / 09.11.04
two can play at that game: I've heard some progressive commentators essentially proposing the same thing: saying, in effect, "We should've dumped you jerkoffs in 1862, when we had the chance":

What if Lincoln had just let the South go? What if we now had a country on our southern border made up of the states that formed the Confederacy?

....If the South were its own country, then all those people who so desire it could have a Christian theocracy. They could have a country where the Bible is read in schools; where Creationism is taught in science class and evolution is not; where homosexuality would be against the law; where the Internet and Hollywood movies and rap music could be banned by law. ....

And then, maybe in the 2004 U. of U.S. election, these moral values would have prevailed: tolerance and respect for others; peace and justice; care for our needy citizens; scientific research to advance humankind...


Blah di blah di blah di blah. Amusing, yeah, but kinda depressing too.

And does our Red state friend really not realize that the Blue states--heavily-industrialized, populous, and wealthy--have basically been carrying his sorry Red-state ass for the last thirty years, by paying the bulk of federal taxes into the national treasury?

Truth is, Red aAmerica needs Blue America far more than vice-versa. Which is, of course, the seed of resentment.
 
 
eddie thirteen
19:09 / 09.11.04
It hardly seems fair to the children of the red states, though...who even now, on a regular basis, have a tendency to get the fuck out at their nearest possible convenience. (This is working from the presumption that emigration from one America to the other would be as difficult as is emigration from our current America to another nation -- not that I've been checking or anything, of course.) And it REALLY seems unfair to residents of blue counties located within red states (yo). On the other hand, if I were -- let's say -- given a healthy cash incentive to leave behind my ancestral home for a condominium in...I dunno...southern California, then yes, Cletus can have Cleveland. He can call it Jesusville. I'm okay with this scenario. Just don't expect me to go all Snake Plissken when Air Force One goes down somewhere over Alabama while en route from NYC to the new seat of national power in Venice Beach.
 
 
eddie thirteen
19:17 / 09.11.04
PS -- what exactly is so bad about being rendered immune to all forms of filth? Sounds like a plan to me. If the above-quoted gentleman is correct, it would seem to me that the liberals he has such a huge problem with are actually heartier and less prone to illness than the jus' folks he's celebrating here. Ultimately (by his reasoning) we would survive, cockroach-style, as his brethren dies off -- is it my imagination, or is this man a conservative who openly subscribes to the theory of evolution?
 
 
FinderWolf
20:11 / 09.11.04
Different sub-topic, and no less startling:

----

DRUGGISTS REFUSE TO GIVE OUT "THE PILL" ON MORAL GROUNDS

Tue Nov 9, 6:54 AM ET Politics - USATODAY.com

By Charisse Jones, USA TODAY

For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription because she did not believe in birth control.

"I was shocked," says Lacey, 33, who was not able to get her prescription until the next day and missed taking one of her pills. "Their job is not to regulate what people take or do. It's just to fill the prescription that was ordered by my physician."

Some pharmacists, however, disagree and refuse on moral grounds to fill prescriptions for contraceptives. And states from Rhode Island to Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions.

Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year.

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the prescription to another druggist to fill.

In Madison, Wis., a pharmacist faces possible disciplinary action by the state pharmacy board for refusing to transfer a woman's prescription for birth-control pills to another druggist or to give the slip back to her. He would not refill it because of his religious views.

Some advocates for women's reproductive rights are worried that such actions by pharmacists and legislatures are gaining momentum.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a provision in September that would block federal funds from local, state and federal authorities if they make health care workers perform, pay for or make referrals for abortions.

"We have always understood that the battles about abortion were just the tip of a larger ideological iceberg, and that it's really birth control that they're after also," says Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood (news - web sites) Federation of America.

"The explosion in the number of legislative initiatives and the number of individuals who are just saying, 'We're not going to fill that prescription for you because we don't believe in it' is astonishing," she said.

----------------
 
 
diz
20:11 / 09.11.04
And does our Red state friend really not realize that the Blue states--heavily-industrialized, populous, and wealthy--have basically been carrying his sorry Red-state ass for the last thirty years, by paying the bulk of federal taxes into the national treasury?

probably not. the Red States voted for the party that prides itself on opposition to government handouts, despite being on the receiving end of the majority of said handouts. if we were to secede/be expelled, the Red States would essentially be competing with the (rest of the) Third World for the right to provide us cheap food and manufactured products, and we see how well that works for the factory workers and farmers. but, hey, if living with us crazy liberals is that repugnant - see ya!
 
 
lekvar
20:52 / 09.11.04
I've been seeing this "Blue States pay for the Red States" thing going around for a couple days now, can anybody provide links to the data? I know a few people who need their noses rubbed in this, but I want to be able to back up my assertion...
 
 
Jack Fear
00:03 / 10.11.04
Try here.

And then, for full-on righteous anger, see this: in addition to being scabrously profane, it's pretty well-researched and documented.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply