Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason. ~ Author Unknown
For the record, I’m a fiscal conservative and a social program liberal. I voted for Bush in ‘00, but only because I despised Clinton for his China Treaty, his shell game don’t ask/don’t tell, his education policy, and his lack of ethics.
Over the years I’ve grown to dislike most national politicians and wonder what happened to the blueprint drawn by Jefferson and the others that restricted federal government to an oversight role.
I don’t think there is a clearly distinctive party that favors gender rights. Currently the Republicans are odious bores for using same-sex marriage as a wedge issue, and the Democrats are just as bad for not calling the Republicans on it.
I look forward to ’08 so we won’t have to listen to George butchering our language, but hold out no hope that whichever ninny presidential candidate the corporations dump millions behind will change the course we’re on.
I’ve written a number of TG stories with political themes. Several people have told me that they believe I lose readers quickly because of the political message I’m sending.
Are political stories such as “Amy’s Sanctity” welcome here? I know how Erin feels, but what about the rest of you?
Do you think political discussions in BCTS blogs and in BCTS stories places this website in any jeopardy?
Do you think there are other places more suitable for political discussion involving gender/TG issues?
Are you personally involved in politics in RL? Do you try to make a difference in gender/TG politics in RL?
Is anyone willing to offer opinions on the validity of national gender/TG organizations in regards to which ones deserve financial support?
In RL I have several thousand acquaintances I call by first name when I see them. Of those several thousand there might be twenty-five I would dare have a serious discussion with about politics and only a handful I could talk to about gender/TG politics.
Are you experiencing the same unwillingness to talk about politics within your circle of influence?
Comments
Talking about politics ...
... with anyone, even someone you love, is like opening a dialogue with an unexploded bomb. You never know when it's all going to blow up in your face.
Still, I may be hundreds or even thousands of miles away from all of you, so if the conversation "goes off," i should be outside the blast radius. *fingers crossed* Here goes!
In many things, I guess i am a social liberal. I am a firm believer in the power of government to get things done, despite its many failures, because the alternative to big government is big business, and I never met a corporation with a conscience. Corporations are like giant, very powerful two-year-olds. They want what they want, damn it, and they will do whatever it takes to get it. Period. They're all id and some ego, but the superego has left the building and taken ethics and morality out for ice cream.
I fear large groups of individuals banding together, because many of them do so under a banner of intolerance, hatred, and mistrust. Even groups of a liberal bent with what seem to be worthwhile agendas turn into unruly mobs and destroy entire city streets, like locusts in Bierkenstocks, as if this will somehow advance their causes by a single inch.
Political themes in TG stories will always run the risk of turning people off, just as political talk has the potential to turn heated or even violent. It's not going to ever change. People cherish the illusion of control that having political opinions gives them, because they feel they actually have a handle on what's going on. No one does, really. Not even the people making the decisions KNOW how the world works. They just close their eyes and guess, and hope they're right. Or embrace the illusion of knowing and decide they ARE right. I'm honestly not sure which is worse.
Ignorance is scary, and the illusion of knowledge is comforting. And really, we aren't that far removed from our distant ancestors, wondering where the hell the light goes every night and desperately hoping it will come back before everyone freezes or the Sabretooths figure out there's fresh meat down in these holes, waiting for the dawn to break.
I'm desperately hoping for an intelligent President in 2008 -- someone who can run the country and chew gum at the same time. Someone smart enough to realize that Osama and Saddam are really two different people, and Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks except for the cheering crowds in the streets celebrating the massacre (and honestly, people -- wasn't that an indication we weren't going to be welcomed with open arms when we waltzed in looking for WMDs that weren't there?). Clinton was book smart, but decided instead to abuse his position with an intern and lie about it, heedless of the danger from a Republican right who HATED him.
Sorry, I digress. *grins*
I welcome political stories here, if only for the depth the political dimension adds to the plots and underscore the need for a organized response to intolerance.
I think political discussions here won't place BC in any more jeopardy than it already is, since it's already in danger just for being a place where gender issues are examined under the guise of fiction, and nothing is truly off the table.
I talk about politics with the people i know when i can, although they are seldom interested in debating their stances on gender issues -- usually because they are emotionally based and therefore not defensible within a logical framework.
i know i've only answered a small number of your questions, Angela, and i apologize. But I did go on a bit, and I think I need to duck and cover before the earlier part of this posting explodes. *smiles*
Randalynn
I loved your description of c
I loved your description of corporations. Haliburton, Bechtel, and Exxon must not be potty-trained. They're leaving messes all over the world that are offending the citizens of those countries and fouling the living conditions.
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Ground rules
No name calling. That means no name calling of anyone here, or anyone on the political scene. Name calling is not political discussion, it's just venting.
No rebuttals. Make your own points, don't attack those of another poster.
I'll delete replies that violate these rules or ones I add, in my judgement. No hard feelings intended, thems just the breaks. I may delete a reply that violates a rule I haven't thought of yet. This is a friendly arena, not a political dogfight.
- Joyce
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
My name is Geoff and I once voted Conservative ...
... until Thatcher overthrew Ted Heath and now nothing could persuade me to vote Tory again. I always felt that anyone who could run a yacht and win Sydney-Hobart must have something going for him :o)
It does worry me that politics and politicians are now almost universally held in such contempt. Perhaps they deserve it, but how else are we to run affairs?
My politics are so far left I'd probably get arrested in the US so I'm not going to say much except that it's always puzzled me why everyone got so upset when Clinton lied about the one thing just about everyone here has probably lied about (or at least been economical with the truth about) at some time or another - their sex life. The only people who should have cared a toss about the Lewinsky affair were the people directly involved - Clinton, his wife, Miss Lewinsky and their immediate families/friends. In my view the most despicable character in the whole affair is Linda Tripp, who posed as Lewinsky's friend whilst betraying her.
If you're going to limit high office to those with lily white sex histories, you're going to exclude an awful lot of able people. Why, even steady, boring old John Major was having it away with Edwina Currie and at the same time espousing his puritan 'back to basics' policies. Now I would condemn that. Not because of the sex, but because of the hypocrisy. Just shows you can't trust a Tory ;o)
I'm surprised that Randalyn didn't mention Union Carbide who behaved in Bopal in a way they'd never have dared in the US. There are still 1000's suffering from the devasting explosion which is claimed to be the worst industrial disaster in history. Now there was a corporation behaving like 2 year old with overwhelming power. Seems to have got away with it though *shakes head*
Sorry for introducing a few UK angled comments, but I'm sure you're all sufficiently world-aware to get my drift.
Geoff
It didn't bother me ...
... that Clinton cheated. It bothered me that someone as potentially intelligent as he was made such a tactical error in such a dangerous political landscape. Showed his judgment was shakier than I'd like. *smile, hugs* And I agree with you about LInda Tripp. There's a level in Hell reserved just for her -- and people who talkin the theatre. *grins*
Randalynn
Having said that...
The political firestorm was massively over the top and way out of proportion for the issue. It was clearly a witch hunt and the Republicans should be embarassed by it, especially given that their closets are not free of skeletons either.
Well, I've swung right, then left in my views
But I'm probably more of a centrist. I try not to get too caught up in a single "cause" of the moment because you can get lost in it and lose perspective. Naturally, I distrust any politician that is too oriented to a particular issue, but I generally distrust most of them.
Democracy is the best of the imperfect options, but it is clearly imperfect. It's subject to the tyranny of the majority and that is a concern because it becomes vulnerable to abuse. We're a bit fortunate, here in North America, that there is so much blending because it helps to prevent any single group from gaining too much power. Not so in much of the rest of the world.
The problem that I see in U.S. politics is very visible in the last election: inflexibility seen as a positive character trait. Bush has been protrayed by the spin as resolute, Kerry as wishy-washy, a flip-flopper. You see, if you change your opinion over time, you're somehow ineffectual as a decision maker. I watched this unfold with almost the same horrid fascination that people have seeing a car accident. The American public was persuaded that changing your mind on the basis of new information was something to avoid. Yeah, Bush makes a decision and sticks to his guns, but he does it even after he finds out that he's aiming at the wrong thing. There is nothing admirable about that and yet, the American public was persuaded that there is. Mind blowing, really.
Anyways, I can understand voting for Bush the first time around, even I might have done that. I cannot fathom why anyone would have voted for him again. People are waking up, the opinion polls clearly show it, but it's too late. Fortunately he is now lame duck, so maybe his ability to do too much damage has been minimized.
Just for the record
I'm a Republican. I don't think there are many Republicans left in the party these days; it looks a lot like the old Dixiecrats to me. Republican slogans in support of failed Democrat policies do not impress me. The last Republican I voted for as other than the lesser of two weevils was Gerald Ford. I frequently vote third party to express my displeasure at the two main parties but if the race looks tight, I grit my teeth and make a choice.
The evil side of the Republicans used to be Big Business while the evil side of the Democrats was Big Government. Now it seems that the GOP has embraced all that is evil about bigness and the Democrats are left with being The Party of Not Making Hard Choices. I suppose that's better than being The Party of Making Wrong Choices but it's a fine line.
- Joyce
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Politics
There's nothing wrong with writing a political story, but when you write anything political, you take your chances. That's why so few "political" novels are written. The author already knows that at least half of his readership will be turned off - unless you are writing to a select group, of course.
If you must then, as a general rule, do it subtly, and, most of all, be fair and honest, or you will pay for it from annoyed readers. Readers also recognize when an author strays from pure fiction into lecturing.
Aardvark
"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."
Mahatma Gandhi
Lecture mode on...
...which is why I can't read Ayn Rand. :)
- Joyce
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Ayn Rand
I can't read Ayn Rand because she uses a lot of words when a few would be adequate to express an idea, a concept, or an expression of her opinion. Her circumlocution is magnified by her desire to explore every possible angle of every possible facet of every possible side of every possible argument. Maybe if she were to use less verbiage or become more succinct. Oh I don't know, how do you say. . .maybe if she were less of a "gas bag." (Oops, name-calling.)
Besides
A-y-ngela <- now doesn't that look pretentious!
Although, I did read Fountainhead about this time least year, just to see if it had changed since I was much younger. It hadn't and I had.
Ayngela <- kind of grows on you.
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Ayn Rand Lover
I haven't read anything by Ayn Rand in a heck of a long time, but why she made such an impact with her work, I think, is that it rang true.
She is windy and some of her characters' asides run to several pages, but the power in her philosophy does cut through a lot of crap. She was an intellectual with a pair (although she didn't really have a ... well). I think the founding fathers would have loved her. She was an anti-communist in the purest sense.
A few quotes:
"The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles."
An indictment of appeasers.
"The Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence."
Which is sooooo true.
"Rationality is the recognition of the fact that nothing can alter the truth and nothing can take precedence over that act of perceiving it."
Another great one that politicians love to ignore.
"Guilt is a rope that wears thin."
An indictment of anti-western nonsense and class envy.
She also felt that the government had no business telling gays what they could and couldn't do, and despised racism.
She was a friggin' genius.
Aardvark
"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."
Mahatma Gandhi
Politics aside
As literature, Ayn Rand fails for me. Her stories have no real conflicts since her villains are all strawmen set up to behave in exactly the way that proves her points. They have no human motivations. Give me a villain I can believe in, even a psychopath like Hannibal Lecter who is doing evil out of a sense of inverted values. Ayn Rand's villains never believe in their own causes, in my experience; limited because I've never been able to get through more than 100 pages of one of her books.
She wrote good sound bites; unfortunately sound bites are not good literature nor good political philosophy in and of themselves. Many of her most famous quotes semantically devolve into the assertion, "Whoever disagrees with me is evil." She's not alone in this, most political philosophers do the same thing. Many of her arguments rest on undefined and undefinable subjective values that she labels objective truths. Even the name of her movement, "Objectivism," begs the question--an essential hypocrisy that sets my teeth on edge.
On the other hand, I agree with many, if not most, of her policy choices and I respect her intellect. Her love of personal liberty shines like a beacon in a forest of more mealy-mouthed political theorists of the various darker hues of socialism. A very complicated person was Ayn Rand.
- Joyce
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Lefties
I'm in the minority here.
I recognize that the vast majority here leans to the left, and some way left. I believe in equal laws and an even playing field. I think that multiculturalism is a sick, anti-intellectual joke, and that free speech and a set of acknowledged civil rights for all is the basis for freedom.
Too much socialism weakens a society until it is concerned only with what the government can do for them, and will inevitably break down a government until our elected officials must become panderers to be elected - something that the US is close to, and what some other countries have already become.
Judicial activism is an end run around the law and the will of the people, and can only weaken society, producing corruption, a lack of respect for the law, and ultimately, anarchy. Pretending that the concept doesn't exist or that it is "normal" is not helpful.
I also like a decent story where men become women. :)
Aardvark
"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."
Mahatma Gandhi
Where Have All the Flowers Gone
"Discipline children." Sister Rita would say that - loudly; quite often until they finally banned her from the classroom for holding our hands in a candle flame in the third grade. She wanted to graphically warn us about hell.
Please go back to my original questions and re-read. I didn't ask for a political discussion. I asked for a discussion of whether or not political discussions and stories were properly placed on this website.
"Focus!"
But as long as we've delved into Ayn Rand and have deemed her a genius, let's look at what she said in "Fountainhead."
"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy."
Hmmmmmmmmm.
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Back to the original questions
OK, I'll bite! A political agenda as part of a story? There's a quote from an author somewhere, but I can't locate it (blonde attack!). It referenced a writer from the (I believe) late 1800's who's work slid into political diatribes. Something about selling himself for a potfull of message. Anyway, my point is that there are few enduring pieces of fiction that sacrafice the story for a political agenda.
My point is, if the story is good, and the politcal aspect is truly a part of the story, then there shouldn't be a problem. Some may read it, others may not. Is there any author on here who's work is liked by everybody? Case in point: you reference "Amy's Sanctity" in your original message, not having read it I looked it up. I skimmed through the first part and decided it wasn't for me. That's my choice. But I don't think Erin should be rejecting stories based on the perceived political agenda.
In spite of my situation, I'm rather a conservative, in the old meaning of the word. In other words, (to paraphrase another author) They govern best who govern least. Too much of government today is (in my opinion) the government sticking it's nose in my personal business. I guess these days that makes me more of a Libertarian.
Political agenda discussions in blogs? It's your blog, why not? In stories? That's up to you. We all have the choice to read or not to read. I don't feel that a story should be removed because I don't agree with the content. While I can conceive of the possibility of a story so offensive that we would all rise up and demand it's removal, I can't think of an example.
Just as you apparently don't care for the current president, I feel he was the best choice in the end in both elections. (Both parties had candidates in the primarys I could support, but they were not chosen.) Your free choice, your free opinion, the same with me. If I demand that stories such as “Amy’s Sanctity†be removed for content offensive to me, then what happens if I write a story about a gun-toting T-girl. What protects you also protects me.
I don't know much about the national gender/TG organizations, or the gay/lesbian groups. I do feel that many of the G/L groups are too much in your face, probably driving many away who would normally be inclined to support them. This is based on conversations with friends and acquaintances. When you get in somebody's face and push, they will likely push back. Then, when that person goes to vote, instead of a "what they do is their business" attitude, you get a "don't try to shove that crap down my throat" reaction. If somebody can list the various groups and websites, I'd like to see what they have to say.
Example: the same sex marriage issue. I think, had the national media (which has a pronounced leftist agenda) had not made such a big deal about it, the backlash from rightwing reactionary groups wouldn't have occured. Softly, slowly, is the way to work. The Arabic proverb about the camel's nose in the tent sums up the stratagy we should be using. It may be too slow for some, but I believe it works better in the long run.
Lest I start rambling, I'll stop here. I hope I've addressed your questions, Angela/Jill. (Which do I call you, anyway? It's confusing!)
Love to all,
Karen J.
“When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn’t become a king. The palace becomes a circus.” - Turkish Proverb
I'm a registered Republican, but...
I vote the way I feel and know is right.
I educate myself on who is running and why. If they have a political record I review it and compare it to what they are claiming as their political stance today. NOT MANY voters do this and I don't care what country you call home. It is so easy to blame the politicians you see all the time in the news, yet few will know anything about the "REAL" world situations that bring about these events.
Fact, before 9/11 there were no major US or UK military bases in the Middle East. Terrorism was grown unfettered and hundreds and thousands of innocents had been killed and were being killed by these groups worldwide. These groups of gutless killers. No one, not any free country could do anything to stop them. Covert Operations can only do so much. Clinton? Oh, he fired a few million dollar apiece missiles at an empty terrorist compound. Very effective wouldn't you say? I also know that he could have done more that we will never know about! The secret operations none of us will ever learn about in our lifetimes. That is why I reserve my comments about Clinton.
Now look at the Middle East and you can call Bush any names you like but realize this! We now have several major military bases in place and fully functional. The terrorist activities have fallen in number by leaps and bounds world wide! Yes, they still have bombings and suicide attacks, but where? Afghanistan, Iraq, that is to be expected giving the history of Iraq and what they have done to others. Have you forgotten what they did to that other little country that shares their border, Kuwait? Oh and what did they do to the Iranians? Oh, and what did they do to the Kurds? The list goes on and on. Afghanistan? We know who was based there don't we? We know what that country was doing to their own people don't we? We know that it was known worldwide as the terrorist capital of the world, don't we?
Now what is Iraq? Are the people there better off? You bet your bippy they are! Afghanistan you say? How many of you know what is really going on in Afghanistan today? Be honest now!
The big news is Iraq and that is what everyone sees on TV and that is how most of the worlds population uses as their schoolbook on world affairs. A very stupid thing to do, don't you think?
Now we have several major military bases in place and not just the USA is manning those bases. These bases have no real restraints as do those in Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Egypt and so on. These bases operate on an instant basis, not gather information and discuss it through several hundred channels until any plans are leaked to the press and then shelved. Or, you have the countries the bases are in saying they cannot sanction that plan because their people would not stand for it.
Face it ladies and gentlemen, we now have the military might we free countries need in most of the places we need them. Our soldiers are there! Our soldiers can now operate with more freedom of action than at any other time in history in the Middle East!
What you don't know matters a heck of a lot, but many just assume they know everything because they watch CNN everyday or night. LOLROTF!!!!
How many military bases do we have (your country included here)? Don't know? Of course you don't know! You know just what the powers that be want you to know. News-leaks? Sure, there are a few "REAL" news-leaks, but the majority are planned news-leaks. They leak information and many more times than not, false information that the world populace swallows hook line and sinker because they saw it on CNN or the BBC! LOL...
Just as in the newspapers, when the TV News makes a mistake, these mistakes are buried somewhere. As for the newspapers, they print a retraction buried inside the paper and in a section of the paper rarely read by the majority of readers. For the TV News, they never voice a retraction! They choose to just ignore it and move on. Do the people watching ever hear of their mistakenly reported news? Rarely if ever! People do not pay attention long enough to realize how much wrongly reported news is reported as factual! They react to that instantly, and then never see on TV that the reported news was wrong. The myth of that wrong news is perpetuated by those still believing it was true.
How about all of the hype and hoopla in New Orleans that had been reported, live and supposedly live? Turns out that the real juicy stuff that so many fell for was mostly false information. That the majority of those people interviewed for instant on air collaboration were paid and many were not even where the incidents occurred when they occurred.
It is what we don't know that those in power do know that should scare you all! The knowledge they have that makes them physically age as we see them as their term of office continues. Look at the pictures of the Presidents and the Prime Ministers before they took that office and then look at them when they leave. That should tell you something!
You can insult the presidents of the USA and the heads of any country you wish, but I will tell you this, you don't know what you are talking about! Because, you don't know what they know and you never will!
Realize this as well, the USA is the only super power left in this world right now. What other country and head of state would you wish this same power to be held by? Realistically speaking, there isn't any other country that could handle the burden! The British Empire? Canada? How about Australia? None come even come close to the population, military might, production, research and development in the majority of sectors, money, what we do share is the will of the people when they have their heads on straight!
When 9/11 happened and we saw what the new terrorism really was, is,
and had the potential to become; what did we do? We all wanted to strike back and strike harder than anyone had ever seen before! The people did not look to long range planning! Are we not the quick fix world society? We want things and we want them now. Long range planning is for others to do not us! Bush even stressed back then that this would be a very long process and everyone agreed! Back then, but they all have forgotten that part now.
Well, the long range planning was done and still is being done and very successfully I might add!
Should we have invaded Iraq? Yes we should have! Should we have invaded Afghanistan? Yes, we should have! Were the reasons voiced real or imagined? Does it matter? To some the voiced reasons matter, but what about the "REAL" reasons? We had to do something and we had to do it yesterday! We did it and now we are winning the war on terrorism! Where are these terrorists now? In comfortable well funded bases in a lot Muslim countries? VERY FEW! Not as many as they were comfortably entrenched in before! Where are their funds now? They surely are not where they once were and not in the amounts they had gotten used to!
LONG RANGE PLANNING AND GOALS on the world stage are not any regular citizens strength. No they are their weakness! They have no clue and don't even want to have any clues! That is why we have a president and elected officials!
As for local in country issues, in the US they are mostly dealt within the individual states and not on a federal level. That is a Republican mandate! The Democratic mandate is for federal control of the majority of issues. Tax and tax some more is the Democratic version of socialism. Reduce the military to skeleton strength. The world stage is not the Democratic way. The history of the Democratic party proves that they are a socialist party. They don't have any long range planning really. They are the party of the quick fix, just what the people want! Sure and we know how well quick fixes work don't we?
Well, you asked for my opinion and you got it!
How about gay rights, the rights of the TG peoples and others? First you have to gain footholds in the individual states, then you can think about doing something on the federal level. The federal government is made up of elected officials from the individual states. They make the laws, pass them and see that they are enforced nationally. Congress, Senate, and Judicial branches. (The President sits at the head table and does more than anyone sees or recognizes, that is on the national and world stage.)
It only makes sense then, that the initial work must be done in the individual states, but on a national level. Once you gain a foothold in the individual states you will have the power to influence on the federal level. Not until then will you see any real change nationally!
A few liberal states is not enough! You have to move into the hardest of the states to influence! The South, the North East, Central US, and then you can look for real progress.
RELIGION?
Have any of you really read the Koran? Holy Crap Batman! It is a Bible for war! No other religion or belief will be tolerated in any way! It even has a blueprint for war against the infidels. Leave the buildings standing, leave the women and children alive, leave the elderly and infirm alive. BUT, kill all the healthy men that can make children. Yes, any male non-believer that is of fertile age and healthy should be killed. Where is Strom Thurman when you need him? LOL...
Now, are the Muslim countries rewriting the Koran? I don't think so! Are the terrorists following the words of the Koran? I don't think so! The Koran is a smoke screen! By what I see and have studied, no one practices the Koran as it is written! And I do mean no one!
Like our Christian Bibles, so many different versions these days. Modern language, inclusive language, Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, to name just a few. It is all based on mankind's interpretation of the words in a book, several different versions of that book as well! No wonder we have religious wars! Who is doing the interpreting and leading the masses? Holy Crap Batman!
So, call the world leaders any names you wish to call them. Insult them all you want, that is your right. Just try and walk a mile in their shoes. I bet you can't! I bet the majority of people would fold and crumble under the pressures!
Believe it or not, there are few who can run and lead a powerful country and fewer still who can go on as they learn the reality of that office of ultimate power. Could you? I think not.
Sincerely
Richard Sinep
This was not proofed so please excuse any typos and spelling errors.
Interpretation is no more than your life's experiences interpreted on others works.
So your position is basically ...
... trust the government, keep quiet, and let them make all the calls? Let them lie to the American people if it convinces us to send troops to the Middle East for what they consider the greater good -- because, after all, they know best?
And let's not worry our pretty little heads about the world stage -- it's way beyond us, anyway? Just let the Great White Fathers do what they want -- they all know better. After all, who needs checks and balances in the long run? Look at how well all the unfettered monarchies did in the middle ages!
Ladies and gentlemen, the concept of democracy is SO 1700's! Let's all give a BIG hand to the government of the FUTURE! Introducing ... benevolent(?) dictatorship!
(Be sure to applaud energetically, now -- there are guys in black suits in the back of the room taking down the names of everyone just going through the motions.)
*grins*
Randalynn
No rebuttal
This is what I meant by rebuttal. Not enough of your position and a little too much of anti-someone else's. I'll let it stand for the moment but if R.S. objects, I'll remove it. Sorry, Randy.
- Joyce
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Sorry, Erin ...
... i didn't think it was a rebuttal, so much as restating what Richard said. That's what I felt it distilled down to, and I wasn't sure if Richard realized what he was advocating. The sarcasm was probably uncalled for -- but fun, nonetheless. *grins*
Please take it off if you feel you have to. I agree this is a dangerous thread, and I don't necessarily want to add to the combustible nature of the debate. *smile*
Randalynn
Deleted by request and my promise.
Deleted by request of Richard Sinep and to fulfill a promise I had made to him.
Angel
"Be Your-Self, So Easy to Say, So Hard to Live!"
How much room is plenty...
I unpublished a reply-rebuttal by Richard addressed to Randalynn. Political arguments are over the line in BC.
Why? Because they go on the front page here with all other comments. That's not the place for them and I don't intend setting up a place just for them, either, because the software doesn't easily bend that way.
My decisions.
- Joyce
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
I'm a Republican ....
LoriMichelleOkc
Anyone that believes anything that Fox says and the Bush Administration needs to reevaluate their priorites. What about London and Madrid, innocent people died.
Bush Neo Cons have an agenda and that is making money regardless who it hurts. You say that people only die in Iraq and Afghanistan, but over 2500 are american soldiers most not old enough to understand why they are there and being indoctrinated about the need for sacrifice and doing their duty.
Besides those killed, thousands of able bodied young people now face amputations, use of the loss of their legs, and psychiatric problems and these are the lucky ones.
How can you defend a President who allows this to happen and encourages more sacrifice. Puts people in charge who are totally unqualified, ie Chernoff and Brown. Gas prices are out of bounds and our borders are a joke. Bush is to blame for all this.
LoriMichelleOkc
Again, this is more of a rebuttal
I didn't want people addressing what others said in re political viewpoints. I edited my own response in the side thread on Ayn Rand for that reason. I think I'm going to remove this whole thread from the main page, let it continue in the blogging if people wish too but this is too hot for a mostly literary site.
Sorry, Lori, Angela, everyone.
I make my decisions based on what I think is good for the site, not my personal views. BC doesn't have a hyper/cyberboard separated entirely from the lists of stories. This is my choice but it necessitates me being more watchful of potential pots boiling over.
- Joyce
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Ok I'll bite Angela...Question by question.
Are political stories such as “Amy’s Sanctity†welcome here? I know how Erin feels, but what about the rest of you?
I think if they are of good taste and aren't the ramblings of a fanatic be the left, right or in between then I say yes. I add this warning though! Many of us can remember "Midnight Downloads" a very well written series and a popular one as well. What happened to it? What happened to the author? She received a ton of emails and comments like the post "I'm a Republican." She pulled the story and we have not seen a word from her since.
You see what happens ANGELA? responses are made to other commenter's which snowball to way out of proportion comments and responses. They will actually leave the original subject far behind as they justify their own feelings on what ever political issues are presented and then add some!
Do you think political discussions in BCTS blogs and in BCTS stories places this website in any jeopardy?
No, not the site itself, but it would be a distraction from the original purpose of the site itself. If they must be written and discussed do it as you have in a blog. But I think it would be best to not include the responses to the blog in the "Latest Comments" section on this site. Keep it off the main view other than the blog itself. As you see, the blogs have a way of jamming up the "Latest Comments" Maybe a separate section for blog entries? Just an idea.
Do you think there are other places more suitable for political discussion involving gender/TG issues?
There are many other places for such discussions, including political ones.
Are you personally involved in politics in RL? Do you try to make a difference in gender/TG politics in RL?
I'll skip this question.
Is anyone willing to offer opinions on the validity of national gender/TG organizations in regards to which ones deserve financial support?
Sure, but not here!
In RL I have several thousand acquaintances I call by first name when I see them. Of those several thousand there might be twenty-five I would dare have a serious discussion with about politics and only a handful I could talk to about gender/TG politics.
Are you experiencing the same unwillingness to talk about politics within your circle of influence?
Once the topic comes up, no matter who is around, the conversation quickly dissolves from a discussion to a contest of who knows the real facts. Then again, having the facts and not being able to prove them on the spot tends to have people calling each other names and such. People will believe what they choose to believe no matter the true reality. They will purposefully misinterpret statements and facts to make their beliefs seem to be the true belief.
One thing that does ring true with people who are more reactionary than realistic in their beliefs. They will blame one thing or one person for all the ills and wrongs they believe are true.
Politically I am more of a town/city, county, state, person. I have much more I can do realistically in these areas than national and federal ones. I make educated choices for national/federal offices and vote for those I feel would be right for the job.
Remember, even though a candidate we have chosen does not make it past the primaries, we still have choices to make. I would not ever make the choice of "Anyone is better than" so and so. To me blaming one person for many ills is a cop out. It's the same for voting for someone you know nothing about simply because you dislike their opponent. Know who you are voting for as best you can. An educated voter is a caring voter. By educated I mean knowing who is running and why they are running for office.
If you find a few rotten apples on a tree, do you pluck the rotten apples off, or do you chop down the whole tree?
Be yourself, so easy to say, so hard to live.
"Be Your-Self, So Easy to Say, So Hard to Live!"
WOW! So much cogent thought!
Well,
I don't come to this place as useful source of political analysis at any level but it sure is thoughtful. Naturally, I won't try to add any weight to these "considerations.
I was mostly feeling dissapointed that I didn't have that cute blue dress to wear and give Bill his blow job. I was wondering if, well I could never do that to George, Bill was so big and handsome and clever and George just smirks.
My other dissapointment is that I was wondering if being whipped by Hillary in my maids uniform would be as fun as Bill surely found it? You know that he paid a price of course.:) Poor Chelsea, lord knows what that child saw! Or, why couldn't I have been John Kennedy's TG love interest.. a very good reason to snuff me? Are we sure that Marylin Monroe wasn't a man? She always looked a bit husky to me.
Ok, I do have political ideas too, so don't laugh. Just because I dress up like a girl doesn't mean that I am stupid. So there! you be nice or you don't get invited to my birthday party!
"Politics" is fine, nothing gets done without that process. I consider it fundamental to the human condition and it's survival, such as it is in some parts of the world.
"Politicians" usually give "Politics" a bad name by confusing their craven personal needs for reelection and personal gain with the process of reaching a consensual agreement among interested parties for the betterment of the whole. When did that last happen?
Politicians hold sway because the general public in the USA is too lazy to even be an "interested" party except at the extreme fringes of debate. Look at our voting percetage. You may rant all that you wish but we have the government we deserve and I doubt we are capable of doing better. Historically, it really is not that bad in my opinion, but I would like to hear from someone who is a student of history there. We also blessed by not being French.
As for business vs. government? The only answer is our first amendment ...the freedom to say as you believe. The worst disasters are when government trys to run an economy. The Soviet Union died of that both economically and environmentally. Japan was no better and China is a disaster waiting to happen if it hasn't already.
In my opinion our strength and grace is our ability/willingness to change and to freely exchange our thoughts. It is not a smooth process and it grinds slowly, but it does grind. I look forward to being embraced and servicing a President who enjoys an older lady such as myself. I imagine that he or she will be a libertarien?
Hugs and such,
Gwen
Gwen Lavyril
Gwen Lavyril