Friday, September 19, 2008

oh, don't go there

i don't usually get political. mostly because i'm not sure how i feel about some issues, but every year i get pulled in a little more and start to understand a little more. when mccain tapped palin for veep, i got pulled in a lot more.

i have always like john mccain; i wanted him to be the guy back in 2000, but nobody listened to me. anyway, i will admit that part of my approval of palin is for her gender. women get the job done and it's time we started smacking some of those washington dipshits around.

i applaud her frankness and humility. i LOVE that she embraces her hockey mom-ness. that's totally what i would be if i had kids who wanted to play hockey. (there may be hope for bug, yet, although she may go straight for football.) i like that she's a no-nonsense, hands-on mom trying to get things accomplished on an even bigger scale. it couldn't hurt to apply a little domestic discipline and multi-tasking to the selfish, whiny brats involved in the national government.

and can you just picture her sitting down to middle eastern peace talks? "you two are not leaving this table until you hammer this out. i don't care who started it; nobody gets dinner until there's a workable treaty!" that'd be spectacular.

some people are slamming her for her conservative social views: the abstinence-only education (i disagree) and the anti-abortion stance in particular. when i read this article, a comparison started to crystalize in my mind.

i readilt admit to being a political novice, so forgive me for some sweeping generalizations but this is one facet of how i see it:
republicans want to legislate things like body rights (abortion, sex ed) and democrats want to legislate things like social conscience (welfare, national healthcare, etc.)

on the surface, both of these ideas should have great support. i mean, deep down who really wants to kill unborn babies? and who doesn't want to help their fellow man? and yet, each side decries the other for telling people how to live their lives.

what's funny to me, and not in a ha-ha way, is that the repubs are telling people (women) to respect themselves (e.g. not get pregnant until you're ready to keep and care for the child) while the dems are telling us to give our money to people who have not respected themselves (e.g. people who have conceived and birthed children they can't afford to feed, house, or medicate when necessary). i know there are always extenuating circumstances, but for the most part, you gotta agree with the adage 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.' (more crudely put: 'saying no will save the taxpayers thousands of dollars.')

as i said, both ideas are reasonable, but the loudest argument i hear is from the liberals saying that we have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. well, ok, but you have no right to tell me to help my fellow man. nonetheless, you want to raise my taxes in order to do just that. i want to help humanity, but i feel it is my right to decide where my money goes and how much of it. you want to help humanity how? by condoning or even advocating irresponsible personal behavior and permitting 'oopsy-daisy' abortions? (again, i concede the possibility of extenuating circumstances.)

as a sidebar: liberals argue to keep church out of state, but from where does the idea of charity come in the first place? what argument is there for taking care of our fellow man other than "God told us to?" if we're going with a darwinistic approach, letting my fellow man starve or sicken to death is cleaning the gene pool and will allow me greater access to the resources i need to survive.

anyway, when i shared my conclusions with kisu on the way to work this morning, he clapped with (not quite evil) glee and patted me on the back, saying, "your conversion is complete. i have done my appointed job."

so i reached over, opened the passenger door, and said, "good, now get the hell out."