OK, this is the lady of the house speaking here.
Just thought I'd introduce myself a little, seeing as I finally figured out how do it! It would be much easier if I felt comfortable just doing a bulleted list of my viewpoints like my counterpart Joel, but that just ain't my style. My blessing and my curse is to always consider my beliefs up for revision should new information present itself. (Guess I'd make one hell of a flip-flopping politician!) And let's face it - I'm not an expert on health care, immigration, taxation with or without representation, JFK, Ronald Reagan, the liberal media or the Christian Right.
I guess the beauty (?) of this system is that I don't have to be an expert to be in charge, at least of my personal contributions to this blog and the nation as a whole.
The short version is: I'm Rachel, mama of 2 little people and husband to one big bald high school sweetheart since 2001. I live in Arizona, and I'm a stay-at-home mom (except when I'm a breastfeeding counselor or professional musician). I'm what you might call a tree-huggin' hippie, of the libertarian left persuasion. I am interested in politics, although I can't figure out why because I find the whole process intensely frustrating. (People with new and different ideas? Unelectable. People with boatloads of money and thus beholden to all the same interests as those currently in charge, and all the people before them? Perfect!)
Nevertheless, here I am, the Reluctant Democrat. Should be interesting!
The Feminine Mystique
Posted by The Wizzle on 1/21/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
Yea, Rachel! We're up to four actively participating members! If only I wasn't alone...
And my views are subject to change, it would just have to be in light of good, real evidence that shows I'm wrong.
Hi, Rachael - I miss you - glad you're on here - in regards to your post, Me and you can just be tree hugging hippies together - Unfortunately, the environment is way low on all canidates proirity list (lower emissions by 15% in the next 70 years - big whoop. I stopped driving a car, eating meat and wearing leather and synthetic materials, and buying packaged foods because I was sick of continued ignorance towards envronmental issues. I basically feel the same about politics- - that is that politics are intensely frusterating as there is no way to enact real change or empower new ideas. It would actually be easier if it was an oligarchy - at least then it wouldn't be a sham. Anyways, Rachael - you rule and are one of my early examples of how liberalism doesn't mean apostate - so thanks for that.
All right, sweet, now it's Pinko Libtards 3, Conservative Nutjobs 1, let's beat up Joel!
Heh heh, kidding... Joel, I'll have you another conservative by the end of the week... believe it or not, I'm sorting through a couple interested people. Who woulda thought?
Nice intros, all, this has been good times so far. Hooray!
Rick, when I was at Oberlin there was a co-op of "freegans", who ate all their food from dumpsters as a method of protest against consumerism. It was... something else.
I know Mike - my husband said "Well, shoot, if they're looking for any more contributors..." and I said "sorry honey, I think we've pretty well got the leftist perspective covered!"
He's very different than I am but even still...plus, we've got enough DUDES!
Oh, and Rick - that's my main comfort is that even if I feel like my vote is wasted a lot of the time, I personally can do a lot to manifest my beliefs in my own life. It's much more satisfying, anyway, and no one can argue with it! Win-win, really.
ah, Mike, I kind of like Joel, I don't want to beat him up. Freegans - man, to have the ability and wherewithal and stomach to do that. I agree, though, Rachael, making individual choices is VERY liberating and satisfying, cause you know that, at least you aren't part of the problem.
Ok, so are you saying that you don't get the political system mainly because new ideas are not welcomed wholeheartedly with screams and cheers or you don't get the political system because the majority of people really don't care who is in office as long as it doesn't affect their day-to-day life and therefore don't turn out to vote or do any research so the candidates who happen to have the resources to place their name in great visibility get more recognition in polling stations?
Is this problem really with the candidates themselves or the American people as a population?
Well, I wouldn't say it's a problem with the "candidates" necessarily - more a problem with the system by which a person gets elected (aka it costs a trillion dollars, and that money could be put to much better use in my opinion - not to mention it essentially precludes anyone without said trillion dollars from participating, or from anyone paying them any attention if they do participate).
I'm also frustrated by the media coverage of the whole thing. I really do believe there is such a thing as too much information! Or rather, too much analysis. When I watch a Presidential debate, for example, I'd kind of just like to watch it and form my own opinions, but it's hard when before and after every commercial break there are polls showing who's ahead, commentators putting their spin on everything said (as if it wasn't already spun within an inch of its life already!) etc.
And yes, I do think the system is set up to exclude everyone but the most centrist candidates. Which I suppose is good in that this country is made up of people of all stripes, so perhaps a centrist has the best shot at pleasing some the people some the time, as they say. I do wish people in general were more inclined to listen to viewpoints other than their own - even if they're hard to hear - because I think we could all learn something.
I am grateful for the third party/"nutcase" candidates who give it the old college try because I always get to hear something I hadn't thought of before (abolish the IRS?) and it gives me yet more to think about...
...like I wasn't indecisive enough already!
Yeah, well, I agree that the system for electing is financially ridiculous. I don't think it ought to cost so much. It is a waste of money.
I think the IRS is ridiculous too. A bunch of conspiracy theories say that the bankers were actually behind 9/11. Not to dwell on that, but honestly, the bankers in this country that own the IRS---no the IRS is not a government agency---really do hold a lot of power. Too much. Its out of control. The only way to get the control back in the actual government or even better the hands of the people is to get out of national debt. The debt is our country's crippling factor.
Hey, remember when national debt was a hot issue for presidential candidates? Has it even been given any air time so far?
I guess when something is hopeless, Amy, It is hopeless- hence no air time for national debt. Interesting thoughts on the IRS. Rachel, I've been talking to some friends about the issue of money, and It's interesting. The best idea that's been come up with was on NPR the other day - That is, have a very slight tax on us, and any party runner who can show he or she is a viable candidate is allotted government provided funds and is Legally not allowed to spend their own. Also, the airwaves - the airwaves are owned by the govenment (little known fact - think "this is a test....") The "stations" rent airwaves from the government, therefore, the government could provide free airtime to said candidates on an equal basis - the allotted money would be SIGNIFICANTLY less than is currently spent, thus curatiling the problem.
Rick - In favor of curtailing free speech, I see. Don't care much for that idea.
And who decides who is a "viable" candidate? I recall Huckabee not having ANY support at one point. Romney had NO support. Guliani (I vote for him never being president because NOBODY can spell his name correctly without looking it up, and I'm not putting forth the effort!) was annointed with the nomination at one point. What happened? People, citizens, voters, reformers, commoners put their financial support behind the guy that they believed in! Now the field is all "screwy" (read: interesting race) because people were/are allowed to financially back a candidate.
No, I think that the idea of the all-powerful "government" deciding who we get the opportunity to vote for is a very, very, VERY bad one. McCain may see things your way though... :)
Next point: Watching the bad guys squabble tonight on CNN. Heard some whining (coughBarackcough) about how we could better spend the money we are using to occupy Iraq to rebuild infrastructure here and give everybody in the world healthcare and save the whales... Why, then, if he is so noble, is he spending umpteen millions of dollars on his blasted campaign? Couldn't that money be put to better use? I'm thinking there'd be A LOT of free media attention if he started putting "his" money where his mouth is.
And Hilary is REALLY getting old with the constant, every sentence attacks on Barack. "I sometimes can't tell who I'm running against." Greatest quote of the night. Hope you caught it!
Dude, the whole healthcare for the entire nation thing is SO tired and worn out. Why do the politicians start going off on how wonderful it is that Europeans have national health coverage, and ignore the face that their health coverage is so minimal that everyone has to pay for private health insurance IN ADDITION to the government health coverage?? Anyone with money has private insurance because there is a night and day difference between socialized health care delivery and private insurance health care delivery.
If you really look at countries with universal health coverage you see that it is moving towards more and more people having their own health insurance (ie. not utilizing the socialized medication because it is crap).
I don't know if socialized medicine is the answer (see? this is one of those things that I just plain don't know what I would do to solve, I just know SOMETHING should be done) but surely you can agree that our system is not perfect? The US does some things really well in health care and other things not so well. There has to be a middle ground in between "the US is the best in the world at everything, they hate us for our freedom and our awesome health care, la la la" and "we should be more like the Europeans, they do everything better than we do, they're so *cultured*!" where we can all learn from each other's strengths.
And, um, shouldn't *all* the candidates put their money where their mouth is? They're ALL spending truckloads on their campaigns, and we surely could use the money going to the Iraq war (which you're against, right Joel?) for other things (even, say, the war in Afghanistan, the one where we were supposed to catch the person who actually did attack us on 9/11, remember that guy?!)
Although my views are sometimes democratic, I too do not wish to be affiliated with any party. Because sometimes I am conservative and liberal combined. I like to call myself a bicycle hippie. Look forward to reading a kindred spirit's views
Rachel - I don't think that ANY of the candidates should use "their" money any differently then they currently are. I was just poking fun at Obama because he is the only one standing on stage in front of the country whining about how we are spending money.
And ABSOLUTELY we should be getting the heck out of Iraq and move into Afganistan &/or Pakistan (if necessary) and fighting the ACTUAL terrorits on their turf, breaking up their training camps, killing them before they kill us, breaking up the recruitment process, and the whole nine yards! I've been saying that since BEFORE we went into Iraq! We have zero disagreement there. We are literally wasting billions in Iraq in a hopeless effort to accomplish Bush-knows-what.
P.S. I'm not talking as a citizen with nothing invested in Iraq. Two of my brothers are Marines. One spent six months there last year, the other is headed there for nine months starting September. I'm not belittling their efforts by ANY means. They are doing what most of us won't or choose not to. I just think the "leadership" is using them completely wrong.
Completely different issue: Watching the debate last night, Edwards was the only one (in my eyes) that spoke like someone ready to lead this country. He makes a lot of good points about him putting forth plans to do this and that (most of which I think suck, but that's not the point here) which are then copied and modified by the other two (assuming that is true, which I don't care to check). He was also the only one not acting like a four year old. Why don't more Dems get behind this guy? Why the push to get behind one of the two babies?
Ah, I didn't see the debate last night. I have a really hard time reconciling Edwards' past as essentially an ambulance chaser lawyer with his current image. I like what he says now, but I don't like him much.
I didn't see the debate (am I fired? What kind of political blogger misses a debate? We were testing out our new HD-DVD player...let's see, what can The Bourne Identity tell us about our current state as a nation...?)
Thank goodness for DVR. Yes, I saw the debate. Edwards was the clear winner in my eyes. I have some lingering issues with his ambulance-chaser past, too, but I read his book "Four Trials" and the guy seemed sincere enough.
Clinton and Obama bickered like children last night; it did nothing for my support of either of them. I was especially disappointed in Obama. Part of his whole appeal is that he's supposed to be above partisanship, focused on reconciliation and the common good. That means you can't take Hillary's baiting, buddy. Bring back Bill Richardson... or Howard Dean. Governors fare better than senators, anyway. If the Democrats lose this presidential race after eight years of Bush... well, if anyone can do it, it's them. This is the party that failed to field a candidate against Jon Kyl in 2000 when he was selected as one of the Top 5 Vulnerable Senators, or something like that. Failed to field a candidate. (head slap)
You might be able to watch a replay on CNN.com, Rachel; it was entertaining, to say nothing else!
Hello all. It's great to see a bunch o' Mormons having a political discourse that doesn't consist exclusively of the placing of Willard (yes, that's his first name) Romney on a diamond-encrusted pedestal.
I am Rachel's husband, and while we do share quite a few political views, we arrive at them very differently. I am generally a cynical, untrusting person, but I am not a political cynic. Rachel is generally a trusting person, but is very cynical about politics. I believe the American governmental system is nearly flawless. Mind you, the government itself isn't flawless - far from it - but the Constitutional system we have is truly amazing. The proof is in the pudding; it is the most tenured consecutively running democracy (well, it's actually a republic) in the history of the planet. The Constitution provides ways to fix the problems that the people who swear to uphold it create.
I am a big supporter of Barack Obama. I have supported him for over a year now, starting way before it was "cool". I have donated to his campaign, and have volunteered to canvass for him. I truly feel he could be the transformative leader this country desperately needs. I find it extremely impressive that he has been able to be financially competitive with Hillary Clinton, despite not taking any bribes (if you call them "donations" you're kidding yourself) from corporations or lobbyists. In this regard, Clinton is just another politician, though I do generally like her and her stances on most issues.
You see, the bribes are the problem. I believe that most (perhaps all) of the problems this country currently faces can be attributed directly or indirectly to the big money in politics. It will take someone in extreme power (like a president) to take a stand on this issue, and once and for all give the power back to the people by enacting true campaign finance and legislative ethics reform.
It's all about the favors that are inevitably requisite when one take someone's else's money. I want my candidate to owe a favor to nobody but the people, as it should be.
ok, so I know no one cares, but I have to correct myself from last night. I said IRS but meant Federal Reserve. Whoops. That is what I get for trying to focus on 4 things at once.
S'okay, Amy - - Dave, I really like that - - I wish I could say I was Supporting Obama from the beginning - but alas...not so. I am now, however, and I truly hope he pulls it out. For me, it all boils down to Character. And he has it. I really like what you said about bribes - that is exactly what it is and everyone knows it why would someone want to vote someone to office who is already endebted to someone besides the people. I have a hard time understanding that. I just hope whomever takes office is able to be a voice for change - for reform and for "spring cleaning" because that is what we need. So much has been left to the side since our onslaught into Iraq. Environment, education, campaign reforms, etc. have all become dusty and they need to be brought out and fixed. Also, Dave, i wish I could say I agreed with your stance on the US Government - I do admire it - I'm just quite cynical and untrusting of...most things - really - but I'm a nice guy! Anyways, good to see you on here -
PS - someone better write a new post (Kevin or Amy preferably)- or I will - and we all know how that potentially could turn out!
If you want yet another left leaner, I'd be happy to post. ;)
BTW - I'm shocked there are four Mormon lefties period, let alone participating on one blog.
quick comment, I really appreciate daves comments on government, i share them. Reminds me of good institution, broken politicians. I just wish we could find more people like FDR, Washington, and Reagan. I believe I saw a glimpse in Bush. That despite constant attacks and huge pressure he was steadfast in what he understood to be correct. (side note: we leave iraq now and all the money spent will be in vain. we have a great opportunity to wonderful things for those people.) I have disagreed with Bush on many occations (border issue) but admire his constitution.
Jaronious - amazingly, I agree with you on that, very grudgingly. I do admire someone who can stick to his guns and look at the big picture even when public opinion is very much against them and hope seems lost. I do admire that.
I just think Bush is kind of stupid, and he's not been able to run any organization he's ever been involved with successfully so my money is not on this whole Iraq situation turning out in his favor with the hindsight of history.
I'd love to be wrong about that, since as you say we have spent/wasted all this money already, but I really think this was a dreadful mistake, and if it miraculously turns out not to be the beginning of the end of the world (slight exaggeration) then I will be pleasantly surprised.
You can just call him Jaron, Rach. I have been thinking the same thing -at least the guy had strong constitution. I've been feeling kind of bad for him lately - he looks very haggard and tired. Anyways, so much for G.W. Iraq - - Man, someone really should have opened a new thread for Iraq - I'm a historian (so far - we'll see if I finish through doctorite degree) and my focus is on the ancient near east- so, I approach it looking at the long term history of the area and, I hate to be the one to say it, but the problem isn't going to be fixed - now, or probably ever. It's been going on a LONG time. It'll take a lot more than money to fix the problems there. Those people have to be the ones to fix it - not an infidel outsider coming in and trying to act the savior - they just own't ever ever accept it. so how's that for optimism. I 'm kind of in a bad mood cause Heath Ledger died. sorry.
I think we need to take into account Bush Derangement Syndrome. (Not my coinage.) Even now that he's almost out of office, some of the candidates can't stop running against him. Keep in mind, I don't agree with him on many issues, but he has been very unfairly hammered. Every picture I ever see of him, is always the ones where he's got his mouth open in mid sentence looking stupid, (which makes for great comedy including his laugh and everything, I have seen some really hilarious impressions, it's probably one of my favorite things,) but there has to be pictures of him just smiling. Anyhow, my intention was a two liner. Just saying that when he appears stupid that is exactly what the media was shooting for. (Sorry, I didn't want to sound all pro-Bush, just anti-media bias. Remember our thoughts and conceptions are shaped by everything we see and hear, hence the importance of regular spiritual reinforcement.)
P.s. thanks for calling me by my proper man-name. (Rick's just jealous cause he doesn't have one.)
Oh, I absolutely agree. I'm ever so weary of people being reduced to sound bites and comic strips - yes, it's funny, and George Bush does look like a monkey, but since we've gone and elected him we might as well not shoot him in the foot so he can do his job the best he's able while he's in office, dontcha think?
By the way, this wouldn't be Jaron Speakman, would it? Only Jaron I know, and it makes sense you might find your way over here! I just used Jaronious because I didn't know your name and I couldn't get your little icon to tell me anything...
If you are, hi! :) If you're not, kindly ignore me.
Yes it is me. Hi. Jaronius is just for fun. Sometimes I use that name when I sign in to football sites or something. Dumb I know but, dumb is usually fun. It is suppose to be tough sounding, like roman era -ish, ya.
Makes me think of Thelonious Monk. Probably not what you were going for, but I dig it anyway. ;)
Wow! I have a friend who actually thinks about politics... Im not alone in the world! Feel free to bounce your unicorn and leprechaun based leftist views off of me anytime Rachel, or should i say Weasel?
Post a Comment