I think that perhaps this newsletter and or site should stick to things computer and not delve into the muddied waters of politics. I’d really rather not pollute my mind thinking of crooked politicians, desperate to stay in office, and what they are willing to sell to stay where they are instead of getting a real job. Say, like one in IT.

As someone who grew up in an ‘evangelical’ church, these things are very distressing to me.

I am left leaning, believe in the COMPLETE divide between church and state, and yet think that CRIMINAL control is what we need, not gun control. You might think I own guns. There is not a single gun in my house, outside of my son’s Daisy bb gun. I just have no place to shoot, and don’t wish to take long trips to do so. I do believe that if I wanted to stock 5 of every known gun in my I house, I should be able to, as I am of sane mind, and have no criminal record.

The David Koresh incident was the single large failure of the Clinton administration, not Monica Lewinsky. Until the first wrong shot was fired, Koresh should have been able to keep all the guns he could possibly store. I don’t think he was all he was cracked up to be, but he certainly wasn’t on a killing spree the likes of which we hear about weekly in our big cities.

I also think that with respect to abortion, women should be able to choose. God gave man free will, and that means some wrong choices were anticipated. If we are given choice by the omnipotent being [that the right, conservative types, say they believe in] how can we do any less?

I also think that the ‘mouthy’ Christians have been consistently shown to be people who spend so much time putting people down, how can they expect anyone to listen to the message of God. When was the last time these people shared any good news?

These same ‘Christians’ are also for the death penalty. How INANE is that? Is is wrong to ‘kill’ before birth, but ok afterward. These people seem to use ‘eye for an eye’ really well, but seem to pick and choose what they will accept as the word of God. If they truly read the Bible they would have come across ‘Vengeance is Mine and right after that, I will repay. To anyone who reads the complete verses, the context pretty explicitly says it is not our job to take vengeance on people, which is, after all, what the death penalty is all about.

I am not sure why we are being told that being liberal is a bad thing. I know that as far as expenditures, George Bush seems to be very liberal. Perhaps that is what the people are talking about. I wish we were more conservative with the government spending, like that done on wars.

I do know, from the study of history, when a people get so disillusioned by what is happening in their government, strange things happen…like Germany circa 1938.

I do know that I believe that the [dare I say it] real Christians should stand up and quietly but very forcefully show that those blowhards on television who claim to be speaking for them, as Republican, Chrisitan, and conservative, aren’t.

Sorry for the rant, I’ll try to be more brief next time.

I had considered making an involved reply, but then I thought, “This is a story about an article by a reporter on a study based on filtered facts by a liberal organization.” Hearsay at best and hardly an unbiased or reliable source in any case.

I’m a skeptic, not liberal or conservative. I prefer to see more data, know how it was collected and draw my own conclusions.

I used to consider myself strictly “left”, but now I think of myself as a common-sense and pragmatic person. I guess that’s a move to the right, but really, more to the center. I believe many people think in those terms.

Here’s an example: Abortion – I used to think that those who wanted controls on abortion were primarily white evangelical men who simply wanted to dictate what a woman does with her own body. In that sense, it was more of a gender and dominance issue than a human rights issue (human rights as in the rights of the unborn).

But times and technology have changed. We’ve seen dramatic in utero photos of fetuses that are distinctly human in form at a very early stage in the term. No one can deny this now; it must be confronted.

My position on abortion has hence evolved. My thoughts are that unless there is an absolute (not vague or undefined) threat to the mother’s health, abortions should be limited to a very early point in a pregnancy. No “partial birth” abortions unless a woman’s health is in imminent danger. Partial birth very late term abortion for any other reason is simply murder. No one can deny that with a straight face.

There are far too many ways to prevent pregnancies now, and abortion should never be considered birth control.

Where I differ from the right on this is I think it’s ridiculous to try and prohibit the so-called “day after” pills to prevent a pregnancy. I’m not trying to force religion or religous values on anyone. It’s patently ridiculous to try and prohibit any kind of pre-pregnancy birth control.

To me, my views make sense –common and human sense– given what we now know about fetal development. I don’t see that as liberal or conservative. My thoughts are that many Americans are not ideologues as such. They just want common sense.

Hi Jackie,

I hope you’re doing well.

As I mentioned in a reply to one of your earlier posts I think labels like “conservative” and “liberal,” “Republican” and “Democrat” tend to be counterproductive in their inception. Granted that without the labels (i.e., words) we’re using here to point to their respective referents (i.e., the concepts to which the words apply) there’d be no communication between us, and I will agree that labels like “Jackie” and “Steve” are as useful (and benign) as “here” and “there” in their value to distinguish, but when labels take on derisive connotations their more innocent meanings are lost behind a wall of divisiveness; i.e., these are “fightin’ words” to many people who won’t consider the philosophical forest for the trees once they’re uttered–all they’ll see is “red”…or “blue”.

If humans were telepathic–with the ability to share raw consciousness directly (or like in the movie “Brainstorm”)–we wouldn’t have the problems associated with written and spoken language comprised of more or less highly charged, evocative words.

The Minutemen of early American history were considered “patriots” and “freedom fighters” to those who thought of themselves as Americans rather than British subjects, although their “asymmetric” fighting tactics would have made them as much “terrorists” to their British occupiers as the “insurgents” are considered to be to the American troops occupying Iraq today–who are by all rights as much “terrorists” to the locals as the “insurgents” are to them.

It all depends on whose ox is getting gored.

Fascist and imbecilic though George W. Bush may be, the failures and decadence of his administration aren’t uniquely right-wing or Republican: they’re systemic. We’ve entered an era of corporatocracy where the stated politics of both parties pale in comparison to the forces of industry, commerce and banking. (See John Perkins’ book “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” for a concise explanation of how.) While individual citizens waste time, energy, and their collective power as a unified force calling each other names, recently evolved, arcane forces are controlling their destinies in ways they don’t yet fathom.

Arguing over who’s Republican and who’s Democrat is like arguing over which wrestler should win the WWF Championship: it don’t matter to the sponsor as long as the receipts keep rolling in at the gate. Likewise, no matter how many people (on either “side”) are killed in Iraq, or how long the war rages on, the decimation of the Iraqi infrastructure is money in the bank to Bush administration cronies at Blackwater, USA–and Bechtel and Halliburton, who have lucrative contracts to rebuild it; and due to the highly effective nature of lobbying this situation is unlikely to change simply because the administration soon will, even in the event of an even more significant shift in the political composition of the next administration than the one that found sacrificial lamb Donald Rumsfeld falling on his sword after the last election.

Then there’s the divisiveness perpetuated by those who cleave to religious labels like “Christian,” “Jew,” or “Muslim.” As I mentioned in that other post, the core values of all such religions are essentially the same: peace, brotherhood, and spiritual awareness. Those who’ve accepted the Pat Robertson/Fox News, pre-digested version of the Islamic faith because they’re “just too tired after a hard day’s work” to learn about it for themselves are doing us ALL a disservice. Given a large enough population of devotees there will inevitably be radical factions in any group, whether they be Christian fundamentalists, Zionist Jews, or Islamic jihadists; but the truth of the matter is that Islamic jihadists are no more representative of the Muslim religion than skinheads, neo-Nazis or members of White Aryan Resistance are representative of Christianity or radical Zionists are of Judaism.

The current administration has been brazen (and largely successful) in its efforts to control the media and quash the civil liberties of people here and abroad while ensuring financial windfalls for its corporate partners and a greater scope of authority for itself; but future administrations (of either stripe) are as unlikely to reverse these trends as Congress would be to repeal personal income tax or reinstate usury laws restricting the amount of interest lending agencies can charge. In my opinion it’s gonna take a helluva a grass roots effort to move this country back toward the kind of democracy and freedom we once enjoyed…not so very long ago.

wow.

First, the Bush administration does not control the media. See for yourself:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485

MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

Second, when you talk about being in favor of stem cell research, you must define what TYPE of stem cell research.

ADULT stem cells research, which has almost 100 cures and treatments, and doesn’t require the killing of the unborn.

or,

EMBRYONIC stem cell research, which has produced NO cures or treatments, and requires the destroying of a human life.

BIG difference.

As for Row Vs. Wade, and the “Pro Choice” folks, they neglect to realize that the life taken is NOT given their choice. you are chosing the mother’s choice for convenience over the child’s choice to live. HARDLY pro-choice.

Oh, and the Gorelick Wall was the single large failure of the Clinton administration.

I saw the title and was all ready to flame you in to next week. I’m glad that initial reaction was wrong. If I could voteon a post you’d get all 5 stars.