Things I don't get

Here's one thing I don't get: A lot of people seem to think the Republicans are being taken over by crazy right-wing extremists, but also think the Democrats are a bunch of liars who make promises about how they're going to change things but then support the status quo. So, uh... why is no one seeing "vote for a third-party candidate" as the obvious answer? I mean, here we have a fair bit of evidence the two-party system just is not working for us, and yet... somehow it doesn't occur to people to try to change that.

Here's another thing I don't get: Why is it so hard for people to accept the word "moderate" means "actually holds positions in between the 'left' and 'right' positions", and that people who demonstrably don't do that aren't really moderates? No one seems to have a problem calling people on labeling themselves "liberal" and yet expressing non-liberal positions, or people labeling themselves "conservative" and yet expressing non-conservative positions. But if you call yourself a "moderate" yet express non-moderate positions, people will apparenty use this as "evidence" that "moderate" means something other than, well, moderate.

Here's another thing I don't get: The context of the following quote is that the Texas Board of Education—that bastion of eliminating accuracy in the name of upholding their narrow views, but I guess that's another topic—has decided that there is a bias in textbooks promoting Islam and condemning Christianity.

In interviews, Mr. Rives has likened his concerns about Islam to those he and other Americans once had about communists infiltrating American society. [source]

Why would anyone think this was a good position to publically take? The Americans who once had "concerns about communist infiltration" included people who did things such as use blacklists to keep people from being hired based purely on accusation, rather than evidence, and those people are fairly widely regarded as having been extremists and witch-hunters who damaged American society and played fast and loose with the rule of law. Why would anyone want to associate themselves with that?

That word you keep using...

"Israel will never apologize for defending its citizens," a high-ranking Israeli government official told CNN Monday, after Turkey reportedly demanded an apology or an inquiry into an Israeli raid on an aid ship that killed nine Turkish citizens.

"Of course we regret the loss of life, but it was not the Israeli side that initiated the violence," the official said.

Yes, it was. Armed men rapelling onto boats from military helicopters is an act of aggression. Threatening people with those armed men is an act of aggression. The people who engaged in self-defense were those who attempted to repel the pirates.

Yes, I said pirates. That's what we call armed forces that board boats in international waters with the intention of securing control of said boats (outside of war). Israel was not in a state of war with Turkey. (Though they sure seem to want to be.)

And there would have been no need for the Israeli military to "defend" themselves if they hadn't deliberately gone onto those boats with armed men with the intent to commit violence in international waters.

(I realize there is a great deal of legal debate on whether or not this was acceptable legally. I note, however, that there is a great deal of legal debate, rather than it being cut and dried. Just once, I'd like to see the Israeli government admit they've made a mistake with their responses of overwhelming force. But I'm not holding my breath.)

Here's something I'm sick of...

I'm sick of people categorizing moderates as wishy-washy and unable to make up their minds, especially if they're willing to compromise on certain points.

First off, political opinions do not just come in "left" and "right". There's a whole wide spectrum. For instance, when it comes to abortion: you can be avidly for legalized abortion or avidly against it, but it's just as possible to be in favor of legalized abortion generally but also in favor of trying to minimize it through some means, or you can be against abortion generally but in favor of leaving it legal under certain circumstances. That's at least four major positions, but two of them are more moderate than the others. It's a complex issue; it can have complex positions.

Also, taking a compromise position takes both empathy for people one doesn't entirely agree with and the ability to discard preconceived notions in favor of examining the various positions to try to find where opinions are either more similar than one might have originally thought, or find where complex opinions have points that people are not as fervent about. It quite often accomplishes nothing to just keep on insisting Your Way prevails over Their Way; decisions are hard to make when no one can agree. Coming up with a suggestion that's "close enough to Our Way to be satisfactory" will be more effective in many cases. Just because it can take longer doesn't make it "wishy-washy"; it just makes it careful.

And frankly, the world could use more people willing to be careful.

And another thing...

So, the teabaggers, or tea partiers, or whatever they're calling themselves this week... basically a lot of them are objecting to our national debt going up because of "Obamacare", right?

Where the heck were all these people during the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II years?

Okay, let me get this straight

The right-wing positions are as follows:

"Socialized medicine" is bad. The government should make sure Medicare stays viable.

Government-run anything is not as good as privatized anything. The government is handing the Moon to Russia and China by leaving space exploration to private companies.

More government spending is always bad. The two wars we're fighting need more funding and staffing.

I mean... seriously. Why haven't any of them had their heads explode yet?

WTF?

So, President Obama wants to broadcast a speech to schools encouraging kids to study and finish school.

And judging from the response, apparently, "study and finish school" is a code phrase for "kill their parents, get pregnant, abort the fetuses, and eat them, while singing praises to Satan and dancing the Troika".

I'm glad there are so many helpful right-wingers out there to help me with this translation. After all, here I was, thinking "That's a great message, particularly coming from an important, well-placed black guy". Little did I know about the horrible, unsafe, Un-American message that lurked beneath those simple words.

I know, I know. What was I thinking? It's terrible that Obama thinks that encouraging kids to get their education will do anything for this country. Why, people might learn to think! They might learn how to research facts, analyze them, and make up their own minds about issues and situations...

Or is that the problem?

Gun-toting delusional people

I don't really like to discuss politics much. It tends to start fights I just don't have the energy for. But there are just some things that I can't ignore.

See, here's the thing. I don't mind if you don't really like Obama, if you disagree with his policies, if you think he's the wrong guy to be the President. I probably won't agree with you much if you think that—I don't think he's by any means the perfect President but so far I don't really dislike him, either—but if you're just expressing your opinion in terms of, well, your opinion, that's fine.

But if you start doing things like talking about some conspiracy to elect a foreign-born President or faking his birth certificate or insisting he took his oath of office on the Quran or how he's going to march your grandmother and your disabled cousin to death camps, I'm going to think you're a loon or a liar.

And even if somehow you convince me you're not, that you're just misled, I'm going to know you hang out in the company of loons and liars. Dangerous loons and liars, seeing as how the same people who believe that sorta thing (or who pretend they do) are showing up to the so-called 'town hall' meetings about health care with guns, and thinking that's okay.

It ain't okay.

I admit I don't like guns, but even if I did, I'd know there's a time and a place for them, and an allegedly civilized discussion meeting (and they haven't really been, but that's not the point here) is neither of those. The only threat at those meetings is the one the people with the guns represent, a threat that they themselves made. A bunch of loons and liars with guns is not a discussion group; it's a mob. Next it'll be pitchforks and torches.

I'm not even going to get into how I don't understand how anyone could be against the idea of everyone having access to health care, or how people just don't seem to get the idea that providing basic health care to the population is likely to result in costs going down what with the number of ED visits for conditions left untreated until dangerous it'll cut down on, or all the other reasons why I can't see how anyone could be opposed to the notion. Because that doesn't really matter. What matters if that you do oppose it for whatever reason, you aren't going to convince people by spreading lies and misinformation and waving guns around. That's what crazy people do, and no one wants to be on the side of the loons.