I've had people ask me how I can give such spot on advice and yet be mired in depression with no end in sight, constantly making my own situation worse.
I'd like to answer with an illustration (metaphorical, sorry).
In every relationship I've ever been in, I've attempted to deliberately sabotage myself and my happiness long before the natural end of the relationship would've occurred. Sometimes, I go through with it, sometimes I'm talked out of it. Sometimes my intended sabotage doesn't even conclude- it just is not answered at all. But it never fails that I go out of my way to make myself less happy. Why?
Simple- man's will can be stronger than his logic. The strongest logic in the world can fall to paranoia.
When I convince myself that I'm going to be unhappy, or that she's going to be unhappy, or that things simply won't work out in the end, I drive down a scary dirt-road upon which I have less and less control over the car and the tires are more and more susceptible to getting stuck in the mud. It doesn't matter what logic dictates to me, no matter how strong my logic is. Solving your problem is easy because I don't have a personal, emotional investment into it. Even when I'm involved, if I can examine the problem from a distance, it's easy to have a logical solution.
Right now, I have a solution to all of my problems, but my will is twisted and has overpowered my logic, preying on my fears and insecurities, my heart held captive by its malice.
And so, I grow more convinced each day that I'm in the way. That I'm a detriment- a problem- a hindrance. I'm holding someone back. With that conviction, I merely have to address the obvious conclusion arising from the certainty that I am the source of grief-- I must remove myself so that others may flourish. It's a twisted logic justifiable by my equally crooked will, but I am powerless to fight it, which leads to the inevitable attempt to self-sabotage.
It doesn't matter if it's the best relationship I've ever been in. One that is managing to keep me sane and prevent me from tipping over the edge. If I've convinced myself that I'm a detriment, then regardless of the outcome to me, I try to be "selfless," removing myself from the picture.
It is during the worst of these times that I do not eat and I do not move. It is during these times that I sleep for 12+ hours, accomplishing absolutely nothing productive. And it is during these times that my mood fluctuates as wild as possible.
Were it that this was a rare occurrence, I think I could deal with it, but it's a weekly basis. Adding onto my previous convictions that I'm causing pain, I also am aware of the fact that my constant attempts to sabotage relationships are causing strain in tandem. This services to reinforce my assurances, driving the pain deeper.
It's this cycle that convinces me to walk four miles to try to end my relationship.
Of course, I don't want to. The strength of my logic may not overpower my will, but it can sometimes put up a fight. Some days are far better than others. I can appreciate what I have and what is amazing about life. Some days there's no doubt in my mind. These aren't the average days though. My mood bats back and forth, an endless tennis match, just waiting for my logic to completely give out or for her patience to finally break under the pressure.
Even now, my logic tells me the third option is for me to get better.
But my will tells me I won't.
So that- that is why I can give you advice. Because it's not that my logic has faltered in any way. It's simply that my broken will has overpowered my logic for my own situation.
I'm a self-saboteur.
-
Wade
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Monday, November 12, 2012
Conservative friends
So, here's a thing I feel super guilty about, but will not stop doing.
Un-friending conservative friends.
Now don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean Republicans. There are some merits to Republican economic positions that I find valuable.
However, and this is where I really have to depart--
The modern Republican party has endorsed candidates for over a decade now that represent virtually none of the Republican party's actual core policies except social policies- the policies that I find offensive, regressive, and problematic in general.
Instead of fiscal conservativism, small government, states rights, individual freedoms, etc- we've had candidates who want to:
1. Spend money out the ass (two wars, Mr. Bush? 5 trillion in tax cuts and 2 trillion for the military that they don't need to fund a section of the military that is outdated, Mr. Romney?).
2. Increase the size and scope of the government, particularly in its ability to control and maintain power.
3. Advocate for federal laws banning things they don't like instead of ceding power to the states.
4. Decrease individual freedoms in order to increase "national safety."
What we're left with are social policies meant to disenfranchise minorities of all kinds and even some majorities (women?!). That's not even remotely acceptable!
And let me make this perfectly clear: Even IF the fanciful economic policies Romney had endorsed were able to fix the economy (and if you don't believe me when I say that the math is crap, look up any of the non-partisan studies about it), it would not be worth my gay friends losing the potential right to marry, my women friends losing the rights to their body, and every middle class (and lower) friend losing the ease at which they can use our society's safety nets and medical assistance programs.
A fixed economy solely for straight, upper-class white males (and to a lesser extent, middle class equivalents) is not an economy I'd like to participate in. And I can't fathom why you would want to unless money is just that important to you.
And seriously- I get that you don't like our welfare programs. I don't like a lot of them either. Liberals don't disagree about their efficacy. We disagree about their necessity. We need safety nets in our society- they need fixed, yes absolutely, but they need to exist, and if the only options are a broken welfare system versus a non-existent one, I'd take the broken one each time.
Because even if it doesn't encourage people to get back on their feet, at least it doesn't let them fucking die.
I get that some of you believe marriage is between a man and a woman. That's fine for you. You don't have to marry anyone you don't want to. However, your moral belief that marriage is a man and a woman only is equivalent to my moral belief that marriage is between two people who are of sound mind and financial stability required to raise children in an appropriate environment.
I'd love for it to be reality, but the problem is that all Americans have rights. Not just you. So as much as it's against your morals for gays to get married, it's against my morals for you to not accept gays. You see the problem here?
And I get that some of you don't believe that your tax dollars shouldn't go to things you don't like. However, the US doesn't spend money based on individuals' preferences. Otherwise, we wouldn't go to war, because I hate war. And we wouldn't jail people for marijuana. And we wouldn't have the death penalty. Thing is, we don't get to make these decisions on our own. We just get to vote on them.
Really- the line of reasoning I constantly hear is this poorly thought-out rationale that effectively says, "I want laws to be such that _______! Except when that helps someone I disagree with!"
I've never met a conservative who had an argument that logically followed properly and was also something I could morally support. It's only one or the other if either, but usually neither.
Conservativism can make a spectacularly sound financial plan that destroys lives but rakes in a profit. That's why our billionaires are doing so well- they have a model that works- I just don't support the consequences. And your argument for being staunchly pro-life is admirable, but not logical (see my post on Friday about abortion)[usually]. Or, your desire to stop gay marriage in order to help children is nice because you're thinking of the children (on the surface), but the problem is that it doesn't hold any goddamn weight in facts or statistics.
So yeah, I feel really bad, because a lot of these people in my life have been fun or interesting people. And I know I can never change the world or any idealistic thing like that- but the reason I do this is to send the message that it's unacceptable in my eyes to be so against logic or your fellow humans that you would vote for a man like Mitt Romney or George W. Or Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, RIck Perry, or Newt Gingrich.
I will not, however, confront you unless you bring the topic up. I will not sell my beliefs without being asked. If you are truly interested, you will seek out the perspectives of others (as you, the reader, may be doing right now).
So indeed, perhaps I am merely being immature by distancing myself from once good friends without telling them why, but I would consider it equally offensive for me to assume that they care what my political beliefs are relational to my philosophy about friendships.
I recognize that I have much to learn. I am an infant in knowledge, but I am also tired of the same arguments day in and day out- arguments that mask racism or a desperate clinging to your parents' ideologies. Tired arguments that, ultimately, tell me that you value the penny more than the person holding the penny.
Someday, I will be able to show more understanding towards my conservative brethren. That day is not today, and I shall eventually feel the negative impact of such an isolationist policy. I hope the world will be able to forgive me when I seek forgiveness.
-
Waddles
Un-friending conservative friends.
Now don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean Republicans. There are some merits to Republican economic positions that I find valuable.
However, and this is where I really have to depart--
The modern Republican party has endorsed candidates for over a decade now that represent virtually none of the Republican party's actual core policies except social policies- the policies that I find offensive, regressive, and problematic in general.
Instead of fiscal conservativism, small government, states rights, individual freedoms, etc- we've had candidates who want to:
1. Spend money out the ass (two wars, Mr. Bush? 5 trillion in tax cuts and 2 trillion for the military that they don't need to fund a section of the military that is outdated, Mr. Romney?).
2. Increase the size and scope of the government, particularly in its ability to control and maintain power.
3. Advocate for federal laws banning things they don't like instead of ceding power to the states.
4. Decrease individual freedoms in order to increase "national safety."
What we're left with are social policies meant to disenfranchise minorities of all kinds and even some majorities (women?!). That's not even remotely acceptable!
And let me make this perfectly clear: Even IF the fanciful economic policies Romney had endorsed were able to fix the economy (and if you don't believe me when I say that the math is crap, look up any of the non-partisan studies about it), it would not be worth my gay friends losing the potential right to marry, my women friends losing the rights to their body, and every middle class (and lower) friend losing the ease at which they can use our society's safety nets and medical assistance programs.
A fixed economy solely for straight, upper-class white males (and to a lesser extent, middle class equivalents) is not an economy I'd like to participate in. And I can't fathom why you would want to unless money is just that important to you.
And seriously- I get that you don't like our welfare programs. I don't like a lot of them either. Liberals don't disagree about their efficacy. We disagree about their necessity. We need safety nets in our society- they need fixed, yes absolutely, but they need to exist, and if the only options are a broken welfare system versus a non-existent one, I'd take the broken one each time.
Because even if it doesn't encourage people to get back on their feet, at least it doesn't let them fucking die.
I get that some of you believe marriage is between a man and a woman. That's fine for you. You don't have to marry anyone you don't want to. However, your moral belief that marriage is a man and a woman only is equivalent to my moral belief that marriage is between two people who are of sound mind and financial stability required to raise children in an appropriate environment.
I'd love for it to be reality, but the problem is that all Americans have rights. Not just you. So as much as it's against your morals for gays to get married, it's against my morals for you to not accept gays. You see the problem here?
And I get that some of you don't believe that your tax dollars shouldn't go to things you don't like. However, the US doesn't spend money based on individuals' preferences. Otherwise, we wouldn't go to war, because I hate war. And we wouldn't jail people for marijuana. And we wouldn't have the death penalty. Thing is, we don't get to make these decisions on our own. We just get to vote on them.
Really- the line of reasoning I constantly hear is this poorly thought-out rationale that effectively says, "I want laws to be such that _______! Except when that helps someone I disagree with!"
I've never met a conservative who had an argument that logically followed properly and was also something I could morally support. It's only one or the other if either, but usually neither.
Conservativism can make a spectacularly sound financial plan that destroys lives but rakes in a profit. That's why our billionaires are doing so well- they have a model that works- I just don't support the consequences. And your argument for being staunchly pro-life is admirable, but not logical (see my post on Friday about abortion)[usually]. Or, your desire to stop gay marriage in order to help children is nice because you're thinking of the children (on the surface), but the problem is that it doesn't hold any goddamn weight in facts or statistics.
So yeah, I feel really bad, because a lot of these people in my life have been fun or interesting people. And I know I can never change the world or any idealistic thing like that- but the reason I do this is to send the message that it's unacceptable in my eyes to be so against logic or your fellow humans that you would vote for a man like Mitt Romney or George W. Or Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, RIck Perry, or Newt Gingrich.
I will not, however, confront you unless you bring the topic up. I will not sell my beliefs without being asked. If you are truly interested, you will seek out the perspectives of others (as you, the reader, may be doing right now).
So indeed, perhaps I am merely being immature by distancing myself from once good friends without telling them why, but I would consider it equally offensive for me to assume that they care what my political beliefs are relational to my philosophy about friendships.
I recognize that I have much to learn. I am an infant in knowledge, but I am also tired of the same arguments day in and day out- arguments that mask racism or a desperate clinging to your parents' ideologies. Tired arguments that, ultimately, tell me that you value the penny more than the person holding the penny.
Someday, I will be able to show more understanding towards my conservative brethren. That day is not today, and I shall eventually feel the negative impact of such an isolationist policy. I hope the world will be able to forgive me when I seek forgiveness.
-
Waddles
Friday, November 9, 2012
"Pro-life"
I'm not feeling very well tonight, so I'm going to try to keep this lucid and short, but if I get into a rhythm while writing, it may wind up exceedingly long.
Pro-life. This has been a jumbo major issue in politics and ethics for some time now, principally regarding abortion, though that's not all I intend to talk about.
At its heart, the distinction that pro-lifers and pro-choicers (I'm going to clean this up and start using PL and PC) make regarding pregnancy is whether or not a fetus is considered a life and is therefore subject to rights and, therefore, the potential to be murdered.
Obviously, PL believe a fetus is a human deserving rights equivalent to a normal human, while PC believe that it is more like an extension of the body of the pregnant woman or "host." Given that it's part of the would-be mother and not its own entity, it falls under the jurisdiction of the woman in the same way that she can have her tonsils removed if she wants.
A philosophical argument that can be raised from this distinction is the worth of non-self-sufficient life itself. Does a human have human rights if it is incapable of caring for itself?
A common answer would be- of course, a baby cannot care for itself, but it will grow up and will inherit that capacity.
What if we added a caveat to the end of it? Does a human have human rights if it is incapable of caring for itself and does not have the potential to ever care for itself?
Definitely stickier territory, but here we can cite those with extreme mental and/or physical handicaps who are incapable of surviving solely on their own.
However, the interesting thing is that the right to life does not appear to be equivalent to the obligation to care for. While society seems to be in relative agreement that the life is sacred, society does not demand that the original parent necessarily care for these lives (that will never be able to care for themselves) so long as they make the effort to put them into the hands of those who will care for them.
So, there's a mild distinction between the theoretical obligation to birth a child, but not necessarily care for it.
Now, here's where I want to bring in what is, I think, one of the more interesting questions regarding the consistency of PLers.
Are you PL in all cases, including rape and incest?
If so, why does the sex being consensual matter to the rights of the unborn? Your answer might be about the health of the child (incest) or the health of the mother (rape) if you stick to common answers.
The follow up question then- Why does the health of the child matter in cases of incest but not in cases of provable birth defects during pregnancy?
Similarly, why does the health of the mother matter in cases of rape but not in cases of normal pregnancy? You might say, "But Wade, that's not fair, I'm also in support of the right to abortion if the mother's life is at risk!" But I'm not talking about the threat of death, I'm talking about overall health. Pregnancy is an incredible physical, psychological, emotional, and financial strain on a person that often results in health complications. To consider these things in the cases of rape but not in the cases of your average pregnancy is negligent towards the health of women everywhere.
Going back to the health of the child, if you acquiesce and say that perhaps birth defects should be considered a legitimate reason for an abortion, then I have another follow-up scenario for you-
If a woman does something that deliberately puts the fetus at risk to develop birth defects, is that still the case? If she drinks heavily while pregnant and the fetus develops FAS (fetal alcohol syndrome), then is abortion still legitimate? Two common responses would be:
1. "Well, I suppose so. A fetus that will be born to a life like this permanently may be better off not being born at all (as is the case of incest)."
-At this point, if you've given a woman the right to mess up her own pregnancy and the right to get an abortion if the pregnancy is messed up, then you've effectively given every woman the right to an abortion if she does not want to carry the child to term.
I must confess, I don't expect this argument to win many people over though, so we move on to option 2.
2. "Of course not, the woman deliberately enacted behavior that caused the defect (whether that result was intentional or not) and she should have to face the consequences."
However, the question here is- why is the obligation to birth a child based on whether or not the mother is irresponsible? Whether it is intentional or unintentional (alternatively: whether it is a result of the mother's behavior or not) that the child had a birth defect should not matter. In fact, an irresponsible woman would be a far worse candidate for childbirth than the responsible parent.
Following this logic, we can examine the life of a mother case- If you believe that abortion is reasonable if the life of the mother is at risk, what if the mother deliberately makes this the case? Does the abortion remain a plausible option? If not, why? Once again, why should the level of responsibility or the intentions of the mother have any bearing on whether or not the child should be born?
If yes, then following the logic for response #1, you've effectively made a case for all abortions being acceptable by giving the woman the right to put her own life in danger and then the right to an abortion in that circumstance. Why not cut out the middleman?
As such, it's not really very logically consistent to believe in abortion in some cases, but not all cases- (given the logic I've presented you with, at any rate-- I'm willing to take arguments on this)
However, if you're not in favor of abortions in particular circumstances, then we must move on to other arguments- for example:
1. In the case of a woman's life being in danger if the pregnancy is not terminated, why is the life that is not yet capable of thought and reasoning and self-sufficiency worth more than the life that is? Why does the fetus have more of the right to live than the mother?
The only logical answer I can come up with here (and please comment if you can think of another) is if you regard the full potential for life as more worthwhile than a life that is already partially over.
I must say, I don't have much of a response to this other than disagreeing with the conclusion. I believe that the memories and relationships of a life half-lived are just as important as the potentiality for those things from a life not yet lived.
2. Is the sacredness of life completely age dependent? Are there no other factors at all? What if you must face a choice between saving someone who will cure cancer versus their fetus?
At this point, I'd like to interject to note to those unfamiliar with philosophical thought experiments- the point of these questions isn't about how likely the scenarios are- rather the point of the experiments is to determine where you draw the line in the sand, regardless of how practical it is. Once we've determined where you draw the line, the point is to find out why the line is drawn there. If it is drawn for an arbitrary reason, it's probably about time for you to rethink your values so that your ethics aren't based on arbitrary lines. If, however, your line is drawn for a logically consistent reason, then you've already thought out your ethics in full (hint, most people haven't done this).
Going back to argument #2, if you still save the fetus, you're admitting that cumulative life is less important than the potentiality for life in a single person. I don't think I have to tell you why that sounds a little off.
If you pick the cancer researcher, then you've admitted that there are instances in which age is trumped by total good that can be done by the would-be mother. At which point, you have to ask yourself where you draw that line. How much good must a person do before they are worth more as a life than their fetus? Do they have to save at least one life? Or maybe 100? Why do you draw the line where you draw it?
Maybe they don't need to actively save any lives, but what if they're just bringing happiness into everyone else's lives? What if it's a famous comedian who would be missed by many? What if it's a suicide-prevention-hotline responder?
After we've examined your abstract line-in-the-sand, we must then consider how to practically implement those values into societal structures.
At what point does the value of an older person become more than the value of an unborn person?
I shouldn't have to tell you that you can't just "feel" your way around that question when the time comes unless you plan on implementing or supporting a federal system in which each person who seeks abortion has a mathematical rating given to them based on their history and potentiality that rates how much good they may do in the world. Practically speaking, that's pretty impossible.
So who do we give the benefit of the doubt to? Is the fetus going to do more good or the parent?
If you give the benefit of the doubt to the fetus, I would say a great disservice is being done to the mother.
If you give the benefit of the doubt to the mother, congratulations, you've just made a case for allowing abortion.
Bear in mind, that I'm just giving you some logical arguments to mull over. I don't expect this to win over anyone necessarily (although if it does, super!). I just encourage you to think about why you believe the things that you do, and under what circumstances, no matter how extreme, would you be willing to alter your views? And at that point, why?
Of course, I'd initially begun this piece with the intent to bring other issues into it, but I think I'll keep this super short.
If you're the more extreme PL and you're okay with war, you're being inconsistent. You're valuing life only in certain circumstances- and as I pointed out earlier, if you only value life sometimes, then a case can always be made for giving the choice to the mother.
To clarify my meaning, say you believe in war as a method of self-defense. That means you believe that saving yourself is worth taking someone else's life. As such, the mother, whose life is threatened by the fetus, should be able to have an abortion.
If you believe in the good that war can do for preventing human rights violations, for example, you're still of the opinion that taking a life in order to save lives is acceptable, which again, means that saving the mother by terminating the pregnancy can be an appropriate course of action.
If, however, you are pro-war for other reasons, you may just need to rethink things in general. Methinks you're holding different lives to different values and standards, which is pretty inconsistent.
If you're the more extreme PL and you're okay with the death penalty, you are admitting that taking a life is sometimes okay given extreme circumstances. What circumstances are those? Does a person have to commit a murder before deserving death? Two? Four? Where do you draw the line? Why?
If it's just one murder, why does the murderer deserve death when the fetus should not be terminated to save the mother? Is it a matter of intention to cause harm? Why should intention determine whether or not a fetus lives?
etc.
Sorry for the big long'n.
Abortion's definitely a sticky issue that I find myself moderate on. Of course, my position is that we should be prolific about contraceptive use and safe-sex education so that abortion is a null issue. In the cases that abortion is an issue, I'm in favor of people taking responsibility for their actions, but I'm also of the opinion that a person's life should not be dictated by a single mistake they made that didn't cause harm to anyone else.
-
Waddles
Pro-life. This has been a jumbo major issue in politics and ethics for some time now, principally regarding abortion, though that's not all I intend to talk about.
At its heart, the distinction that pro-lifers and pro-choicers (I'm going to clean this up and start using PL and PC) make regarding pregnancy is whether or not a fetus is considered a life and is therefore subject to rights and, therefore, the potential to be murdered.
Obviously, PL believe a fetus is a human deserving rights equivalent to a normal human, while PC believe that it is more like an extension of the body of the pregnant woman or "host." Given that it's part of the would-be mother and not its own entity, it falls under the jurisdiction of the woman in the same way that she can have her tonsils removed if she wants.
A philosophical argument that can be raised from this distinction is the worth of non-self-sufficient life itself. Does a human have human rights if it is incapable of caring for itself?
A common answer would be- of course, a baby cannot care for itself, but it will grow up and will inherit that capacity.
What if we added a caveat to the end of it? Does a human have human rights if it is incapable of caring for itself and does not have the potential to ever care for itself?
Definitely stickier territory, but here we can cite those with extreme mental and/or physical handicaps who are incapable of surviving solely on their own.
However, the interesting thing is that the right to life does not appear to be equivalent to the obligation to care for. While society seems to be in relative agreement that the life is sacred, society does not demand that the original parent necessarily care for these lives (that will never be able to care for themselves) so long as they make the effort to put them into the hands of those who will care for them.
So, there's a mild distinction between the theoretical obligation to birth a child, but not necessarily care for it.
Now, here's where I want to bring in what is, I think, one of the more interesting questions regarding the consistency of PLers.
Are you PL in all cases, including rape and incest?
If so, why does the sex being consensual matter to the rights of the unborn? Your answer might be about the health of the child (incest) or the health of the mother (rape) if you stick to common answers.
The follow up question then- Why does the health of the child matter in cases of incest but not in cases of provable birth defects during pregnancy?
Similarly, why does the health of the mother matter in cases of rape but not in cases of normal pregnancy? You might say, "But Wade, that's not fair, I'm also in support of the right to abortion if the mother's life is at risk!" But I'm not talking about the threat of death, I'm talking about overall health. Pregnancy is an incredible physical, psychological, emotional, and financial strain on a person that often results in health complications. To consider these things in the cases of rape but not in the cases of your average pregnancy is negligent towards the health of women everywhere.
Going back to the health of the child, if you acquiesce and say that perhaps birth defects should be considered a legitimate reason for an abortion, then I have another follow-up scenario for you-
If a woman does something that deliberately puts the fetus at risk to develop birth defects, is that still the case? If she drinks heavily while pregnant and the fetus develops FAS (fetal alcohol syndrome), then is abortion still legitimate? Two common responses would be:
1. "Well, I suppose so. A fetus that will be born to a life like this permanently may be better off not being born at all (as is the case of incest)."
-At this point, if you've given a woman the right to mess up her own pregnancy and the right to get an abortion if the pregnancy is messed up, then you've effectively given every woman the right to an abortion if she does not want to carry the child to term.
I must confess, I don't expect this argument to win many people over though, so we move on to option 2.
2. "Of course not, the woman deliberately enacted behavior that caused the defect (whether that result was intentional or not) and she should have to face the consequences."
However, the question here is- why is the obligation to birth a child based on whether or not the mother is irresponsible? Whether it is intentional or unintentional (alternatively: whether it is a result of the mother's behavior or not) that the child had a birth defect should not matter. In fact, an irresponsible woman would be a far worse candidate for childbirth than the responsible parent.
Following this logic, we can examine the life of a mother case- If you believe that abortion is reasonable if the life of the mother is at risk, what if the mother deliberately makes this the case? Does the abortion remain a plausible option? If not, why? Once again, why should the level of responsibility or the intentions of the mother have any bearing on whether or not the child should be born?
If yes, then following the logic for response #1, you've effectively made a case for all abortions being acceptable by giving the woman the right to put her own life in danger and then the right to an abortion in that circumstance. Why not cut out the middleman?
As such, it's not really very logically consistent to believe in abortion in some cases, but not all cases- (given the logic I've presented you with, at any rate-- I'm willing to take arguments on this)
However, if you're not in favor of abortions in particular circumstances, then we must move on to other arguments- for example:
1. In the case of a woman's life being in danger if the pregnancy is not terminated, why is the life that is not yet capable of thought and reasoning and self-sufficiency worth more than the life that is? Why does the fetus have more of the right to live than the mother?
The only logical answer I can come up with here (and please comment if you can think of another) is if you regard the full potential for life as more worthwhile than a life that is already partially over.
I must say, I don't have much of a response to this other than disagreeing with the conclusion. I believe that the memories and relationships of a life half-lived are just as important as the potentiality for those things from a life not yet lived.
2. Is the sacredness of life completely age dependent? Are there no other factors at all? What if you must face a choice between saving someone who will cure cancer versus their fetus?
At this point, I'd like to interject to note to those unfamiliar with philosophical thought experiments- the point of these questions isn't about how likely the scenarios are- rather the point of the experiments is to determine where you draw the line in the sand, regardless of how practical it is. Once we've determined where you draw the line, the point is to find out why the line is drawn there. If it is drawn for an arbitrary reason, it's probably about time for you to rethink your values so that your ethics aren't based on arbitrary lines. If, however, your line is drawn for a logically consistent reason, then you've already thought out your ethics in full (hint, most people haven't done this).
Going back to argument #2, if you still save the fetus, you're admitting that cumulative life is less important than the potentiality for life in a single person. I don't think I have to tell you why that sounds a little off.
If you pick the cancer researcher, then you've admitted that there are instances in which age is trumped by total good that can be done by the would-be mother. At which point, you have to ask yourself where you draw that line. How much good must a person do before they are worth more as a life than their fetus? Do they have to save at least one life? Or maybe 100? Why do you draw the line where you draw it?
Maybe they don't need to actively save any lives, but what if they're just bringing happiness into everyone else's lives? What if it's a famous comedian who would be missed by many? What if it's a suicide-prevention-hotline responder?
After we've examined your abstract line-in-the-sand, we must then consider how to practically implement those values into societal structures.
At what point does the value of an older person become more than the value of an unborn person?
I shouldn't have to tell you that you can't just "feel" your way around that question when the time comes unless you plan on implementing or supporting a federal system in which each person who seeks abortion has a mathematical rating given to them based on their history and potentiality that rates how much good they may do in the world. Practically speaking, that's pretty impossible.
So who do we give the benefit of the doubt to? Is the fetus going to do more good or the parent?
If you give the benefit of the doubt to the fetus, I would say a great disservice is being done to the mother.
If you give the benefit of the doubt to the mother, congratulations, you've just made a case for allowing abortion.
Bear in mind, that I'm just giving you some logical arguments to mull over. I don't expect this to win over anyone necessarily (although if it does, super!). I just encourage you to think about why you believe the things that you do, and under what circumstances, no matter how extreme, would you be willing to alter your views? And at that point, why?
Of course, I'd initially begun this piece with the intent to bring other issues into it, but I think I'll keep this super short.
If you're the more extreme PL and you're okay with war, you're being inconsistent. You're valuing life only in certain circumstances- and as I pointed out earlier, if you only value life sometimes, then a case can always be made for giving the choice to the mother.
To clarify my meaning, say you believe in war as a method of self-defense. That means you believe that saving yourself is worth taking someone else's life. As such, the mother, whose life is threatened by the fetus, should be able to have an abortion.
If you believe in the good that war can do for preventing human rights violations, for example, you're still of the opinion that taking a life in order to save lives is acceptable, which again, means that saving the mother by terminating the pregnancy can be an appropriate course of action.
If, however, you are pro-war for other reasons, you may just need to rethink things in general. Methinks you're holding different lives to different values and standards, which is pretty inconsistent.
If you're the more extreme PL and you're okay with the death penalty, you are admitting that taking a life is sometimes okay given extreme circumstances. What circumstances are those? Does a person have to commit a murder before deserving death? Two? Four? Where do you draw the line? Why?
If it's just one murder, why does the murderer deserve death when the fetus should not be terminated to save the mother? Is it a matter of intention to cause harm? Why should intention determine whether or not a fetus lives?
etc.
Sorry for the big long'n.
Abortion's definitely a sticky issue that I find myself moderate on. Of course, my position is that we should be prolific about contraceptive use and safe-sex education so that abortion is a null issue. In the cases that abortion is an issue, I'm in favor of people taking responsibility for their actions, but I'm also of the opinion that a person's life should not be dictated by a single mistake they made that didn't cause harm to anyone else.
-
Waddles
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Genes v. Environment
Election is over and I'm tired of writing political posts- both here and on Facebook.
Changing gears, I wanna' talk about something that a lot of people have widely varying things to say about- the issue of nature versus nurture, genes versus environment, destiny versus development.
As a preface, I'd like to note that psychologists are further and further coming to a consensus that both play pivotal roles in how each person is shaped on this planet, it's the extent to which each plays a role for each individual trait a person possesses.
Let's give an example:
Genetic factors are far more responsible for the color of your hair than environmental factors, however, that's not to say that the environment doesn't play a role at all. While your natural haircolor is hereditary (you will not have red hair without the gene existing in your bloodline), your haircolor can fade as a result of stress, turning white earlier for those under great stress more often. Similarly, baldness may be hereditary, but if you don't wash your hair, you're also more likely to start losing it at an earlier age.
While genes seem to play far larger roles in this realm, the environment does still have its place.
Contrarily, there are traits we possess that are largely environmental, such as our religious beliefs.
If you grow up in a Christian household, you're likely to become a Christian. The same is true of any religion (although the more outlandish the religion becomes, the less likely you are to follow suit, though it's still higher than someone raised in religiously-neutral circumstances.
Psychology has a word phrase for this phenomenon- The Range of Reaction or Reaction-Range- which is simply the extent to which any trait is environmentally determined versus genetically determined. More specifically, it puts environmental determinism into the context of genetic determinism.
To give you a better idea of what this means, let's take a look at a trait like empathy- some people are naturally more empathetic than others because it comes easier to them. However, what happens when we take someone like that and raise them in environments of varying extremes?
To do this, we can assign an arbitrary number scale to the Reaction-Range- let's say -100 through 100, where 0 is perfectly average in every way, -100 is sociopathic, and 100 is total altruism.
No one is born with many traits fully determined in this -100 through 100 range, simply because there are so few traits that are totally genetic. Instead, genetics give you a range within the scale in which you will fall regardless of your environment. The environment merely changes where within that range you'll arrive.
For example, someone is born with a relatively high empathy Reaction-Range rating, somewhere between 10-80. Raised in a pro-charity household where morality is very important, this child would likely wind up closer to 80 (barring other environmental factors). However, raised in an abusive family, the child may grow up with almost completely average level of empathy based on the circumstances of their development.
The wider the range at birth, the more environmentally controlled the trait is. For example, religious beliefs might range from -60 to 60 for someone- far greater than the range for empathy, but still not totally -100 through 100 because genetic factors can determine your predisposition towards extremism of any kind, including religious.
To throw another one at you, we can look at intelligence. If you're born of incredibly intelligent parents, you're far more likely to be intelligent yourself. There are definitely some genetics behind IQ, but if you're not placed in an environment that encourages learning and intellectual stimulation, you will not blossom intellectually. As such, it's always important to balance the environments you put your children in with what you know about their genetics. Some behavior exhibited at birth and during infancy may indicate predispositions, but you can always attempt to influence those predispositions to swing to one extreme or another.
Of course, I'm making up all of these numbers on the spot, because there's no real way to determine what these numbers are, since we can't measure for trait potentiality in an infant and compare it to how they are after growing up. As such, it's a lot of crude estimation and guesswork that accommodates exhibited patterns.
One of the main ways in which the field of psychology studies this is through mono-zygotic twins- identical twins. Identical twins share an absurdly similar genetic makeup, making them ideal to study whether or not genes or the environment is creating the presence of any given trait. This is particularly helpful when the twins are raised in separate households that are relatively different environments.
To give you an idea of how ludicrously interesting and precise this phenomenon can be, examine this case:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1946&dat=19860619&id=4RoyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RagFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2229,4466234
Two New Jersey twins, reared apart from when they were just five days old grew up with the same sports interest, hobbies, facial hair, eye problems, hair loss, and most interestingly, career path. They shared almost the exact same career path, actually, going from landscaping to security device installation to volunteer firefighting.
This is certainly the rare case, and it's likely that the twins were reared in similar households, but the main idea is that neither of them had pressure from each other or the same sources to follow the paths that they did.
It actually stirs some concerning questions about whether or not our "free" choices are simply products of our genetic makeup more than anything.
Regardless, it's an incredibly fascinating phenomenon and I just wanted to wax about it for a bit.
-
Waddles
PS- To my psych friends that may be reading this, correct me if I got anything wrong. I was introducing a little personal theory into the traditional knowledge.
Changing gears, I wanna' talk about something that a lot of people have widely varying things to say about- the issue of nature versus nurture, genes versus environment, destiny versus development.
As a preface, I'd like to note that psychologists are further and further coming to a consensus that both play pivotal roles in how each person is shaped on this planet, it's the extent to which each plays a role for each individual trait a person possesses.
Let's give an example:
Genetic factors are far more responsible for the color of your hair than environmental factors, however, that's not to say that the environment doesn't play a role at all. While your natural haircolor is hereditary (you will not have red hair without the gene existing in your bloodline), your haircolor can fade as a result of stress, turning white earlier for those under great stress more often. Similarly, baldness may be hereditary, but if you don't wash your hair, you're also more likely to start losing it at an earlier age.
While genes seem to play far larger roles in this realm, the environment does still have its place.
Contrarily, there are traits we possess that are largely environmental, such as our religious beliefs.
If you grow up in a Christian household, you're likely to become a Christian. The same is true of any religion (although the more outlandish the religion becomes, the less likely you are to follow suit, though it's still higher than someone raised in religiously-neutral circumstances.
Psychology has a word phrase for this phenomenon- The Range of Reaction or Reaction-Range- which is simply the extent to which any trait is environmentally determined versus genetically determined. More specifically, it puts environmental determinism into the context of genetic determinism.
To give you a better idea of what this means, let's take a look at a trait like empathy- some people are naturally more empathetic than others because it comes easier to them. However, what happens when we take someone like that and raise them in environments of varying extremes?
To do this, we can assign an arbitrary number scale to the Reaction-Range- let's say -100 through 100, where 0 is perfectly average in every way, -100 is sociopathic, and 100 is total altruism.
No one is born with many traits fully determined in this -100 through 100 range, simply because there are so few traits that are totally genetic. Instead, genetics give you a range within the scale in which you will fall regardless of your environment. The environment merely changes where within that range you'll arrive.
For example, someone is born with a relatively high empathy Reaction-Range rating, somewhere between 10-80. Raised in a pro-charity household where morality is very important, this child would likely wind up closer to 80 (barring other environmental factors). However, raised in an abusive family, the child may grow up with almost completely average level of empathy based on the circumstances of their development.
The wider the range at birth, the more environmentally controlled the trait is. For example, religious beliefs might range from -60 to 60 for someone- far greater than the range for empathy, but still not totally -100 through 100 because genetic factors can determine your predisposition towards extremism of any kind, including religious.
To throw another one at you, we can look at intelligence. If you're born of incredibly intelligent parents, you're far more likely to be intelligent yourself. There are definitely some genetics behind IQ, but if you're not placed in an environment that encourages learning and intellectual stimulation, you will not blossom intellectually. As such, it's always important to balance the environments you put your children in with what you know about their genetics. Some behavior exhibited at birth and during infancy may indicate predispositions, but you can always attempt to influence those predispositions to swing to one extreme or another.
Of course, I'm making up all of these numbers on the spot, because there's no real way to determine what these numbers are, since we can't measure for trait potentiality in an infant and compare it to how they are after growing up. As such, it's a lot of crude estimation and guesswork that accommodates exhibited patterns.
One of the main ways in which the field of psychology studies this is through mono-zygotic twins- identical twins. Identical twins share an absurdly similar genetic makeup, making them ideal to study whether or not genes or the environment is creating the presence of any given trait. This is particularly helpful when the twins are raised in separate households that are relatively different environments.
To give you an idea of how ludicrously interesting and precise this phenomenon can be, examine this case:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1946&dat=19860619&id=4RoyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RagFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2229,4466234
Two New Jersey twins, reared apart from when they were just five days old grew up with the same sports interest, hobbies, facial hair, eye problems, hair loss, and most interestingly, career path. They shared almost the exact same career path, actually, going from landscaping to security device installation to volunteer firefighting.
This is certainly the rare case, and it's likely that the twins were reared in similar households, but the main idea is that neither of them had pressure from each other or the same sources to follow the paths that they did.
It actually stirs some concerning questions about whether or not our "free" choices are simply products of our genetic makeup more than anything.
Regardless, it's an incredibly fascinating phenomenon and I just wanted to wax about it for a bit.
-
Waddles
PS- To my psych friends that may be reading this, correct me if I got anything wrong. I was introducing a little personal theory into the traditional knowledge.
Monday, November 5, 2012
The Last Plea for Obama
Even though I'm sure all of my readers are liberally leaning already, particularly in the face of Mitt Romney, I'll go through with this post anyway.
I would easily be one of the first people to step up with problems regarding Barack Obama. As a Democratic centrist, I wouldn't say he's what I wanted in a president over the last four years, and in fact, I'd say he's mucked a fair number of things up. To give you a short list:
1. He failed to close Guantanamo Bay after promising that it would be one of the first things he'd do.
2. He pursued war with a relatively invisible entity known as "terrorism" in an effort to democratize the Middle East- an effort that many people wanted, but not at the cost of US occupation. The presence of US military bases in Saudi Arabia being what originally led Al Qaida to strike back at the US (in addition to support for Israel) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks#Sources
3. He's continued supporting Israel in a setting where Israel has over-stepped its authority in aggravating its neighbors despite having relatively little military might of its own. This is after the deliberate displacement of the Palestinian people from land that was rightfully theirs to begin with. This fantasy of Israel being our "greatest ally" was absurd to begin with, but now they're on the verge of doing more harm than ever before, rallied by the knowledge that the US supports them.
4. He's targeted Iran, thanks to political pressure, forcing them into the spotlight as the new Iraq, paving the way for an excuse to have another war. This is furthered by his support for Israel, which may lead to war even before nuclear armament becomes a dire issue.
5. He waited until the end of his term to start supporting women's rights.
6. He waited until the end of his term to start supporting gay rights.
7. He waited until the end of his term to start supporting immigration reform with the Dream Act.
8. He still isn't doing anything about the massive drug wars going on at our southern border. Nor has he focused on the welfare of Latin America in any great stretch at all.
9. He hasn't dissolved our trade embargo with Cuba, a nation that hasn't been an enemy in decades.
10. Simply put, he hasn't been vehement about the directions that he believes the US should head. His support for Obamacare has been his most distinguished achievement, however, even that was gutted and neutered to a mere fraction of its original efficacy. A focus on education and infrastructure has been slow at best. It's becoming more and more difficult to pay your way through college, to the point that it's becoming a resource only accessible by those born into some relative measure of wealth (and otherwise those who put themselves through terrific strain in order to move up).
- There are many others, but I think you understand where I'm going with this. I don't think our President is wrong in his desires necessarily, but I definitely think he's too eager to please everyone. In this day and age, where Republican obstructionism is reaching absurd heights and anti-intellectualism is becoming jaw-dropping, I believe we're in need of another Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who famously said,
FDR recognized that he was not going to be a crowd favorite for his actions, but he also knew what would be required of him to solve the economic woes of the time. And he forced it through, laughing in the faces of his opponents. He recognized that they were simply obstructions- nothing but roadblocks to the future of progression.
Obama is no FDR. Neither in ideology nor in boldness nor in willingness to do what is right. Obama would like to be remembered as someone who worked together in the here and now, rather than someone who did what had to be done in the history books. For that, I cannot throw my full support behind him.
However, this is a critique of a man. A human being with a heart and soul not made of steel. This is a man with weakness, as we all have. I understand his desire to work together. I understand his need to not have half of the country eying him with malevolence. However, I think he's only just starting to realize that many of those who hate him do so because they're afraid of him- not because he's not working hard enough or cooperating enough for them.
They're scared of Muslims (an incorrect assertion believed by 30% of polled Republicans in 2008). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/26/obama-muslim_n_1706522.html
They're scared of socialism (an incorrect assertion believed by over 60% of polled Republicans). http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32384.html
And most of all- they're scared of black people. This is a charge I'm making without appropriate evidence, and I accept criticism for it. However, there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence suggesting that this is the truth. Individual instances of racism have cropped up during this presidential race, such as the famous t-shirt sporting the slogan, "Keep the white in white house." Furthermore, when asked specific details that people disagree with the man on, many are left stuttering and incapable of providing any actual examples. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E87gciwebw
And, of course, there's the most telling (in my opinion) bit of evidence. Here, we have a case of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, two men who, in their various debates, espoused almost the exact same ideologies. Two people who "supported" so many of the same things, with simple variation to the degree in which they supported these things. The real great difference between the policies of the two has been Romney's taxation plan.
So... Why does nearly half of America think that Obama is a horrible person? Some think he's the Anti-Christ! Despite the fact that on Romney's best day, the two are nearly the same person with a different skin tone.
I call racism. Plain, simple, vitriolic, hateful, scared racism.
But, I'm getting off-topic. I'm not hear to talk about why other people don't like Obama. Or even why I don't. I just want you to know the platform from which I stand as I support him for re-election.
I support for a few very main reasons, and then numerous smaller reasons. Some of these reasons are hand-in-hand reasons not to support Romney. Some are solely problems with Romney. Some are solely reasons to support Obama.
So, let's get started.
1. Obama is for equality. This is hands down the single reason to vote for Obama if ever there was one. He's finally come forward with support for gay marriage and for the rights of women over their own bodies. Two fundamental issues that Romney is either directly against or at least flip-flops on. His stance on birth control, for example, has been incredibly varied over the space of mere months. However, his stance on gay marriage is consistent and atrocious. As a good friend put it, I would rather have equality for the people I care about most in my life than a successful economy. However, that presumes that Romney would be better for the economy than Obama, which leads us to point two-
2. Obama's math works. Over the past four years, while he's been incorrect about the magnitude and speed at which his policies would help America, his policies have actually helped. The DOW is rising, unemployment is lowering, and the economy is on its way to stability again. Regardless of what you want to say about Obama, this much is objective fact. Not only do we have reason to trust Obama's math, but we also know that Romney's math has been fact-checked time and time again, showing that he has no feasible way of enacting his tax cuts plan without taking the money from the middle class. He's interested in spending roughly $5 trillion on tax cuts across the board, $2 trillion on military budget increases that the military didn't ask for, and he's promised to cover it by closing loopholes and fixing the tax code- an act which independent studies show is mathematically impossible. Not only is it impossible, but it's irresponsible. The military doesn't need two trillion dollars, our infrastructure needs it. Not only that, but in clarification for the increased military spending, Romney cites our wavering navy strength as the reason he wants to give them more money. This despite the fact that we still have the strongest navy on the planet, with as many aircraft carriers as the next leading 5 nations put together.
Furthermore, as nobel economist Paul Krugman points out, a recession is not the time to halt the spending of money. People are already wary of putting their money into the economy, a symptom which exacerbates the root problem. Lubricating the chains of the economy through increased taxation is good for the nation. Especially when we can get that tax increase from people who have more money than they know what to do with.
3. Obama's actually willing to take something resembling a stance against corporate greed. I could be way happier, since he hasn't cracked down much on Wall-Street or those who caused the recession in the first place. But, he has taken a stab at insurance companies through Obamacare. He is trying to raise taxes on the super-wealthy. He could be better, but at least he's reached a point where he's willing to say, "okay, this is getting a little ridiculous." And for that, he's leagues ahead of Romney, who wants less regulation and fewer taxes.
4. Fact checking. I'm terrified of the idea of a candidate who said his campaign will not be dictated by fact checkers. In the prolific age of the internet, information is getting easier to come by, which means fact checking is something that can be done by the common people, not just journalists. The willful use of over-the-top lies and flip-flopping by the Romney campaign has been unbelievable. His support for almost any given policy should be heavily questioned since, in the span of a few years, he's managed to backtrack on almost every major issue he's ever "believed in." Not only does it call into question what he actually believes in, but it calls into question his moral character that he would so flagrantly distort the truth for his own ends.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/paul-ryan/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/joe-biden/
Going strictly by the percentages, the Democrats are almost the exact opposite of the Republicans on the topic of truth.
Obama rates as Half True, Mostly True, or True in 72% of his statements.
Biden rates those as 68% of his statements.
By stark contrast,
Romney only has 59% of his statements in the true range, with 28% of those being Half-True remarks.
Ryan? 48%.
This only really addresses the hard math though, rather than the quality of the statements made. It says nothing about the intent of a statement to mislead or attack versus just plain being inaccurate information (one of the main faults I have with politifact's system). So, take these numbers with some salt.
5. Romney's suggested preemptive strikes against Iran. I don't want another war. I want the US to do everything possible to avoid another war. Can we please not have another war? The two are pretty similar about the issue, but Obama seems less interested in throwing the first stone than Romney.
6. Election fraud. This shit is pissing me off like no other. Republicans in swing states are pulling some of the worst shenanigans I've ever seen. Voter restriction laws that make no sense and primarily disenfranchise people who are, by majority, Democrats? People throwing away Democrat registration forms? Refusing to register people who aren't Republicans? Changing registration documentation to make Democrats into registered Republicans (this one doesn't really cause any problems yet though). Having family members and campaign officials financially invested in voting machine companies? Robo-calling people incorrect information about polling places? The list goes on, and it's horrifying to think that these people are willing to go to such lengths to steal an election. Some of these points are far more meaningful than others. For example, the voting machine companies bit might be total coincidence. However, throwing away registration forms for Democrats? Noooooo.... Noooo...
Really, most of all. For all the bluster, when I hear Obama speak, he sounds like an exasperated parent who's trying desperately to figure out how best to run a household and please everyone. But when I hear Romney speak, he's just interested in usurping that position. He's willing to say or do whatever it takes to get there, to hell with the truth or values. And that's how he's always been. He brags about working together with Democrats in Massachusetts, but they were the majority. He had to follow their lead or else risk getting thrown out for getting in the way. He was willing to be whatever he had to in order to stay in power.
Frankly, Romney's history looks like that of a sociopath. Doing whatever it takes to get ahead in business. Crushing lives beneath him for profit. Lying through his teeth week in, week out, sometimes on things he'd used the opposite lie about the week earlier. Showing a clear misunderstanding for those in socio-economic or cultural positions that he couldn't closely identify with. Showing a lack of empathy for the people around him. He thinks money talks more than action. That's not a man I want in the white house. That terrifies me.
So when you go vote tomorrow (please go vote), I want you to think about these things. Think about what it is you really want in life. What will make you happy, but also what will make America prosper. What will history say about the decisions made?
I'll tell you this much, during the civil rights movement, history didn't seem preoccupied with what the unemployment rate was at. Or what the tax rate of the 1% was. (Did you like my corny pathos appeal?)
Seriously. Go vote. Even if you vote for Romney. Just think about the issues and come to an informed decision of your own. But if you don't know the issues, don't vote. That shit's not okay.
-
Wade
I would easily be one of the first people to step up with problems regarding Barack Obama. As a Democratic centrist, I wouldn't say he's what I wanted in a president over the last four years, and in fact, I'd say he's mucked a fair number of things up. To give you a short list:
1. He failed to close Guantanamo Bay after promising that it would be one of the first things he'd do.
2. He pursued war with a relatively invisible entity known as "terrorism" in an effort to democratize the Middle East- an effort that many people wanted, but not at the cost of US occupation. The presence of US military bases in Saudi Arabia being what originally led Al Qaida to strike back at the US (in addition to support for Israel) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks#Sources
3. He's continued supporting Israel in a setting where Israel has over-stepped its authority in aggravating its neighbors despite having relatively little military might of its own. This is after the deliberate displacement of the Palestinian people from land that was rightfully theirs to begin with. This fantasy of Israel being our "greatest ally" was absurd to begin with, but now they're on the verge of doing more harm than ever before, rallied by the knowledge that the US supports them.
4. He's targeted Iran, thanks to political pressure, forcing them into the spotlight as the new Iraq, paving the way for an excuse to have another war. This is furthered by his support for Israel, which may lead to war even before nuclear armament becomes a dire issue.
5. He waited until the end of his term to start supporting women's rights.
6. He waited until the end of his term to start supporting gay rights.
7. He waited until the end of his term to start supporting immigration reform with the Dream Act.
8. He still isn't doing anything about the massive drug wars going on at our southern border. Nor has he focused on the welfare of Latin America in any great stretch at all.
9. He hasn't dissolved our trade embargo with Cuba, a nation that hasn't been an enemy in decades.
10. Simply put, he hasn't been vehement about the directions that he believes the US should head. His support for Obamacare has been his most distinguished achievement, however, even that was gutted and neutered to a mere fraction of its original efficacy. A focus on education and infrastructure has been slow at best. It's becoming more and more difficult to pay your way through college, to the point that it's becoming a resource only accessible by those born into some relative measure of wealth (and otherwise those who put themselves through terrific strain in order to move up).
- There are many others, but I think you understand where I'm going with this. I don't think our President is wrong in his desires necessarily, but I definitely think he's too eager to please everyone. In this day and age, where Republican obstructionism is reaching absurd heights and anti-intellectualism is becoming jaw-dropping, I believe we're in need of another Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who famously said,
We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering...
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred.
FDR recognized that he was not going to be a crowd favorite for his actions, but he also knew what would be required of him to solve the economic woes of the time. And he forced it through, laughing in the faces of his opponents. He recognized that they were simply obstructions- nothing but roadblocks to the future of progression.
Obama is no FDR. Neither in ideology nor in boldness nor in willingness to do what is right. Obama would like to be remembered as someone who worked together in the here and now, rather than someone who did what had to be done in the history books. For that, I cannot throw my full support behind him.
However, this is a critique of a man. A human being with a heart and soul not made of steel. This is a man with weakness, as we all have. I understand his desire to work together. I understand his need to not have half of the country eying him with malevolence. However, I think he's only just starting to realize that many of those who hate him do so because they're afraid of him- not because he's not working hard enough or cooperating enough for them.
They're scared of Muslims (an incorrect assertion believed by 30% of polled Republicans in 2008). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/26/obama-muslim_n_1706522.html
They're scared of socialism (an incorrect assertion believed by over 60% of polled Republicans). http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32384.html
And most of all- they're scared of black people. This is a charge I'm making without appropriate evidence, and I accept criticism for it. However, there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence suggesting that this is the truth. Individual instances of racism have cropped up during this presidential race, such as the famous t-shirt sporting the slogan, "Keep the white in white house." Furthermore, when asked specific details that people disagree with the man on, many are left stuttering and incapable of providing any actual examples. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E87gciwebw
And, of course, there's the most telling (in my opinion) bit of evidence. Here, we have a case of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, two men who, in their various debates, espoused almost the exact same ideologies. Two people who "supported" so many of the same things, with simple variation to the degree in which they supported these things. The real great difference between the policies of the two has been Romney's taxation plan.
So... Why does nearly half of America think that Obama is a horrible person? Some think he's the Anti-Christ! Despite the fact that on Romney's best day, the two are nearly the same person with a different skin tone.
I call racism. Plain, simple, vitriolic, hateful, scared racism.
But, I'm getting off-topic. I'm not hear to talk about why other people don't like Obama. Or even why I don't. I just want you to know the platform from which I stand as I support him for re-election.
I support for a few very main reasons, and then numerous smaller reasons. Some of these reasons are hand-in-hand reasons not to support Romney. Some are solely problems with Romney. Some are solely reasons to support Obama.
So, let's get started.
1. Obama is for equality. This is hands down the single reason to vote for Obama if ever there was one. He's finally come forward with support for gay marriage and for the rights of women over their own bodies. Two fundamental issues that Romney is either directly against or at least flip-flops on. His stance on birth control, for example, has been incredibly varied over the space of mere months. However, his stance on gay marriage is consistent and atrocious. As a good friend put it, I would rather have equality for the people I care about most in my life than a successful economy. However, that presumes that Romney would be better for the economy than Obama, which leads us to point two-
2. Obama's math works. Over the past four years, while he's been incorrect about the magnitude and speed at which his policies would help America, his policies have actually helped. The DOW is rising, unemployment is lowering, and the economy is on its way to stability again. Regardless of what you want to say about Obama, this much is objective fact. Not only do we have reason to trust Obama's math, but we also know that Romney's math has been fact-checked time and time again, showing that he has no feasible way of enacting his tax cuts plan without taking the money from the middle class. He's interested in spending roughly $5 trillion on tax cuts across the board, $2 trillion on military budget increases that the military didn't ask for, and he's promised to cover it by closing loopholes and fixing the tax code- an act which independent studies show is mathematically impossible. Not only is it impossible, but it's irresponsible. The military doesn't need two trillion dollars, our infrastructure needs it. Not only that, but in clarification for the increased military spending, Romney cites our wavering navy strength as the reason he wants to give them more money. This despite the fact that we still have the strongest navy on the planet, with as many aircraft carriers as the next leading 5 nations put together.
Furthermore, as nobel economist Paul Krugman points out, a recession is not the time to halt the spending of money. People are already wary of putting their money into the economy, a symptom which exacerbates the root problem. Lubricating the chains of the economy through increased taxation is good for the nation. Especially when we can get that tax increase from people who have more money than they know what to do with.
3. Obama's actually willing to take something resembling a stance against corporate greed. I could be way happier, since he hasn't cracked down much on Wall-Street or those who caused the recession in the first place. But, he has taken a stab at insurance companies through Obamacare. He is trying to raise taxes on the super-wealthy. He could be better, but at least he's reached a point where he's willing to say, "okay, this is getting a little ridiculous." And for that, he's leagues ahead of Romney, who wants less regulation and fewer taxes.
4. Fact checking. I'm terrified of the idea of a candidate who said his campaign will not be dictated by fact checkers. In the prolific age of the internet, information is getting easier to come by, which means fact checking is something that can be done by the common people, not just journalists. The willful use of over-the-top lies and flip-flopping by the Romney campaign has been unbelievable. His support for almost any given policy should be heavily questioned since, in the span of a few years, he's managed to backtrack on almost every major issue he's ever "believed in." Not only does it call into question what he actually believes in, but it calls into question his moral character that he would so flagrantly distort the truth for his own ends.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/paul-ryan/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/joe-biden/
Going strictly by the percentages, the Democrats are almost the exact opposite of the Republicans on the topic of truth.
Obama rates as Half True, Mostly True, or True in 72% of his statements.
Biden rates those as 68% of his statements.
By stark contrast,
Romney only has 59% of his statements in the true range, with 28% of those being Half-True remarks.
Ryan? 48%.
This only really addresses the hard math though, rather than the quality of the statements made. It says nothing about the intent of a statement to mislead or attack versus just plain being inaccurate information (one of the main faults I have with politifact's system). So, take these numbers with some salt.
5. Romney's suggested preemptive strikes against Iran. I don't want another war. I want the US to do everything possible to avoid another war. Can we please not have another war? The two are pretty similar about the issue, but Obama seems less interested in throwing the first stone than Romney.
6. Election fraud. This shit is pissing me off like no other. Republicans in swing states are pulling some of the worst shenanigans I've ever seen. Voter restriction laws that make no sense and primarily disenfranchise people who are, by majority, Democrats? People throwing away Democrat registration forms? Refusing to register people who aren't Republicans? Changing registration documentation to make Democrats into registered Republicans (this one doesn't really cause any problems yet though). Having family members and campaign officials financially invested in voting machine companies? Robo-calling people incorrect information about polling places? The list goes on, and it's horrifying to think that these people are willing to go to such lengths to steal an election. Some of these points are far more meaningful than others. For example, the voting machine companies bit might be total coincidence. However, throwing away registration forms for Democrats? Noooooo.... Noooo...
Really, most of all. For all the bluster, when I hear Obama speak, he sounds like an exasperated parent who's trying desperately to figure out how best to run a household and please everyone. But when I hear Romney speak, he's just interested in usurping that position. He's willing to say or do whatever it takes to get there, to hell with the truth or values. And that's how he's always been. He brags about working together with Democrats in Massachusetts, but they were the majority. He had to follow their lead or else risk getting thrown out for getting in the way. He was willing to be whatever he had to in order to stay in power.
Frankly, Romney's history looks like that of a sociopath. Doing whatever it takes to get ahead in business. Crushing lives beneath him for profit. Lying through his teeth week in, week out, sometimes on things he'd used the opposite lie about the week earlier. Showing a clear misunderstanding for those in socio-economic or cultural positions that he couldn't closely identify with. Showing a lack of empathy for the people around him. He thinks money talks more than action. That's not a man I want in the white house. That terrifies me.
So when you go vote tomorrow (please go vote), I want you to think about these things. Think about what it is you really want in life. What will make you happy, but also what will make America prosper. What will history say about the decisions made?
I'll tell you this much, during the civil rights movement, history didn't seem preoccupied with what the unemployment rate was at. Or what the tax rate of the 1% was. (Did you like my corny pathos appeal?)
Seriously. Go vote. Even if you vote for Romney. Just think about the issues and come to an informed decision of your own. But if you don't know the issues, don't vote. That shit's not okay.
-
Wade
Sunday, November 4, 2012
That moment at 3:22 AM on a Saturday night
When you remind yourself that you don't want to be alive.
God, I hate depression.
I hate not being happy.
I hate that feeling when your heart feels like someone's squeezing it too hard or maybe poking with something a little too sharp.
I hate that I can't cry about my own situation.
I hate relying on everyone around me and feeling like nothing but a burden.
I hate not knowing when the next huge mood swing is going to hit.
I hate turning otherwise good nights into pity parties.
I hate how much this has consumed me.
I hate watching all of my friends grow up around me while I stagnate.
I hate realizing how much a slave I am to my physiology and my psychology.
I hate feeling exhausted even when I don't leave my apartment.
I hate not having a job.
I hate not doing things with my life.
I hate how I keep making my blog depressing.
And I absolutely hate that I don't have the energy or motivation to try to fix any of it because it all just seems out of reach.
I bet I come off as the biggest conceited jackoff to so many people.
I hate wishing for death.
I'm just... really tired.
God, I hate depression.
I hate not being happy.
I hate that feeling when your heart feels like someone's squeezing it too hard or maybe poking with something a little too sharp.
I hate that I can't cry about my own situation.
I hate relying on everyone around me and feeling like nothing but a burden.
I hate not knowing when the next huge mood swing is going to hit.
I hate turning otherwise good nights into pity parties.
I hate how much this has consumed me.
I hate watching all of my friends grow up around me while I stagnate.
I hate realizing how much a slave I am to my physiology and my psychology.
I hate feeling exhausted even when I don't leave my apartment.
I hate not having a job.
I hate not doing things with my life.
I hate how I keep making my blog depressing.
And I absolutely hate that I don't have the energy or motivation to try to fix any of it because it all just seems out of reach.
I bet I come off as the biggest conceited jackoff to so many people.
I hate wishing for death.
I'm just... really tired.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Whoops.... Again...
Man, twice in one week-
I'm really sorry guys, I've completely flubbed up on blog authoring. I ought to lose all twenty of my readers.
No, I'll tell you though- I just got done watching American Beauty with the misses- first time in six years?
It's amazing how a movie about narcissistic, greedy, creepy, insane, depraved, out-of-touch, selfish people can still remind you of your personal capacity to change your life for the better. No matter how dull and lifeless things get, it's always within your power to halt the flow and begin to change the course of your river, even if it's been set for so long.
The power of human will and spirit is incredible.
That said, do not:
*insert spoilers about all the terrible things characters do in this movie*
-
Waddles
I'm really sorry guys, I've completely flubbed up on blog authoring. I ought to lose all twenty of my readers.
No, I'll tell you though- I just got done watching American Beauty with the misses- first time in six years?
It's amazing how a movie about narcissistic, greedy, creepy, insane, depraved, out-of-touch, selfish people can still remind you of your personal capacity to change your life for the better. No matter how dull and lifeless things get, it's always within your power to halt the flow and begin to change the course of your river, even if it's been set for so long.
The power of human will and spirit is incredible.
That said, do not:
*insert spoilers about all the terrible things characters do in this movie*
-
Waddles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)