|"Showoff." they tittered to each other.|
First of all, there is the Occupy Movement, which really needs a new moniker - perhaps one that doesn't sound like a Legendary Stool. The Tea Party didn't do much better, hi-jacking a name from history that now sounds more like an obscene colloquialism, whose wiki page I won't be linking to, due to the fact that my parents may read this.
The actual Boston Tea Party, of course, was primarily a protest against taxation without representation. The colonists felt that they should be helping elect the people passing taxes on them, and since they had no seat in Parliament... well, you can go read up on it if you'd like. But that's the gist.
Now, since most of our politicians are being bought in one way or another, and the people (and Corporation People) with the most money get to influence the laws being passed, both by funding election campaigns and by lobbying, then it seems to me that the people being under-represented in this country are the poor and the middle class. And I mean the real middle class, not the middle class that eats out (at a real restaurant) every night and has a three car garage.
Yes, it appears as though a three car garage boosts your status considerably from the two car. It's not as big a jump from a one to a two, but when you get to three, by God, you've finally made it. Unless your three car garage looks like this:
|The slums just aren't what they used to be.|
At any rate, if you have one of the aforementioned nice three car garages, then you are not being under-represented in your governance. You are the governance.
On a new, if titular note, I'm tired of hearing the word "tolerance" as it relates to Religious Tolerance, Racial Tolerance, etc. It just seems presumptuous. Like, the best we can do as Americans is to tolerate each other. I understand the message, and it's better than intolerance, but what about acceptance? Why do we even need the delineation? I am not defined by my color, by my appearance, my religious views, or my politics, or even by all those things put together. I'm talking about nuance. We are all capable of sameness, but we are not the same.
On that note, the other day I was talking to my Dad, who I disagree with politically on some fundamental levels, and I told him that I would love to have him as my speech writer, should I ever decide to run for office. It was too bad, I said, that he and I weren't more on the same page. He replied that I would be surprised to find out how many things we did agree on. So, why can't we focus on the things we have in common? Or claim to have in common, as a Nation?
Abortion. Yep, I'm hitting this topic tonight as well. I'm not going to get into what my views on the subject are, but I am going to address practicality. This is a two-pronged argument, so bear with me.
Prong 1) No one believes that people want to get abortions, or even that they should get abortions, just that the option should be available in case that is what a woman decides she wants. What a horrible spot to be put in. It's a shame we put our fairer sex in the position to have to make that kind of call so often. But I digress.
Prong 2) There are a lot of folks in the anti-abortion camp that also feel as though contraception is wrong. Some believe this because of their religious affiliation. Some think that encouraging the use of contraception is tantamount to endorsing promiscuity. In either case, The birth control pill has to be a better alternative than the "morning after" pill.
I submit to you that people are going to have sex. I could offer evidence to back that up (pun noticed), but I don't think you need any convincing. So, if we all agree that it's going to happen - not that we necessarily want it to, or encourage it, but that it is GOING TO HAPPEN - and we all agree that an unwanted pregnancy is the worst possible outcome, then why can't we agree to supply the proper sexual education and FREE CONTRACEPTION to everyone?
It would be a hell of a lot less expensive than the alternatives, and before you get all prudish on me... you don't have to use it, and you may have your children excluded from the classes, should you be one of those types.
|Is that her "grindin' axe?"|
Back to tolerance. I don't imagine that some people consider themselves the ones that need to be tolerated. These people are often the same ones doing all the Tolerating. I have to tolerate bad drivers, ignorance, idiocy, stinky people, dirty people, stinky-dirty people, rudeness, my neighbors' busted up fence, butt-inskis, busybodies, nosy Nellies, the local evangelicals, the national evangelicals, and work. "So what?" you say. Exactly.
Mind your own damn business. If someone isn't infringing on someone else's rights, leave them the hell alone. Don't you have anything better to do? We're in the middle of a recession and the only laws I hear being proposed that have any legs involve infringing upon some other group of peoples' rights. Like the judge in Cali said, you don't get to vote on that. It's embarrassing.
Here's my problem with the evangelical Jesus Jones Fan Club: Did you really think I may not have heard of Jesus Jones? And if I want my children to know about Jesus Jones, I will tell them about Jesus Jones. How dare you hand my kids literature at a fair, on the playground, or any damned where else. I don't know you, and I have NOT given you my consent to approach my child with your... anything; literature, beliefs, ignorance, arrogance, or otherwise. That's the kind of thing that you don't do. That's the kind of thing that riles a man up.
|You stay away from my kids.|