Words on party loyalty

Thoughtless and uncritical nationalism, especially that practiced by the modern Republican Party, is one of the stupidest ideas I can think of, but party loyalty is certainly up there too. Just as you shouldn't invest much loyalty into your leader, who can turn on you or abuse his or her powers much too easily, neither should you invest much loyalty into a political party. You should stay true to your values, not the party that happens to share those values for the time being.

Political parties are like shoes and loaves of bread, in that while one may be much better suited for hammering a nail, you shouldn't rely on it so much that you forget to dream of one day buying a hammer instead.

It may be argued that party loyalty ensures that a party is successful, and in a way that's true. But political parties, almost invariably, are flawed tools for accomplishing what is right, just as a shoe is a flawed tool for hammering a nail. There's nothing entirely wrong with using a shoe if you don't have a hammer, and neither is it entirely wrong that rational people use the Democratic Party to get the government to do what is right. But while you're at it, don't stay loyal to your shoe: Aspire for a hammer!

I am a registered Democrat because the Democratic Party is the people's shoe and the Republican Party is the people's loaf of bread (a moldy one these days). But the Democratic Party is a shoe, not a hammer. I'm not afraid of breaking away from my fellow Democrats if the party is no longer a good option. If this conservative, Southern, pro-slavery party easily turned into a pro-peace, pro-rights party, it can just as easily turn sour again, just as the anti-slavery party did.

I say all of this in response to this article published on the site for the Wichita Eagle.

The [Kansas] state Republican Party is forming a loyalty committee so that it can punish officers who endorse or contribute to Democrats.

So the party that confuses the executive branch of the government with the very country itself now demands loyalty from its public officials? I wonder how Republicans would react if the Democratic Party pulled this kind of shit.

"Dissension" of the Republican Party "has allowed Democrats to peel away disaffected moderates", so the Kansas Republican Party is "attempting to strengthen the party's state organization and the loyalty committee is a way to promote unity". But I think — hope — it will accomplish just the opposite.

Bob Beatty, a Washburn University political scientist, suggested the loyalty committee could prove a "public relations disaster."

"Ironically, it smacks most of the Communist Party," Beatty said Monday. "That's the kind of public irony that most parties try to avoid -- the party of freedom telling people they have no freedom."

A comparison between the Republican Party and the communist parties of the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and other countries, is surprisingly apt. Isn't it commonly thought that communists, just like war-mongering Republicans, demand loyalty to the nation's leader? Isn't it true that communist parties demand loyalty, just like the the Kansas Republican Party seems to want of its government officials? Would the Democratic Party not be criticized as a bunch of communists if it were to do this too?

Kobach said state GOP organizations in at least 15 other states have some method for stripping party leaders of their offices for disloyalty. For example, in Arkansas the state committee appoints three-member committees to investigate complaints if someone fails to perform party duties or is "working against the interests" of the GOP.

So other state Republican Parties are doing the same thing. And I wouldn't be too surprised if Democrats are doing it too. But let's not all jump off the bridge.

But the concept of a loyalty committee still makes some Republicans nervous, even if they agree party officers should not endorse or contribute to Democrats.

"It gives me pause for thought anytime someone requires a loyalty oath of anyone from any organization," said Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh. "I'm somewhat uncomfortable with a group sitting in judgment of other members."

I'd like to see more people like Thornburgh. I would love it if Republicans regained their conscience.

Andy Wollen, president of the Kansas Traditional Republican Majority, a moderate group, mused about the GOP creating a "grand high inquisitor."

"When you hear the term loyalty committee, what runs through your mind?" he said. "Joseph McCarthy. George Orwell."

Josef Stalin and the Communist Party of China too, I'm sure.

This is all for now. Expect an in-depth blog entry about how Republicans are like communists in the future.

— Athelwulf

I am me.

Inspired by a fellow blogger and their article, I decided to write one of my own, and propmtly began writing the following, enjoy.

***

I am me, what party I am matters little because I feel that all parties in-the-end are corrupt and power hungry, pointless; the only reason I am registered with a party is so that I can vote.

I am of no religion, but I do believe in a supreme being.

I don’t believe that we should be the world police as I believe that we should we should take care of ourselves (U.S.) first. The world police gig has only hurt us globally, more so than it has helped.

I believe that true tolerance is a rarity, and what is often called tolerance is merely convenient ignorance. When faced with a chance to show tolerance, most fail.

I believe in:

“Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither.” ~Ben Franklin


I believe that the people know best. The government is just an extension, albeit a corrupted and seemingly chaotic one. It should be a government by the people, for the people, not lobbyists or special interest. It’s time we take our government back.

I believe the government owes its people a safety net, welfare, to help them in times of crises. I believe it should be used as an aid, and benchmarks established to get the individual(s) back on their feet so as they do not require the aid.

I believe in hard work and that opportunity should be grasped, but not at the expense of others or nature. I advocate moral corporate practices that emphasize growth, but not greed and corruption.

I support our troops, and am proud of those in my family who have served; I pray that ALL troops come home safely. I believe in treating them better, and giving them what they need to assimilate back into non-combat/civilian life. We owe it to them.

I believe that peace is the answer; I choose peace over war, and I do not agree with the war in Iraq; we have only made things worse for the most part. However, I do admit that there have been good things, and that there has been success, but the level of success is not equal or surpassing (in my opinion) the level of disarray.

I believe that terror, in any form, by any entity (government sanctioned/carried out, independent group, or such.), is wrong. However, realistically, the war on terror will never end. Terrorism is like the Hydra of mythology, when you cut off one head, another head replaces it; as long as there are multiple ideologies, and as long as hate is an existing/sufferable emotion, terror will exist.

I believe that we should grant amnesty for all illegal immigrants in the US. It is unrealistic to deport all of them. We should close our borders until such time as we are able to successfully handle its security, etc… Our immigration laws should be tough. My ancestors came to the US legally, so can they, and so should they.

I believe in a right for a woman (and man) to choose; I’m pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I believe that the father should have say as well, unless it is in the case of rape, incest, or if the mothers health is in jeopardy; above all, I advocate alternatives such as adoption, condoms, abstinence, etc…

I believe that schools should be given a minimum amount of funding; just enough to run smoothly. An increase in funding should only be given if the schools meet satisfactory goals. Student achievement should be factored into whether they get funding or not.

I believe that law abiding citizens have the right to own a weapon/gun. However, as the law goes, if they commit a serious crime, they forfeit the right. I believe that better education and training is the key.

I believe in the funding of research into artificial stem cells, but not funding of the research with normal stem cells.

I believe in the equality for every individual including gays, lesbians, and transgender people. Marriage is a right,

I believe in being eco-friendly, and eco-smart; growth, progress, and advancement with keeping in mind our influence on the environment/the future; being mindful of the consequences of our actions.

I believe we owe it to our older generations to help them with retirement, especially those who have little or no retirement. Lest they end up like my mother who had saved up, but then lost everything to corruption.

I believe that the death penalty is wrong, and that it should be abolished. The notion of taking a life for having taken a life is wrong; we lower ourselves to the criminals standard, barbaric individuals. I believe in:

“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”

I believe that torture is a form of terrorism, and is wrong. I do not believe that the US government has condoned it, but I do believe that they should make it a hell of a lot harder for certain individuals to torture.

I believe in health care for all, or at least a better system than what we have available.

I believe that politics has lost its way; that our forefathers roll in their graves as I write this. I believe in questioning our government, in being critical of it, even if that means being against the masses. I believe in the question:

How/What will those in the future, our descendants, think of us? Great leaders, thinkers, motivators? The hurtling train of progress for our nation, for humanity?

I believe that the majority of us will be viewed as lumps; repetitive, politically-naïve, and who elect leaders who show themselves as one-trick ponies; and expect a difference.

We let ourselves be blinded by ideologies, hatred, and a myriad of other things; we are nothing more than pawns in a game. As a line in the movie Man of the Year states: “Madam…its been a mockery long before I got here.”

I believe in a government by the people, and for the people - not lobbyists or special interest groups.

I believe in competence over cronyism.

I believe in a direct-vote democracy.

I believe in what I believe in, and though I may not agree with our current president, I respect him, and even admire some of his qualities.

I love America,
I love my state,
I love my town,
I love my family and friends,
I would hate to see our country go to hell.

Act up, think; do something constructive, and save ourselves from ourselves.

Clarifying the abortion debate

I recently talked to a guy who goes to my college. He was talking about the "pro-abortion crowd". I explained to him the difference between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion", but I'm not sure I got through to him.

To be pro-choice is to believe that pregnant women should be allowed to choose to abort a pregnancy without penalty if she so wishes. "Pro-abortion", a relatively common term among conservatives and other folk who are against abortion, as well as among pro-choicers who don't know better, does not mean the same thing. The term implies the belief not only that abortion should be legal, but also that it's a good thing and women should choose abortion. I don't know of one person who believes such a thing. Quite the contrary, most pro-choice people I know don't even like abortion; remember Bill Clinton's advice that abortions ought to be legal, safe, and rare.

The term "pro-abortion" is either a sly trick from the anti-abortion crowd who wishes to cloud up the debate over abortion to their advantage, or simply a result of the cloudy thinking of neoconservatives in general. I couldn't tell you which. Either way, it doesn't take into account what pro-choicers truly believe, and anyone who wishes to talk about the issue in a clear, truthful, and sensible manner should refer to the pro-choice side of the issue by its proper term.

Notice that I used the term "anti-abortion" in the last paragraph. Many people who are against abortion label themselves as "pro-life", and others accept the language. This is also either a sly trick or a result of cloudy thinking.

People who call themselves "pro-life" usually aren't. Most in the "pro-life" crowd are also in favor of capital punishment, tend to hold beliefs antithetical to social and economic justice, are against quality pre- and post-natal health care in principle, and approve of the occupation of Iraq which is killing both Iraqis and Americans every day. You cannot be pro-life when you approve of things which result in poor health, injustice, despair, and death. The proper term for these people is "anti-abortion", not "pro-life".

There are a few people who can properly call themselves pro-life, however. These people believe in the consistent life ethic. They are against abortion for most of the same reasons anti-abortion people are, and they are against euthanasia. They also happen to be against capital punishment and any warfare which results in death (and nowadays, when doesn't it result in death?). They think of life as a seamless garment. I might argue with them on a few things, but I really respect sane and consistent ethics such as theirs. People who are pro-life deserve a lot more respect than the anti-abortion crowd, for sure.

I guess to that guy at my college, I was arguing that there's a difference between the belief that people should be allowed to choose to kill without penalty and the belief that people ought to kill. Honestly, there is a difference, but certainly not one that redeems the former belief, and indeed, I would agree that the difference seems quite frivolous from this angle. However, it's an important distinction for the anti-abortion and pro-life crowds to keep in mind in the abortion debate, the debate of whether or not talk of murder is even appropriate to begin with.

Because he was being told a distinction that was frivolous to him was actually very important, he probably assumed I was telling him that the difference is redemptive. Of course, it's not. He probably also assumed that to acknowledge the difference meant he would agree that abortion is not murder. It doesn't mean that at all. Although the difference between the hypothetical right to choose to kill and the hypothetical assertion that killing ought to be done seems horribly frivolous, there is a difference — and you don't have to give up the belief that abortion is murder in order to accept that.

— Athelwulf

Did you know?

Did you know, that from 1908 to 1931, there was a girl who, many said, "laughed with her eyes."

An excerpt from a local newspaper states:

"According to a police communiqué, a twenty-three-year-old student fired a pistol aimed at her heart in a room of her apartment in the Bogenhausen district. The unfortunate young woman, Angela Raubel….lived on the same floor of an apartment house on Princzregentenplatz, with her uncle. Friday afternoon the owners of the apartment heard a cry, but it did not occur to them that it came from their tenant’s room. When there was no sign of life from this room in the course of the evening, the door was forced open. Angela Raubel was found lying face down on the floor, dead. Near her on the sofa was a small caliber Walter pistol. The motives for this action are not yet clear.” ~ Munchner Neueste Nachrichten (1931)

Her uncle loved her dearly, and undeniably. He sheletered her, albeit almost despot like, and made sure she had everything she needed or wanted - because he loved her.

Accounts of the uncle after the death of his half niece have said that it (her death) affected him so much, he often talked about committing suicide. He secluded himself totally, moved from the apartment, and was extremely close to quitting his career in politics, and ending what he called, "his mission."

This single event, catapulted the uncled into, many thought, a new direction. Over time, he grew distant and cold. Eventually her rose higher and higher in the party he belonged to, ultimately being the supreme leader of it, changing history, and millions of lives.

You know who the uncle was?

It was none other, than Adolf Heidler, also known as Adolf Hitler.

Mr. President

House Resolution 2207, it’s purpose was: “[to make) …supplemental appropriations for agricultural and other emergency assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.” Source

Essentially, it would provide financial assistance to agricultural and other areas that need emergency assistance (financially), including education/libraries.

Fifteen (rural) Oregon counties have relied on federal funding to compensate them for the last six years because of the lack of income in taxes (think: rural); Firefighting, j$ails, schools, libraries will all be, or have already, closed unless something changes soon.

These counties are rural, with vast amounts of forest and lack enough money from property taxes to pay for local services. They used to get their funding from the sales of timber on federal lands, then that nearly stopped because of environmental concern, not human concern.

The president, when he vetoed it, stated: “…the funding is not offset and does not meet any reasonable definition of emergency.”

It doesn’t meet any definition of emergency?

Pardon my language, but WTF!?

Let me state this again: Schools, Jails, Libraries, etc…Closing. Not an emergency?

I admit, there is blame to be placed on the counties for possible/probable fiscal mismanagement, but, that does not mean that the government should leave these counties high and dry.

Mr. President, you are an idiot.