My semi-deliberate and nonetheless blatant disregard for grammar is beginning to disgust me. I am going to try and clean up my language. I've been reading more lately and am regaining some oldfound respect for the English language. I had misplaced it somehow. I think I just made up the word oldfound, so whatever maybe not. Anyways, I recommend Walden and Other Writings... I suppose I've only been reading Walden thus far. Its philosophical literature, so my recommendation comes coupled with a "only if your in the mood" sticker on it or a "if you like that type of literature." But seriously, even if you don't, try something NEW! Would it kill you? Why am I manifesting into a 10th grade literature teacher? Anyways, I enjoy Thoreau a lot. I like to let my brain sort of meet the author's and see where I disagree with a philosophical view. Book #2 I recommend is The Picture of Dorian Gray. I'm almost done with it. I'm currently reading both books and once I begin reading either at night I can't really put them down. I don't know, I sort of like reading two books at once sometimes. And you could say I'm wild over Oscar Wilde!! Ooohhh lol I did just think that. NERD!! I had forgotten how soothing reading is for me.
OK I didn't want to start a book club. I really wanted to share some thoughts on my dissatisfaction with the dehumanizing nature of political campaigns. I use 'dehumanizing' not in the pre-genocide sense. I'm not talking about campaigns to dehumanize a population of people. What I'm talking about, to be more specific, is the dehumanized nature of political campaigns in this country. There is no human touch in political campaigning!!! NO! NOt The Bruce Springsteen Human touch lol!! Although maybe there isn't enough of that either. What I'm getting at is that the campaigns are so robotic. The presidential campaign, particularly, is void of any attempt to touch the human spirit. AT ALL!!! I don't mean humanizing the candidates either. Like the "which candidate would you like to have a beer with?" nonsense or perhaps in a wierd way someone was onto something depends on the type of drunk I suppose. I think I mean the aim of the candidate. These so called "leaders" express nothing. There are specific policy debates and issues where there is definitely some legitimate discussion happening, no doubt. Emphasize the word "SOME." But honestly I think it's obvious for most of us humans watching that this is even very limited and to some degree heavily contrived so as to gobble up votes.
Maybe its just me but I can see the candidate actually thinking as they talk. I can see them painfully stake out a well-crafted position on an issue as thoughts of "ok great who did i alienate who did i impress. How many voters did I just gobble?" Of course it's not just me, we all see it. It's the same slogan and mindless drivel that has been repeated for decades really. I blame it on campaign managers. Voters have become some other species and are not human to these people. And so there's no soul in political speech just rhetoric.
Its all geared towards gobbling votes. And yeah, it's obviously important when you are running for president that you get votes. But if I had the Bully Pulpit, I'd be sharing my soul.
I feel that political leaders today don't respect the voting public enough to share their soul. They treat the public like they are dumb. I suppose this is a time-honored tradition. And in turn, their words and their sentiments are hollow and to be honest belittle the speakers of the words. The common theme amongst voters is "these people are all schmucks!" And well, I think this attitude reflects the attitude political leaders have of the people they preach to. The people they so often proclaim to have "faith in" ..."I believe in the American Peop..." No you don't!
I mean am I really impressed with Hillary Clinton when she creates a mythical battle against a lame duck president? You are not ousting Bush!! You aren't going to trick me into believing you're doing it!! He's being removed by term limits. All these ploys to score political points by attacking an administration that has 25 percent job approval ratings is incredibly uninspiring. (Want to note I am actually impressed with Hillary on some level. I think she is a very intelligent woman, much more intelligent than me. And being shrewd is a good trait in politics I know. I am sick of knee-jerk disapprovals of her.. But also her ambiguity on key issues on such as matters like say WAR in Iraq and her former spot on Wal-Mart Board of Directors bothers the shit out of me...all the things she could of done? Wal-Mart?? Guess it was important to meet the right people)AND I like that she gets to wear different colors. ...Are they playing me?
Or Barak Obama? How many times can a man proclaim he wants to elevate the discussion and never do it? Here's a clue...don't say you want to elevate the discussion...Be like NIKE. JUST DO IT!! Go ahead. The floor is all yours. Elevate the discussion already. I mean I like that in 2002 before Iraq ever started that he had the judgment to say it was a dumb war when 75% of the public thought bombing people into freedom was logical. Or when people thought Shock N Awe was wonderful entertainment...like their brains couldn't put together that big explosions means lots of blood.. if you were one of these people than I’m sorry I was really pissed with you...but remember with great love comes dissapointment-MLK... some people understood and still believed it right and ok that's respectable... still completely wrong but not disgusting... anyways I like that he wants to publish online any meeting between lobbyists and lawmakers. But he too has dumbed himself down and is hurling bland rhetoric.
To give a for instance of what I mean, I submit the Gay Marriage "issue.” The troubling thing for me about this issue isn’t that I disagree with a great deal of my fellow citizens, what bothers me is political candidates and how they deal with the issue.
I recently watched a discussion on a Gay and Lesbian Television Station. The discussion was led by Melissa Ethridge and was staged and I do mean STAGED for Democratic Presidential candidates to declare their support for Gay and Lesbian rights. So needless to say a key topic was Homosexual Marriage...The format was such that each candidate was able to take the stage and express themselves without urgent time constraints. It was an intimate setting. I'd characterize it as a more Gay and more meaningful Oprah type of setting.
Candidate after candidate marched proudly onto the stage prepared to give their perfectly crafted position on an issue of direct importance to their audience. They would give their answers and then exit the stage like an awkward job applicant wondering if they struck a chord.
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle dumb...I watched as one after the other danced around the issue... EVERY ONE stated they were for Equality..."just not calling it marriage" I heard some of them state they had no personal objections and didn't believe that marriage rights for homosexuals would in any way change marriage for anyone else or for society...Some proclaimed to be personally for marriage.. but as president would not support or sign any law that gave marriage rights... NONE (except of course Kucinich) of the candidates were willing to say "yes, I would support and sign into law Same sex marriage" WHY? If some of them actually believe it is the right thing to do... than why not say it? BECAUSE THEY treat the public like they are dumb as rocks...We are not humans to them. We are soulless noams. We’re too stupid to be dealt with on a human level.
BACK TO THE ISSUE AT HAND!!! (Raising Finger as if wielding a giant sword)
I happen to believe that if there is a segment of the population that wants to take part and respect one of our society's honored institutions, that as part of the majority it is essential to welcome that desire. I believe it is necessary to welcome it if we still desire to become a more perfect society. Anything less, in my opinion, is less than equality. It would send a powerful message of acceptance of homosexuals as equal members of society to allow full participation in the institution of marriage. I hear the argument that it's a "sacred institution." ALL the more reason to share.
To deny such a right over semantics of "what you call it" is complete bullshit to me. To say that you are going to support something that gives equal rights but not call it marriage and call it civil unions is an admission that there is something inherently wrong about homosexual couples that merits unequal status. Why not call it marriage. Society must seek to become more unified. The goal should be to love and accept one another in a more unconditional manner. Not divide and segregate. We shouldn't maintain social status and protect institutional barriers. Homosexuals exist in our society and they should be able to take part in it fully. Anyways this issue ranks about 13th on important issues to me...which is maybe a sad commentary on how i empathize with those struggling for equality I don't know...BUT it is hugely annoying to me the way candidates deal with the issue.
OK that’s my little opinion.. but polls indicate that the public disagrees. YAY public. Whoa is me we disagree . . . lol... And this is where candidates are not treating people like intelligent adults... People can make a decision on a candidate and not agree with everything the candidate believes. There are a very limited amount of voters who would vote for president on the single issue of Gay Marriage and these people aren't supporters of Civil Unions either so i don't understand the political dancing by Democrats on the issue... Man or Woman the Fuck up and say what you believe...(if I were Melissa Ethridge that's what I would have spewed back in their face)... I mean all these candidates couldn't even say what they believed in front of a crowd that was dying to hear it from them...PATHETIC
I like 2 candidates right now... Dennis Kucinich(democrat) and Ron Paul(republican).
I am scared shitless of one. Rudolph Giuliani. And the fact that he's Italian makes me want to throw up. Every time I hear this guy talk... its like he's Winston Churchill in the middle of World War II... I watched a commentator on tv proclaim that AMericans like a "pinch of Fascism" in their presidents... Oh, do we really?..not me! I submit to You Rudy Giuliani:
"Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."
I'm not sure what history he speaks of... maybe it's ancestral or something but honestly Italians and government makes me think fascism, empire, anarchy....I don't know maybe Giuliani wasn't fed enough as a child. I know his rhetoric can work...which is sort of scary.
Anyways. I think my favorite politician, historically speaking, was Bobby Kennedy. I really think he spoke on a human level. He treated people as intelligent souls. He didn't change how he spoke in front of different audiences. He saw people as human beings and that is why he was able to cut across barriers. He quoted poetry, alluded to ancient philosophers, practiced intellectual honesty, and chose tranquility over agitation. In his political candidate days he was in touch with the humanness of his audience and I really think it showed. I bring him up because I am done with politics. . . it’s no good for me. . . is that selfish?
Perhaps my favorite speech ever is Bobby Kennedy's speech given in South Africa in 1966 on the Day of affirmation. He's talking in front of South African activists. The language and content of the speech does not devalue the intelligence his audience and the speech reflects an elevated frame of thought. It's stunning to see the difference in his thoughts versus Giuliani's "Freedom is submission to Authority." Bobby Kennedy's freedom:
"And even government by the consent of the governed, as in our own Constitution, must be limited in its power to act against its people; so that there may be no interference with the right to worship, or with the security of the home; no arbitrary imposition of pains or penalties by officials high or low; no restrictions on the freedom of men to seek education or work or opportunity of any kind, so that each man may become all he is capable of becoming."
Politics makes me feel like Charlie Brown sometimes. Good GRIEF! So, I'm tuning out until someone tunes in... To the human beings they are talking to.
Stepping down off my soapbox...lol sorry. HEY!!!! LIKE I SAID IF I had the Bully Pulpit I'd share my damn soul. Yikes that was long. I’m going to go finish Dorian Gray. . . I need to be employed...which could happen friday!! I like my little pouch...I don't think i'll be able to afford the internent soon. I gotta pick myself up off the floor and put myself into a bed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment