eggwards: (Default)
"[Pelosi] is committed to her global warming fanaticism to the point where she has said that she's just trying to save the planet. We all know that someone did that over 2,000 years ago, they saved the planet -- we didn't need Nancy Pelosi to do that," - Michele Bachmann, Minnesota Republican Congreswoman.


I'm so fracking tired of idiots with the keys to the car. My dream of the elections of 2008 is that the idiots like this are sent packing. I don't have a lot of hope here, but good god we're running down a path that leads to oblivion.

This isn't a Republican/Democrat thing. This isn't even a religious problem to me. Sure, her quote brings up her religion, which she's more than happy to promote and even more so happy to hide behind. She's using religion not to uplift, or to understand the world, but to hide behind her ignorance, nee, stupidity. She's saying, I don't have a solution to the climate crisis, or any crisis, but I don't have to worry about that, my beliefs are enough to make me right on this issues.

It's more than just a shaking head response I want to give. I want to just scream out loud.

I want the people running this country to be smarter than I am. The problem is they don't run for office. They sit behind the scenes and get into the administration through the back doors, either through lobbying, working for a candidate or being appointed to positions within the administration, but since they are smart, they don't run for office. There's too much work in having to play to Joe and Janet Sixpack, who would rather vote in a buddy than someone they would consider elite or a brainiac.

Our founding fathers seemed to understand that the masses weren't to be trusted totally. They made roadblocks in selecting a representative government, including having the Senate be appointed by state legislatures and of course the electoral college.

Growing up I think we were looking at the last dash of time where the intelligent, the truly smart were seen as heroes. The engineers and scientists that brought us a better life, better understanding, brought a trip to the moon and the most fearsome weapon known. We still feted these people, but since then we've tried to play the Fanfare for the Common Man, and at this point, it seems to our detriment.

I'm tired of seeing people like Al Gore played by the media as a fool. He brings up actual, rational arguments, and we get responses like Bachmann's. Oh, we don't need to do anything. It will all go back to normal. God wouldn't let us mess up the world beyond repair.

I think Gore's arguments get shriller and more doom-filled just because he is trying to be heard above the masses of people who don't understand science and work to put down what they don't understand. We get arguments that we shouldn't teach evolution and should replace it with mysticism. It's taking an evolutionary step back because somewhere along the line...well, let's just say that it seems DEVO was right.

What I don't get from those who would use religion as a way to hide from the world's problems is that the world's religious texts have a great respect for our planet and urge their followers to be good stewards of it. Free will seems to be coupled with a responsibility that is not longer followed. If it really does come down to the earth in the Balance, and we really do reach the tipping point where life on the planet is endangered, are you just going to wait for the Rapture, are are you going to wonder why we didn't do something about it earlier.

I don't get this bit where we just need to keep using fossil fuels, and we don't need to do anything further. To me it's giving up, a failure of a society to change and grow, but yet that's one of the main arguments of this political season.

We've done ourselves a great disservice electing congress people and presidents more on their average joe status "He's like one of us! He likes the Olympics!" than actually being able to deal with a crisis. I need people who are able to work through the problems and actually take action on the difficult issues, not just enjoy their status as lawmakers. We already have celebrities. (Yes, I realize that argument can be damaging to both current presidential candidates, and yes, I realize that both the movies Idiocracy and Wall-E have touched on these themes)

It's funny, we keep saying that we are a nation of common people, and we prize that common man, but what is popular in our entertainment and sports culture? Superhuman people, beautiful people. In some ways we still prize the above average in strength, speed and beauty, but we don't seem to do the same when it comes to intelligence. What's wrong with us?
eggwards: (Default)
I get a few polls emailed to me now and again. One of them always asks the same control questions at the end of the survey. The question asked is: "Do you consider yourself to be mostly a resident of your city or town, America, or the planet Earth?"

The question is asked to be able to discern your outlook, how you frame things. A worldly person would see, and probably obtain news differently from someone who is more city-focused.

I have to say, I don't know exactly how to answer the question. I mean obviously I'm all three, but I can't say for sure what my outlook is best described as. I'd also like to add that I'm a resident of my state. It might not mean much to others, but Texas is it's own little world.

As for getting information, I'm not very city-foucused. I sometimes pick up the Dallas Morning news, especially if a copy has been left out in the cafeteria at work, but I don't make a habit of going online for it, same with the Fort Worth Star Telegram. I still watch the Houston Chronicle more, and could tell you more about the news there than here.

I take a look at the national news, focusing more on the political and entertainment stories, but am I happy to call myself an American? I'm much more likely to introduce myself as a Texan, which, with the current president may not really help. As for being worldly, well, I certainly don't know enough about it to truly be a global citizen.

I guess I'm a citizen of all, but not really subscribing to the viewpoint of any of them.

Of course, the questionnaire goes on to ask if I'm a Wal-Mart shopper, or a NASCAR fan. The answer to both is most assuredly no, so that does put me in another category, I'm sure. They always ask about religion and passports, also to see a little bit more about you.

One other question I see every time is "Are you a member of the investor class?" Again, this would be no. I may work for the industry, but the only investing I do is moving a few funds around in my 401(k). I know, it's another world-view question. If you have the ability to invest, you certainly don't see the world the way someone who'd having a harder time making ends meet would, but I just find the wording of the question rather odd.

Perhaps it is the problem of seeing the word "class" used for this, where you'd like to think that being an investor wouldn't make you different from others. It isn't true, but it seems that being a part of such an "investor class" is getting farther and farther away from the middle class. It seems to infer that you're talking about an upper class only, those who wouldn't shop at Wal-Mart I guess.

Hmm, what am I doing with my money?

Profile

eggwards: (Default)
eggwards

February 2013

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 10th, 2025 02:16 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios