![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ebonlockOk, so I just caught up on good old H. RES. 153 and thought I'd check to see who voted which way. Well it turns out my own representative, Michael Honda voted yea, I intend to drop Mike a quick note today to let him know that this is one registered voter whose vote he's lost in the next election.
Right now Democrats are so busy doing the Patriotic Two-Step (so as to remain Americans in Good Standing) that they're checking their principles at the door. Were we not currently engaged in hostilities with Iraq he and every other liberal in Congress would be screaming bloody murder and howling about the seperation of Church and State. But the entire Democratic Party seems to be practically wetting itself, hell I can smell the fear sweat all the way out here. It's almost enough to make me tear my voter registration card into tiny pieces and scatter them in the closest port-a-potty I can find.
Since when was prayer and fasting considered an American's patriotic duty?
Well I have just one thing to say about it, "Fuck that."
I had this dream last night that I'd like to share now.
We open in the House of Representatives shortly after the votes are tallied on Good Old 153:
Forty-nine ill at ease reps rub their foreheads with exhaustion and wonder where it all went wrong. Three hundred forty six smug Republicans and urine stained Democrats pat one another on the back and we hear snippets of patriotic rhubarb. "Whereas, on March 16, 1776, the Continental Congress, recognizing that the `Liberties of America are imminently endangered' and the need `to acknowledge the overruling Providence of God', called for a day of `Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer'...doesn't it make you feel all tingly inside?"
One of the bitter forty-nine growls, "Well you certainly got the 'humiliation' part right."
"Sour grapes, traitor."
Suddenly a rumbling growl is heard coming ever closer to the chamber. Nervous looks are exchanged, turning quickly to fear and shouts of terror as one of the walls collapses inward. Smoke, debris and dust clog the air as a small tank rumbles to a halt on the scattered remains of brick and wood paneling. The upper hatch opens and an attractive, if somewhat butch young woman climbs out of the top. In one hand she carries a bottle of Guinness, in the other a baseball bat draped lazily over her shoulder. She seems to resemble Lori Petty...
"Oy," she chirps, hopping down with feline grace. Another head pops up in the turret...resembling a rather malformed kangaroo. He grins and waves lazily to several of the representatives. "Which of you wankers voted for 153."
Silence descends, which seems to displease the rather militant young woman. "I said, who voted for that assinine resolution? Come on you fucking pussies, speak up." Suddenly she turns on one quivering man attempting to hide under a desk, "You! I know you, don't you represent those granola-eating, sandal-wearing hippies in the Bay Area?"
He nods rather reluctantly, and she sets her ale down long enough to haul him out into the light. "Got a question for ya. You want to tell me that you think those tree-hugging malcontents who voted you into office approve of this resolution of yours 'designating a day for humility, prayer, and fasting for all people of the United States', you think they want you to legislate things like '...seek[ing] guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings and to learn how we can do better in our everyday activities'?"
"I...uh..."
"You seriously think the liberals that you and your party are supposed to be here representing are gonna' thank you for bending over and taking it up the ass without lube from the whack-jobs that proposed this resolution?"
"Damn right." the bizarre kangaroo drawls, taking a drag off a cigarette.
"I'm just trying to be patriotic! I mean it's goddamn political suicide not to follow the herd right now."
"That may be so, 'specially if you look at politics as a career rather than a duty. But see, man, you promised those folks who voted you into office that you'd be here in Washington supporting their values and principles."
"But..but it's the Republicans' fault, they started all this..."
"No, man, don't even start that shit. I may think they're a bunch of loonies whose main agendas are taking away the rights of any group they disagree with, running this country as a theocracy, and making sure the rich get richer while the rest of us suck it up. But at least they're honest about their intentions. Yeah, they're in bed with the Christian Coalition, and they're fuckin' proud of it. What you see is what you get with them, and I respect that. But you two-faced, sniveling shits who claim to stand for liberal ideals and bend like wet spaghetti the first time someone uses the "t" word...well, if I wasn't so fond of this bat I'd stick it up your ass so you could use it as a backbone."
She releases the terrified rep, picks her ale back up and climbs back into the tank. Lifting one of the munitions up, she adds, "Just so's ya know, the first person who tries to mandate prayer and fasting for me gets one of these up the backside." Both heads disappear down into the bowels of the armored vehicle, and with a tremendous roar, it disappears back out the hole it created.
It really was a lovely dream.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 12:45 pm (UTC)Except that I'm not part of the right. I have a whole different kind of condescension and smug certainty. :)
but I was actually betting my friend that it'd come up because, in some ways, you kinda see me as the typical irrational female liberal.
I won't deny that I think your economic politics are neo-Marxist and your views on international relations are both idealistic and unrealistic. I also won't deny that while I am in agreement with you on many social issues, I think your approach to social justice is both blinkered and shrill: I think you are far more credulous of leftist demagoguery than is warranted or fair; I think you are blind to the many injustices perpetrated in the name of "progressivism" (which is to say that I don't think you have a particularly deep appreciation of the law of unintended consequences); and I think you are prone to explosions of what I consider foaming-at-the-mouth, bleeding-from-the-eyeballs partisanship, which tends to alienate more people than it convinces.
But quite honestly I can say the same about a lot of people in the Bay Area -- a whole bunch of my co-workers, for instance -- a lot of whom I nonetheless consider friends. The genders, ethnicities, religions, and sexualities of those folks are non-issues to me, just as they are with you.
It bothers me that I actually have to say this.
The history of the term has always interested me from a feminist perspective you see, but that's a whole different discussion.
Probably is, yeah. But just so there's no confusion on the point, I speak and write in standard American English, not Andrea Dworkin Politically Incorrect White Patriarchy-ese. :)
no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 02:08 pm (UTC)I don't, apparently. So I can't choose sides until I know what the hell we're talking about. And that's what this sort of thing is all about, right? So, some questions, for the sake of clarification:
a) How does "idealistic" differ from "unrealistic" in the above context?
b) Where I come from, we don't know what "Neo-Marxist" means or how to differentiate it from "Marxist". Could you enlighten me?
c) Does "Standard American English" have rules requiring the most inflammatory of word choices (eg: blinkered, hysterical, shrill, foaming-at-the-mouth), or is that your way of making the language your own?
That's all for now. I'm looking forward to a lively and educational discussion of the language and culture of your great nation!
no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 02:35 pm (UTC)(b) Neo-Marxism is an off-the-cuff word choice, admittedly not particularly meaningful. Essentially: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" economic theory without all the ugly Stalinist baggage.
(c) I was accused of thinking
Re:
Date: 2003-03-28 02:14 pm (UTC)Except that I'm not part of the right. I have a whole different kind of condescension and smug certainty. :)
Of course if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... *G*
I won't deny that I think your economic politics are neo-Marxist and your views on international relations are both idealistic and unrealistic. I also won't deny that while I am in agreement with you on many social issues, I think your approach to social justice is both blinkered and shrill: I think you are far more credulous of leftist demagoguery than is warranted or fair; I think you are blind to the many injustices perpetrated in the name of "progressivism" (which is to say that I don't think you have a particularly deep appreciation of the law of unintended consequences); and I think you are prone to explosions of what I consider foaming-at-the-mouth, bleeding-from-the-eyeballs partisanship, which tends to alienate more people than it convinces.
And I hope you won't be offended that I tend to think you duck behind the term "libertarian" but that your views are actually far more in line with the neo-conservatives. I think you believe that you and those who agree with you have your finger on the pulse of the ONE TRUTH, and that anyone who disagrees with you is either a) misguided, b) stupid, or c) just plain crackers. With each new comment you make it clear that those who don't agree with you are held in contempt and with an almost complete lack of respect or tolerance.
And I think you tend towards brow beating, name-calling, and right wing punditry far more often than rational, respectful exchanges of ideas. As to whether this turns people off from what you have to say I can only speculate.
But quite honestly I can say the same about a lot of people in the Bay Area -- a whole bunch of my co-workers, for instance -- a lot of whom I nonetheless consider friends. The genders, ethnicities, religions, and sexualities of those folks are non-issues to me, just as they are with you.
It bothers me that I actually have to say this.
And I'm very sorry to have felt the need to point it out, but my tolerance for condescension is rather lower these days than it used to be. I think ultimately you and I differ on one fundamental level, the concept that we can disagree with one another while still respecting the intelligence of one another.
I have never for a moment doubted the fierce intellect that you possess, I may think you a bit closed-minded and rigid in your belief system, but I don't doubt your intelligence. I stopped feeling that there was any similar respect coming my way from you long ago, and I'm afraid that using that rather loaded term this morning was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Perhaps I am too naive and idealistic about a variety of subjects, I can easily admit to that. Misinformed? Maybe, but I'm still learning a great deal about politics and law, and it's just possible that my views and positions will change the more I learn. But this is my journey to make, in my own time, and in my own way. If you can't respect my ideas and opinions, then hopefully you can at least respect the journey itself.
I've enjoyed our verbal sparring, and I hope we can engage in it in the future with mutual respect and a certain amount of (at least guarded) admiration.
The history of the term has always interested me from a feminist perspective you see, but that's a whole different discussion.
Probably is, yeah. But just so there's no confusion on the point, I speak and write in standard American English, not Andrea Dworkin Politically Incorrect White Patriarchy-ese. :)
Ah but we were looking at the actual Merriam-Webster definition of the term, not the Feminist Manifesto version, and I do know how you love to discuss semantics, so...
no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 03:29 pm (UTC)I'm not offended; considering I make common cause with the neo-conservatives on the subject of the war, and that's most of what we've gone back and forth about, it's a reasonable assumption for you to be making. About all I can do is tell you that there are plenty of issues on which I part ways with the neo-conservatives, and find myself allies of convenience with the left (sometimes even the moonbat left): on serious First and Fourth Amendment issues I'm right there with the ACLU; and on issues like gay marriage and drug policy I find the conservatives' position absolutely appalling.
I think you believe that you and those who agree with you have your finger on the pulse of the ONE TRUTH, and that anyone who disagrees with you is either a) misguided, b) stupid, or c) just plain crackers. With each new comment you make it clear that those who don't agree with you are held in contempt and with an almost complete lack of respect or tolerance.
I think there are two things going on, here.
On the one hand, asshats like the "We Support Our Troops When They Shoot Their Soldiers" banner-holders have nothing but my contempt. Obviously that group does not include you.
On the other, I think you may be mistaking my contempt for certain arguments and ideas as contempt for my interlocutors. That's my fault, and I'll try to do a better job of dissecting logic without slamming anybody personally.
Re:
Date: 2003-03-28 03:39 pm (UTC)This makes me smile, sometimes I lose touch with the notion that you and I are actually capable of agreeing on anything that even vaguely smacks of politics. *G*
I think there are two things going on, here.
On the one hand, asshats like the "We Support Our Troops When They Shoot Their Soldiers" banner-holders have nothing but my contempt. Obviously that group does not include you.
On the other, I think you may be mistaking my contempt for certain arguments and ideas as contempt for my interlocutors. That's my fault, and I'll try to do a better job of dissecting logic without slamming anybody personally.
And with that statement you remind me just why I respect you so damn much most of the time }:)