Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Friday, September 12, 2008

Sarah Palin

Democrats hate her. Republicans love her. And then there are the few, the proud, the aspie libertarians... who just can't believe people haven't figured out that both tickets are the same.

Seriously. This is my blog, and I try to be kind and thoughtful, but... it takes everything in me to not yell at people disagreeing about the two tickets from slapping both debaters in the face and disabusing them of their flawed logic. Come to think of it, my "inappropriate response, so I'll just fantasize about it" mental exercises have gotten a larger part of my brain's subroutines as of late. Oh well, hopefully such violent ideations will subside with the election.

Look. I will explain my position.

Joe Biden has thirty plus years of experience in Washington, D.C. Senator Obama has about eleven years of governmental experience. Delaware has seven per cent of the population of Illinois, and is the forty ninth largest state in the Union.

Sarah Palin has about eleven years of governmental experience. Senator McCain has thirty plus years of experience in Washington, D.C. Alaska has five per cent of the population of Illinois, and is the first largest state in the Union.

Look at those paragraphs for a few moments. Let them sink in. Actually exercise your critical thinking skills.

Do you get it? Can you see it? I can't be the only one of all of my daily contacts that can see this, can I? Seriously, is my neurological condition such a skew on my perspective that this is obvious to me and opaque to everyone else?

We have 300 million people, five hundred television channels, billions of web pages, thirty different kinds of potato chips... and two political parties that for all realistic purposes, are the same?

Look, I might be twisted, but so is the American political dynamic.


Kimber said...


It's all bad, but at least it can be funny too.

Joe C said...

What's really funny is Obama's "pig/lipstick" comment. Why?

McCain said it in the primaries!


Who cares either way?

cassdawn said...

the system is a mess because of the people - people are more interested in sound bytes than the facts. not that you can entirely blame us.

for instance - i read andrea's blog about fair animal treatment in california and really how can you possibly argue against that so i went to find out what the arguments were. and yes, they are economic. but they also say that the things prop 2 calls for are already in place - the arguments are specious. so basically in order to make any sort of nonspun decision about this i would have to research what laws there are already banning animal cruelty, how they are enforced, what prop 2 offers that isn't already in place and who and what prop 2 might actual hurt. in the meantime, i can't keep up with my real life job.

so yeah, people look at the candidates for which one they feel more comfortable with and who said something they can either cling to or categorically reject. and while i can empathize THAT is the problem. WE created the monster. politicians are indistinguishable because that's how we like them.

not that the politicians are blameless. mccain's reversal of person is so horrific and the trotting out a woman thing . . . ugh. but ultimately it is all on our shoulders.

and i think you are wrong i think that most people do know that they are more or less the same - they just don't care enough to do anything about it. because the fact is that the status quo isn't that bad in this country. and the best way to keep the citizens from raising their voices is to keep them reasonably fat and happy.

and i figured all that out without being aspie.

and while i would consider myself fairly libertarian in principle and there are a number of their platforms that i not only agree with but they are so obvious that everyone should be recognizing them . . .
still, i can not support their position on the dissolution of the FDA. maybe the FDA needs a revamp but i don't really think i want to have to research every product i buy ad nauseam. imho, it is tax dollars well spent to be certain that there isn't heroin in my soda (cuz that would sure as shit make me buy more of it). nor do i agree with their position on mental health. i do agree that we are overmedicating and overdiagnosing our children but their stance basically discredits hundreds of years of study in the field of psychology and psychiatry. they also want to repeal minimum wage and regulation of daycare centers and i can tell you some horrific shit about daycare centers that ARE regulated. and where they _really_ lose me "We support an end to all subsidies for childbearing built into our present laws, including welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children." REALLY!!!????? so a child is abandoned or abused or just plain orphaned and the answer is "fuck em in their ear" and yes, i am cause-y when it comes to kids but let's think bigger than that - under the libertarian parties human rights stance we would have sat back we would have just watched hitler right until he showed up on our doorstep. (and yes, i know that we had other motivations, i was born at night, not last night) and the rationale for that is that because no country has their hands clean i terms of human rights then no country can say anything to anyone else. while i can recognize the 'he who is without sin' logic - i call shennanigans! - yeah, the US isn't perfect in this area, far from it. OTOH, we have far more transparency then most countries and if we had been able to get charles taylor to treat his people with even half the decency we treat ours, i don't think they would be sitting around going, "pshh, well, sure but they don't do everything right". the libertarians do make a case for protecting human rights though; by allowing all immigration which i am kind of in favor of but if you play this out if we aren't helping other countries suck less and we aren't keeping people out of ours at all - - - well, i'm no math expert per se

whoosh - i think i um, blew my load for the time being.

disclaimer: some of the libertarian positions are based on teh platform established in 2002 however, those items rae either still in place or not addressed by the 2008 adoption. i chose not to use the 2008 adaption because it couldn't have been more generic and generalized if it had been written by a republican . . . or a democrat. guess bob barr is well on his way to becoming borg.

Scooter said...

Cassie, hopefully you will get this. I am a small "l" libertarian. I believe in reducing the size of the government slowly, over generations, so that people are more self-reliant but also more giving of themselves.

The Libertarian Party? For the most part, it is filled with nuts, selfish nuts, that want to slash and burn the bloated federal government in one election cycle, thereby creating chaos and panic not known on this continent since... well... ever.

So, yeah... Bob Barr is crazy. But he's my kind of crazy, and he can't possibly win. Still, if he got five per cent of the vote, more folks would be brought in to the Libertarian Party, and hopefully it would cause the nuts to leave or stay quiet, and for us to finally get our fiscal house in order.

cassdawn said...

yeah, the problem witht he libertarian party is that they are absolutely right that they are the constitutional party but they forget that free enterprise and self reliance was based on the idea that the government would first provide equal opportunity and education and access to information.

and we aren't even CLOSE so yeah, chaos would ensue. and not the "I am an AN - AR - CHIST " kind . . .

i'm in favor of any third party voting just to try to revamp the system. . i'd be happy if we could just reach a place where you didn't have to be a billionaire to run for president - let's start there.

the thing with libertarianism is that if you could actual acheive it - that would be fantastic but same can be said for comunism.

idk at the moment i'm leaning toward socialism as it appears in the likes of switzerland: the state takes care of its peopple and still rewards those who work harder. course it's easier to have that kind of system in a homogenized state . . . sigh

cassdawn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Krissyface said...

I like the idea of a system with a number of different parties representing everyone's ideals and beliefs and values. But changing a system takes a lot of time...

Cass...is that true about the libertarians wanting to disband the FDA? And that stuff about children? Curious where you got the facts, because my boyfriend is a libertarian and I am interested in learning more about the party. But I want to make sure I'm getting accurate info.

Very thought-provoking post, The Scoot...Thanks!

cassdawn said...

hey krissy -

my three sources were


the first two were ammended this year - the only reason that i went to the 2002 as well is because on some issues the 2008 is truly beyond vague (ie while the 2008 platform says end welfare - it avoids the "subsidaries for childbearing" specifics of the 2002. since it doesn't make any mention of a change on that stance i read it that they just realized that language really turned people off.

i, too, thought i was a libertarian - more personal responsibility and freedom - bring it on. follow the constitution more closely? absolutely. but as i said the constitution was based on the idea that society would start with an equal access to education and opportunity.

from the 2008 platform:
"2.8 Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education."

yeah, um, nice thought but if the parents aren't well educated what makes you think they are going to be able to make the best decisions for their children's education. it's like asking me to figure out the best way to build a rocket - even if my funds are unlimited i guarandamtee i'm not gonna know how to spend them. which brings us to part two of this conundrum. children born to parents without money get less education? i mean in a very real sense we already have this scenario but the libertarian way would increase that by mmm, a gazillamillion or so.

a focus on individuality is laudable but the inescapable fact is that we live TOGETHER and we have to find a way to make that work. personally if there is one thing that i am more than happy to pay for someone else's kids it's education because ultimately it benefits me. a more educated population . . . well, you know, "you think education is expensive, try ignorance." fact is we have been getting a larger and larger dose of ignorance lately.

okay, i'm sorry, that is way more than you asked for but at least i was nice enough to give you the sources in the beginning so if you are still reading now well, that's on you :)

mark - sorry i keep ranting on your blog :) :)

jeremy said...

did you say "aspie libertarians," or assy libertarians?