![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
No, seriously, he totally got it spot-on about Sarah Palin.
Although I don't think believing that dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time has anything to do with Palin having access to the nuclear codes, I do think she will fuck up our science education because of it and I do think her membership in an End Times church makes the fact that she could have her finger on the Big Red Button frightening. The last thing we want is an individual with that much power who believes that this world has nothing to live for and that her belief in the apocalypse is sent from God and something to be desired.
Usually I state that I don't care what someone does on his off time as my rationale for being annoyed at politicians fired for having sex. But the actual criteria is whether or not some personal habit or belief affects his job performance. If it doesn't, then I don't care. A person's religious beliefs have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If someone has this sort of general warm fuzzy "there's something out there and I know it's good" kind of religious beliefs, but also strongly believes in the separation of church and state, I'm not so worried. It's those kinds of religious people who had me supportive so long of my policy of "to each his own".
But what has turned me into the Angry Atheist these last few years is the individuals with the most harmful and destructive religious beliefs wielding those beliefs to dictate how my life should look when I'm not actively harming anyone with my decisions. And a woman who belongs to a church who clearly, explicitly and loudly proclaim that their purpose is to take over the world and run it according to their own fucked-up, wackaloon notions based on an imaginary sky-daddy with a zombie son who seems to care an awful lot about what kind of clothing I wear and how and when I have sex (a biological imperative that this same sky-daddy seems to have built into me), then I care about her religious beliefs.
I especially care when those same bizarre religious beliefs include the thought that the zombie will return once again in her lifetime and that the End of Times is coming. Not only that the end of the world is coming, but that the end of the world is DESIRABLE, that this world has nothing worth saving, nothing worth living for, that the only thing worth anything is what happens after we're all dead.
And THIS is the woman they want to put in the White House, with all the power and ability to start the prophecied apocolypse.
Frankly, her total inexperience at the job means nothing, compared to that. Obama's questionable experience means nothing compared to that. McCain's outright smear campaign means nothing compared to that.
In the past, I refused to vote as a form of protest. I did not like either candidate and could not, in good conscience, give either of them my vote. Plus, in the last election, I believed my vote didn't really count, as the new electronic voting system only broadcast my suspicions that there was a high probability that the elections were rigged.
But this year is too important for me to be wrong. If my belief that my vote doesn't count is actually wrong, then all who do not vote will have fucked up big time. It still rankles to have to give my vote to a candidate that I don't actually want, but voting for anyone other than him is giving one less obstacle to McCain, and consequently, Sarah Palin. If I don't vote for Obama, if I insist on using the presidential elections as a platform to tell the government that I don't like either candidate, then McCain, whom I more than dislike, whom I fear, has one less vote against him to keep him out of office.
I still harbor suspicions that my vote doesn't count, that the elections are rigged, that something bigger than me actually makes the decisions. But being right and voting anyway doesn't change that. Being wrong and not voting could be catastrophic.
Although I don't think believing that dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time has anything to do with Palin having access to the nuclear codes, I do think she will fuck up our science education because of it and I do think her membership in an End Times church makes the fact that she could have her finger on the Big Red Button frightening. The last thing we want is an individual with that much power who believes that this world has nothing to live for and that her belief in the apocalypse is sent from God and something to be desired.
Usually I state that I don't care what someone does on his off time as my rationale for being annoyed at politicians fired for having sex. But the actual criteria is whether or not some personal habit or belief affects his job performance. If it doesn't, then I don't care. A person's religious beliefs have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If someone has this sort of general warm fuzzy "there's something out there and I know it's good" kind of religious beliefs, but also strongly believes in the separation of church and state, I'm not so worried. It's those kinds of religious people who had me supportive so long of my policy of "to each his own".
But what has turned me into the Angry Atheist these last few years is the individuals with the most harmful and destructive religious beliefs wielding those beliefs to dictate how my life should look when I'm not actively harming anyone with my decisions. And a woman who belongs to a church who clearly, explicitly and loudly proclaim that their purpose is to take over the world and run it according to their own fucked-up, wackaloon notions based on an imaginary sky-daddy with a zombie son who seems to care an awful lot about what kind of clothing I wear and how and when I have sex (a biological imperative that this same sky-daddy seems to have built into me), then I care about her religious beliefs.
I especially care when those same bizarre religious beliefs include the thought that the zombie will return once again in her lifetime and that the End of Times is coming. Not only that the end of the world is coming, but that the end of the world is DESIRABLE, that this world has nothing worth saving, nothing worth living for, that the only thing worth anything is what happens after we're all dead.
And THIS is the woman they want to put in the White House, with all the power and ability to start the prophecied apocolypse.
Frankly, her total inexperience at the job means nothing, compared to that. Obama's questionable experience means nothing compared to that. McCain's outright smear campaign means nothing compared to that.
In the past, I refused to vote as a form of protest. I did not like either candidate and could not, in good conscience, give either of them my vote. Plus, in the last election, I believed my vote didn't really count, as the new electronic voting system only broadcast my suspicions that there was a high probability that the elections were rigged.
But this year is too important for me to be wrong. If my belief that my vote doesn't count is actually wrong, then all who do not vote will have fucked up big time. It still rankles to have to give my vote to a candidate that I don't actually want, but voting for anyone other than him is giving one less obstacle to McCain, and consequently, Sarah Palin. If I don't vote for Obama, if I insist on using the presidential elections as a platform to tell the government that I don't like either candidate, then McCain, whom I more than dislike, whom I fear, has one less vote against him to keep him out of office.
I still harbor suspicions that my vote doesn't count, that the elections are rigged, that something bigger than me actually makes the decisions. But being right and voting anyway doesn't change that. Being wrong and not voting could be catastrophic.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 10/2/08 06:56 pm (UTC)From:I am enthusiastic about Barack Obama. He's not a "lesser evil" this time; he is genuinely a good candidate. Certainly he has taken positions that I disagree with (FISA, anyone?), but overall I am very pleased with him. He's very smart, and he clearly puts a lot of thought into things. Not only that, he *listens* to other people and pays attention. Also, he taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago for ten years, so he has a pretty good handle on the Constitution. I think that's incredibly important for a President.
I traveled to Nevada a couple of weeks ago to knock on doors and ask people to vote for Obama. I'm going to do it at least one more time before the election. I strongly believe that we cannot afford a McCain presidency, and not only that - I strongly believe that Barack Obama will make an excellent president. This time I'm not just voting against my fears - I am voting for a candidate I like and trust. I have to admit that it feels strange; I'm accustomed to just feeling lukewarm about the Democratic candidates, not hopeful, and certainly not enthusiastic.
By the way, it is looking very, very likely that Obama will win. Check out fivethirtyeight.com for electoral vote updates and simulations. It's run by a sports statistics guy, and from all accounts, his math is very solid, and better than the other electoral predictors out there.
Obama '08!!
no subject
Date: 10/2/08 09:53 pm (UTC)From:I'm taking a more conservative approach to announcing my alignment with Obama mainly because of a couple of disagreements I've gotten into lately - one at work and one on a local poly forum. Some people are outright against Obama, even while they are equally (if not more so) against McCain. They point out that Obama's campaign is not completely free of lies or deception, and whatever policies they happen to disagree with in his past (FISA, for example).
So, that's fine if someone disagrees with Obama. But McCain is far, far worse. These people that I've been arguing with are just dead set on either boycotting the election or voting for a third party candidate because that third party candidate actually represents their own views.
I want to drive home the point that it doesn't matter if someone else is more representative, the fact is that either McCain or Obama will win, not some third party, whether we like it or not. And a vote for the third party candidate is one less opposing vote for McCain, who is far scarier than Obama even with all his perceived flaws.
I know I won't convince the True Believers, but I hope to shed some light onto those who have only heard the True Believers before and have not realized the consequences of using the presidential elections as a form of protest.
no subject
Date: 10/2/08 07:07 pm (UTC)From:I agree with you, by the way.
no subject
Date: 10/2/08 08:33 pm (UTC)From:I think the best description I heard was someone saying that Palin is like the current President Bush - they're not stupid; they're incurious. They just never ask about anything beyond their little bubbles. They don't bother to learn about anything they don't directly need to know.
I think that might be right.
But regardless of exactly why Palin (and Bush) act so incredibly imbecilic, they clearly cannot be good presidents, and that's really the point.
Palin came out against "the morning after pill". She stated it should be a state issue, not a federal one. But she doesn't approve of the morning after pill. Since she didn't distinguish between ru-486 and plan b, I suspect she does not distinguish. Plan B cannot cause abortions. Plan B is a form of birth control only. Anyone who is against plan B makes me afraid they'll go after birth control pills next, since plan B has more in common with birth control pills than it does with any other method of birth prevention.
*sighs*
She also thinks my sexuality is a choice... And yet I still can't bring myself to be bi. Maybe someday...
no subject
Date: 10/2/08 09:57 pm (UTC)From:I tend to agree with him. Although I've had sexual experiences with women before, they're just not what I'm wired to enjoy. I get an emotional boost from a loving group encounter, but physically, I'm just not into women, and I think that's sad.
I wish sexuality *was* a choice. But, even if it was, people should still be allowed to make that choice.
no subject
Date: 10/2/08 10:12 pm (UTC)From:I think there is a certain degree of flexibility in most people's sexuality, but I think it varies from person to person how much there is. And I seem to be less bi than many, since apparently many women do have fantasies or attraction about women or to some women, and I just haven't.
I have long held the position that whether it is purely natural or there is some element of cultural element is an interesting scientific question, but totally irrelevant to the ethics of it.
no subject
Date: 10/2/08 11:54 pm (UTC)From:In other words, I can be heterosexual while still engaging in the occasional bisexual activity because of the very specific circumstances surrounding that activity. For me, group sex involving my male partner(s) and female metamour(s) provides a certain emotional connection to me that I seem to need in the context of my emotional relationships. But it's only certain female metamours that meet whatever criteria it is I seem to have, so it's a very narrow range of situations that engage my "fluidity", which does not change my overal orientation of heterosexual.
And yeah, ethics aside, it is an interesting scientific question that I'd like answered eventually, but I'm pretty sure the answer will include a mix of "nature" vs. "nurture", although I'm also pretty sure it will be more heavily weighted on nature.