joreth | Another Florida Asshat Senator

From Senator Marco Rubio Do_Not_Reply@rubio.senate.gov
to Mrs. D.
date Thu, May 5, 2011 at 6:09 PM
subject Responding to your message
mailed-by rubio.senate.gov
signed-by senate.gov
Dear Mrs. D,

Thank you for taking the time to write to me about federal funding for Planned Parenthood. I understand this is an important issue and I appreciate hearing your thoughts.

Floridians are concerned about the severity of our country's unsustainable $14 trillion debt, and as your elected representative, I have made a commitment to reduce government spending. With a projected deficit of $1.65 trillion for this year alone, every piece of the federal budget needs to be a part of the conversation of how to cut spending and lower the national deficit. We must withdraw our spending commitments to Planned Parenthood, as well as other organizations, in order to develop a long-term budget solution that will seriously address the economic problems facing Florida and our nation.

Again, thank you for contacting me about this matter. I look forward to any views or input you wish to share in the future

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

That's so shortsighted and disingenuous that it makes me ill. It's total bullshit, and he knows it. There's a concerted attack on women's rights going on all over, and the deficit has fuckall to do with it.

Also, I was inspired by your posts to write a thank-you to my rep, Anna Eshoo, who consistently votes in favor of protecting and upholding women's rights. I figure they need encouragement when they do the right thing.

That's a great idea! Our congress people need to be regularly reminded that they are public servants, and when they do good things, they should be told, awarded, and appreciated for doing a good job serving the public, just as when they do a bad job, they should be told, penalized, and prevented from "serving" us in the future.

I'm trying to find out how to notify Planned Parenthood about our experiences with specific congress people so that they can use their reach and experience to do something with these revelations.

I think that Planned Parenthood was the one that notified me to send the email in the first place.

still an asshat, but marginally less than the other one who was so disingenous to conflate it with the anti abortion issue

I'm not so sure it's less disingenous, I think it's moreso. With the last guy, I think he was being more honest. He was opposed to Planned Parenthood because he believes a fetus has more rights than women and wants to punish PP for disagreeing. This guy also believes the same thing, but is hiding behind economic conservative rhetoric.

If you look at the actual numbers, cutting funding for PP doesn't even make a dent in the deficit because so little is actually given to PP and the deficit is so huge. There are quite a few other programs that could be cut that would make a much bigger impact, like allowing that tax break for the rich to expire which doesn't even require any positive action on anyone's part.

I think this guy is not just an asshat for opposing women's health resources, but he's also a cowardly lying bastard for hiding his reasons behind the economy, which has nothing at all to do with the problem. It's misdirection, and it's an assumption that the recipient of his email isn't smart enough to see it for what it is - smoke and mirrors.

your idealism never ceases to amaze me, joreth. To think, as brilliant as you are, you believe writing letters to senators is going to affect anything.

It is my sad, cynical opinion that anarchic sabotage is the only way to effect change unless you're a millionaire, celebrity, or your life is devoted to moving up the political ladder.

All the optimism I used to have is now compressed into my dream of a future where all human governments are conquered and assimilated by a benevolent AI overlord.

That still leaves room for vitriol for the spewing asshats such as Senator Rubio, and worse (imo) the fuckfaces who protest in FRONT of places like planned parenthood. But no hope that spitting will do any good.

Actually, it wasn't a letter, it was a flood of letters, sponsored by Planned Parenthood. A single letter doesn't usually make a difference. Flooding an office with letters from constituents can and does have an effect on people who rely on pleasing those constituents in order to remain in the cushy, powerful office they've become accustomed to.

Having actually witnessed politicians change their stance in the face of public disapproval, I'm quite insulted at your first two statements. As long as people like you don't believe you can effect change, you make my job that much harder.

I didn't mean to insult you, and I'm sorry you feel that way by me. I didn't understand that you were contributing to a flood. That surely changes the impact you have.

I do believe that I can effect change. I just don't have faith in republican democracy. My opinion of the masses is too low. Every day we are inundated by incredibly successful marketing strategies that manipulate people via their base inclinations. Thus I know that vast groups can be directed, even focused. But honestly? That's the sad part. The average person isn't politically or philosophically minded enough to contribute fairly. Most people can't even manage the ethics necessary to live well as an individual.

I didn't mean to come off as snotty, just crochety. I truly hope you succeed. I honor your direction and energy, though I do not share it.

I think it's unfair to say "people like me" make your job hard. It's true I don't add my strength to your pursuit, but I am not weakening it. The blame for that belongs squarely with your opposition, the conservative dipshits who fight to uphold the awful legislation that you are attempting to correct. I agree with you about the issues, yo. I just can't fight on your scale. I do what fighting I do face to face.

Actually, inaction really does weaken pursuits like these. Perhaps not on the same scale as the actual opposition, but the more people out there who don't believe they can make a difference, who publicly voice that opinion, and who, whether intentionally or not, discourage others from trying, erode at the very change I am trying to effect.

It is not possible for any one person to take on every cause that comes along. But it is possible not to discourage others by being the voice of doom just because you haven't also chosen to take up the mantle.

Politicians rely on the voting public for their position of authority and power. Our system has repeatedly swung the pendulum to one side or another over issues or candidates - that's how we ended up with Obama, because even those who aren't fans of his thought the opposition was just that much worse. And those masses that are responsible for swinging that pendulum, as you pointed out, are often swayed by successful marketing strategies. These causes that I post about have the potential to market successfully - maybe not on this specific round of voting, but over time.

In spite of the setbacks, progress has marched forward when you take the long-view of history, and each step of that march started with a single voice rallying the troops.

We may not win any given battle. But at least I can say that I fought for my principles and history suggests that my chosen battle strategy is not a lost cause. And history has also suggested that we are, indeed, winning the war.

That is inspiring, and I hope you are correct in your assessment of sociological progress. It does make sense, considering that many everyday practices in the distant past would be consider atrocity today.

As for the destructive nature of voicing my stance: I don't believe I have greater than negligible power to change anyone's opinion. I believe I can give someone an opinion if they don't have one already, but changing one already in place is nigh impossible.

Opinions only change when an intelligent person is presented evidence that the foundations on which their opinion sits are false, or when a stupid person is overpowered mentally or emotionally and coerced to different ones. I'm unwilling to do the latter and the former would not really be a result I caused. Worse, most opinions that matter at all, even of very intelligent people, have utterly un-disproveable foundations.

If there is any effect to be had by me unto the sphere of ideological conflict, I should hope that it is my beliefs about what is RIGHT, rather than my explanations for why I act how I do, that would make an impact. I don't think I'm discouraging anyone from acting on their ideals. And if I am, because someone is idolizing me for simply making sense in being a cynical fuck, that person will most likely be overpowered mentally or emotionally at a later date. I wouldn't wish for activists to be NOT such; I would never tell someone not to fight for what they believe, even if I fight their beliefs myself.

My stance is just a matter of me accepting a smaller place in the world than you have. And I would be pleased if you would respect my choice to not fight the way you do, rather than consider my voice antagonistic to your goals. But if not, I certainly forgive you your passion.

I hope that people like you become ever more common. And at least by knowing some of them, I can make some direct positive influence, the kind I feel validated in making, by offering them support, encouragement and praise. All of which, you are very deserving of.

I have already stated that it is not your choice of inaction that I was opposed to, it was your public cynicism that *my* choice was ineffectual.

Opinions change under many more circumstances than those 2 options, especially when one's opinion is neutral or on the fence. In fact, very few people are actually swayed by the presentation of evidence, if the recent sociological studies are true - mostly opinions seem to be changed when someone the listener can identify with, states his opinion, regardless of the evidence. The listener, because he empathizes with the speaker, changes his mind based on that alone. And that seems to be across all IQ levels. All people seem to make their choices based on emotion & then justify it rationally later (sometimes only nanoseconds later, but still later, as the fMRI studies suggest).

In the case of whether or not one should write a letter, the neutral or on the fence position is usually more common than the passionate for or against opinions. An assertive tone of "you can't make a change" coupled with misinformation about how societal change is made or not made does, indeed, affect those listening.

The post you made did not offer support, encouragement, or praise. It offered discouragement and cynicism. And it is *that* to which I object because it directly undermines my efforts.

I realized my mistake and then attempted to offer the encouragement I should have originally. I was being selfish in only describing my ways and reasons for them, especially since you view the description as damaging your cause. I still disagree that the damage I could possibly have caused was significant, both on your journal and also in expressing a cynical view anywhere, but I apologize for the possibility that I am wrong in that. I will consider what you've said about changing opinions. My theory was born from many years of attempting to change opinions and feeling incredibly incapable of it. But your rebuttal makes sense intellectually. And is reinforced by having described the very process I am undergoing as I type myself! Whoa. Meta.

Thank you for considering my arguments. As my rants should indicate, frustration and feeling like I haven't changed an opinion or haven't made a difference is quite common in any form of activism. Usually change can only be seen in the long view. And, as the skeptic activists keep reminding us, we very rarely change a person's mind, who is adamant in his position, at the time of the argument. But that argument sows the seeds, and many people change their mind later, sometimes even years later, as the efforts to change their mind pile up.

Like writing letters, it often takes many voices and many tactics before a strong opinion can be changed. Each voice and each tactic is important because without them, that's one fewer voice to weigh, and you never know which one will be the one to tip the scales.

My individual letter, and my individual arguments might not be the ones to do it. But without my voice, those who are contributing have one less voice to add to theirs and the collective weight is less because my voice is not there.

But then again, my voice *might* be the one to do it, just maybe not right in front of my eyes. I actually do have letters from those who changed years later. And I, in fact, am one of those people who has changed her mind sometime after the first arguments to attempt to do so.

"Thou shalt not be a victim. Thou shalt not be a perpetrator. Above all, thou shalt not be a bystander". -Holocaust Museum

That's quite glib, but the holocaust museum can kindly stop telling me what I shalt be. I'm quite comfortable being a bystander most of the time.

And that is exactly the problem. That is how atrocities occur - not because the entire world approved of Hitler, but because enough people were quite comfortable being bystanders.

I can't accept that. I won't, anyway. I won't take blame for not stopping something, anything, that should be stopped by those who perform an act. As much as I distrust the ability of the average joe to make an intelligent choice, I still fiercely, as fiercely as I believe anything, place the responsibility of his actions on him. Milgram be damned.

I'll remember that if I ever see someone assault you when I could have helped, but chose not to because it's not my "responsibility" to stop it.

I was trying to be constructive. Your antagonism was unnecessary.

Out of curiosity, do you have or plan to have children? I mean, I haven't talked to you in person and I don't know if this magnificent ability to rain calm down on an argument translates in the realm of facial expressions and voice tones. It's very impressive online. I bet it would be a wonderful dad quality. Seriously.

Also, sorry. I admit I was feeling a little defensive.

and also, c'mon, that quote is totally holier-than-thou, in as pure as way as it's possible to be. It even uses the word "thou"!

Seriously dude, not winning any points with me in this thread.

I know, it hurts me, because there's no one in the world whom I intellectually respect more than you and datan0de, and that fact draws me to speak my mind like a lightning rod, even if I'm afraid of the lightning.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but the part of me that wants to grow, does revel in the conflict of ideas.

There's the conflict that arises naturally from a free marketplace of ideas, and then there's antagonism and cynicism for their own sakes.

Right now, your posts don't sound so much like competing theories for social movements, they sound like a person who has a total lack of empathy, of any personal responsibility towards his fellow man, and a complete short-sighted view of society in general.

I appreciate a willingness to speak one's mind and to not be cowed into silence by the opposition. I just happen to find your lack of compassion and personal responsibility appalling.

God DAMN! When fucking Joreth finds your lack of compassion appalling, you're doing some shit seriously wrong! :-D

And with that I'm off to bed.

I have plenty of compassion.

In fact, I have 4 GB of compassion!

well I didn't consider it a competing theory, just a different one, as I didn't and wouldn't expect to make any impact with it. More, it seems, I was laying out my ideas to be carved into little pieces. Which you're doing a fine job of.

I don't lack compassion, and the very thing that made you think I lack compassion is my overwhelming sense of personal responsibility. Where we are deviating here is who you think we should be responsible TO. You believe society, and I believe the self and those one interacts with.

If I see someone being attacked on the street, you can be sure as shit I would jump in to help, even given overwhelming odds against winning, if the joining would likely reduce the total amount of injustice perpetrated. And I would also work to correct the injustice if I have the ability by seeking out the offenders and harming them to balance.

My compassion is focused tighter to my own life than yours is. I don't think that's too horrible. But I understand why you might be appalled anyway. It is regretful, and I am willing to listen to the advantages to having a greater swath of concern.

I mean, damn, a total lack of empathy? Who's being antagonistic? I wasn't ever even being antagonistic! The closest I was was DEFENSIVE. I didn't come to shoot down your ideas. I'm not looking to cause trouble. I've even apologized for the possibility that it seemed that way to someone. I have submitted opinions that you disagree with in perhaps an imperfectly polite manner because I am imperfectly polite. But everything I've said has been done so with deep respect for you, and similar respect towards your views, without any intention of invalidating them, and more than that, willingness to consider them as more valid than my own. I fear you may be letting your momentum against my ideas verge into melodrama regarding my character. Be appalled by me if you want, but it would be nice if you were appalled by the things I've said instead of a ridiculous extrapolation.

Total lack of empathy. Fuck, man. Harsh.

The reason I fear you is because you are fantastic, and we are both contentious by nature. I'm asking you to give me a little leeway so I do not become alienated from you, or worse, that this descend into flames. I don't know if you've seen me be brutal, but I've seen you aplenty. Do not want.

Here's something I wrote a few years ago, if you want to understand my sense of empathy and the scope of my world better. http://vicariance.livejournal.com/259431.html
And following it is a slightly less relevant, but more elaborate essay on stoicism and detachment.
http://vicariance.livejournal.com/259826.html

so is that it? Am I written off as a sociopath because I voiced disagreement, even though by the very logic you described to me I am the prime target for changing someone's opinions?

I hope that's not true, but if it is, it's damn disappointing, and not just because I'll have lost you as an internet friend, but because I'll have lost you as an idol. Ranked high among my values is forgiveness. Leniency. Acceptance, despite flaws and mistakes. Maybe it's because I'm a cynic and think people suck and are bound to fuck up, that I am willing to accept them even when they approach terrible. Maybe it's just because I recognize myself as so flawed that to think of others not accepting me because of those flaws despite having their own fills me with horrifying loneliness. And maybe you, with your stalwart idealism, unflagging introspection and moral precision, maybe you don't have as much room for people like me. Well I wouldn't have room for people like that. Not among my friends and certainly not among my heroes.

Or maybe you're just busy and haven't gotten around to replying. In which case, I hope you'll also excuse me for being melodramatic.

Yes, I'm working long hours this week and don't have time for your shit. Get off your high horse, you'll get a lengthy reply when I have time. This apparently comes as a surprise to you, but you are not the most important thing going on in my life right now, so back the fuck off.

My high horse? I am astonished by your venom. And I guess now we're even on the appalled front.

So yeah, consider my desire for a response met. Please don't let my words further compel you to take any time out of your busy week.

My ears are most likely now closed to anything of value you might have provided me had you not worn such marvelous arrogance.

Thanks for damaging my faith in humanity. Is that like, antiactivism? awesome.

Dude, get over yourself. You came into her journal and basically picked a fight. She eventually stopped responding because she has a life, and you added additional drama (by your own admission) by implying that she'd written you off and that this is somehow a failing on her part. She took a moment out of her exceedingly busy schedule to let you know that she wasn't ignoring you, and just had more important things to deal with.

Somehow this damages your faith in humanity? She doesn't owe you shit, and never did. Yeah, she's aggressive and inflammatory online. But someone here is being a dick, and it isn't her.

I can handle aggressive from anyone, and I can handle scathing from someone I don't respect, but this disdain feels like a slap. I may have been a dick, but I am definitely not the only one. She didn't owe me respect, but I did expect it anyway, thus my loss of faith.

And I wonder if "get over yourself" is a command that has ever been successfully followed.

Um... wow. Thank you.

Writing gives me time to choose my words. I assure you, in person I come across as either an immature buffoon or a raging dork. (I may be exaggerating, but only a little bit.)

In answer to your other question, I don't have any kids and have taken steps to ensure that I won't. If I were to try to raise offspring they'd turn out like either Gilbert Gottfried or Skynet. Neither option would bode well for humanity.

(That's a joke, of course. I'd drown a Gilbert Gottfried child to free up resources for Skynet.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Profile

Joreth

The Inn Between

Page Summary

August 2024

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

Ranty Lessons by Joreth

Another Florida Asshat Senator

Links

Page Summary

Banners