Snoop, I’ve never claimed to not be a little arrogant…in fact in the last year I’ve made it a point to tell people early on that I do have a noticeable ego, and I welcome any chastisements for having one. It helps me to humble myself. Regardless, I explained the “Caucasia” comment, and I feel that my explanation is sufficiently informed for it not to be reduced to something as reductivist as “insulting an individual and questioning his heritage.”It’s not quite that simple, but if you choose to think of it as such, I can’t stop you. Perhaps you’re struggling to genuinely understand my perspective.

 I do see how my statement could be perceived that way, but that’s why I explained and apologized for the misinterpretation of “S’s” statements. I don’t want to insult someone’s heritage, or deny their ethnic identity. But anyone who denies their own ethnic identity is denying themselves. And you’re absolutely right, we are a nation of consuming liars. But who is supposed to be leading this nation? They say “attitude reflects leadership.” So perhaps we are who we are as citizens because our leadership promotes such lies. We can do “the chicken or the egg” debate considering the fact that this is a demockracy, but it all comes down to, we should not have politicians who lie.

It puts us in a cultural hot bed. We can’t make properly informed opinions. We find ourselves choosing the lesser of all evils. And we deserve better than that. The fact is, I do stick to my TRUE ideals and values, but I know bullshit when I hear it. And I hear a lot of it in partisan politics. I am neither a Democrat, nor a Republican. I go with whatever party happens to appeal to what I believe in. And I am in a period of ideological shifts–isn’t that what college is for? But I know where my politics is NOT going, and I know what I will not submit to. To me, that is what counts today. I’ll figure the rest out tomorrow.

Equally, I refuse to get rigid in my opinions. Conditions serve as the ultimate molder of opinions. If my environment changes, my dominant needs change. I can’t vote on all of my ideals, because no candidate will satisfy them all. But I can vote whichever ones are the most important at any given time. I’m waiting on my poli-sci friends to run. Then I can get all of my ideals…hopefully.

Okay, “conservo-liberal politics”…I’m sure you are aware that Democrats and Republicans were at one time one political party. I’m sure you know that in the 50’s and 60’s, the political roles were reversed. Neither conservative politics nor liberal politics is strict in its adherence to their classical ideologies. Conservatives proper should believe in small government. So why would a conservative vote for the patriot act? Liberals proper should believe in individualism. So why would any liberal believe in socialized anything?

The differences in conservative and liberal politics are largely semantics. To me it seems that it is manufactured, it is a system created to create the illusion that there is a difference between two candidates (which even in reality there always will be) but the differences, at times are no more drastic than between a Republican that leans right and a Republican that leans left, or a Democrat that leans right or a Democrat that leans left. The definitions of conservative and liberal are far too fluid to say that their is a real difference. It’s all a facade.

It all gets back to , once again, getting votes. I realize that there aren’t many third party candidates worth America’s attention, but how many third party candidates have been in a televised presidential debate? Since the end of the League of Women Voter’s reign in politics abruptly ended? Why do they let politicians give non-answers in the televised debates? And why is it that John Kerry and George Bush were treated as the only names on the ballot? They weren’t! There were others. The voices are silenced. The reason for that is because it is mutually in the interest of the Democratic and the Republican party to create a wall of wealth between them–as proponents of bi-partisan politics–and any other candidate, no matter what the third option has to say.

I wish I could think of a good third party candidate, but frankly, I can’t. I don’t hear about them until long after the elections. But imagine that the candidate you support didn’t get the Republican nomination–they didn’t make it through the primaries, or they hadn’t raised the damn near a billion dollars it’s gonna take to be a contender–but they chose to ride the third-party ticket, would you still vote for them, or would you vote for the Republican nominee? Wouldn’t it piss you off when they wouldn’t include your candidate in the debates, because the debates are funded by a bi-partisan constituency rather than a non-partisan organization (like it’s supposed to be).

As for global warming…we’ll see who’s right someday. To assume that it’s false, is to assume that scientists are lying. But it wouldn’t be the first time scientists have made something up. So neither one of us is in any position to PROVE either wrong. So, I’ll leave you alone in that respect. It’s a debate I can’t win. I genuinely believe that it is real, and apparently you genuinely believe that it isn’t. I don’t drive an suv, and I have no clue what kind of mileage I get. But I do know that I’m not doing enough to curb those effects, so I have no right to say shit to anyone. Even the average H3 driver. (however I’ll complain left and right that those sons of bitches take up too much road!) And I’m not a newbie on the global warming bandwagon. I’m not one of those fad environmentalists. (and those bastards piss me off a lot). I’ve been relatively environmentally conscious for years. I haven’t even seen Albert Gore’s movie yet. If it’s all cgi, I’m not sure I want to. I realize that there is conflicting evidence in the scientific community regarding global warming.

One side says we’re melting the ice caps (there are some good BBC articles about Britain’s erosion problems from rising tides, read those if you genuinely doubt that the water levels are rising or the ice caps are melting) the other side says that we’re saving ourselves from an ice age. But since when has the scientific community been 100% in agreement on any issue? Matter of fact, we can only pick a side and see if we can prove it right or wrong. But I think mother nature can speak for herself. Water levels are rising, but the continents are not. One could argue that “global warming” is not the cause of that, but I challenge anyone with that stance to tell me what is. Not believing in something because you personally haven’t seen evidence of it–when others have–is foolhardy.

Sometimes, we simply have to take others word on large matters. We have to question it, but we shouldn’t simply reject a critical idea because we love our cars and our heavy pollutant factories. And though we might be in the habit of thinking in human time, we should think of global warming and such in geological time. I don’t think that the ice caps will melt in just ten years–that’s just dumb. But could it in 100? 200? How long did it take for us to jump up one degree? How many degrees will it take for us to melt the ice caps? Were we right the first time–will all those gases in our skies instead descend us into the ice age we thought we’d avoided? I’m not a scientist. I don’t have the answers. But I’m no fool. I’ll continue to keep my eyes open to the possibilities in both ways. But it doesn’t hurt at all to ACT like global warming exists. It only means cleaner air if it doesn’t. I imagine my stance to be rather practical. The alternative, sadly may or may not be. But for every action there’s an equal and opposite reaction, so what is the reaction our environment must have to our pumping of greenhouse gases into the air?

Nevertheless, I see where your opinions come from. And they seem to be pretty cynical (not to say that mine aren’t). While perhaps you took one cynical path, I took the other. My “liberal Negro hysterics” is not a far cry from your “conservative negro hyterics,” and if you listen closely, you just might find a point of synthesis.

Oh, and I missed this earlier, “it’s one thing to have strong opinions, but to have those opinions without understanding differing perspectives…” is pure presumption. To assume that my dissent represents ignorance is false. I contend that I do understand, well enough to know that I disagree. I think that I’ve restrained myself from countless potential insults (though I’m not in the common practice of simply slinging insults anyway). I generally write in layers, with some statements requiring a particular background to fully comprehend. If you’re not on my plane, then perhaps you’ll miss the nuance. But that does not at all mean that I’m ignorantly condescending. I usually mean SOMETHING, not simply insult. Here’s my ego: simple insult is beneath me. I have better things to do with my time and my mind than just blindly insult people. Give what I’ve said another look. Maybe YOU might understand ME better if you didn’t reduce my thoughts to hysterics.

This entry was posted on Monday, October 8th, 2007 at 8:45 am and is filed under Comments.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.