Despite the “of the people, by the people, for the people” upon which our country is supposedly founded, we’ve given it up. We gave it up as soon as we started depending on political parties to make our decisions. Just look at the primary system. We get to go out and voice our opinion on who we want as the candidate. Then the “Father Figure” DNC takes our opinions under consideration, but makes sure there is wiggle room by granting these “super delegates” It is all based on the, unfortunately all too true, assumption that U.S. citizens aren’t smart enough to make the right choice. The accusations of elitism have been flung repeatedly at Obama, but nobody seems to mention the inherent elitism of a system that doesn’t even trust our ability as a society to make a decision. However, despite my agreement that the general populace of our country is uninformed and possibly unable to make an intelligent decision, I am very much against any system that over rides their opinions because of that. Instead of disenfranchising them, we should be actively working to inform the uninformed so that they can make an intelligent decision. And if that decision is different than mine, then so be it.
And what is the right decision? And for who? For the party? For the country? Which is more important? I’d like to think that we as a society could choose a candidate who is right for the country, even if that candidate isn’t right for one of the parties. When we look at the political process as strictly an Us vs Them competition, we do a great injustice to our country as a whole. I find it very likely that the best candidate for any given office is not the best candidate for the party. Not all Democrats are right and not all Republicans are wrong. But, until we admit that and work within a construct based upon that idea we’re never really going to be able to “reach across the aisle” and do what is best for the country. There will always be deep seated, strong, fundamental differences of opinion on what is the best path forward for our country and what is the best way to follow that path. We won’t all agree. We’re not supposed to. But, we can’t even begin to think about what is best for the country, when we are so busy worrying about what is best for a particular party. When you’re permanently focused on the party, and the power of the party, then you are, by definition, not focused on the country. They’re not the same thing. The US is not the Republican Party and it’s not the Democratic Party. It’s the US.
Furthermore, what kind of BS is this stupidity where you have to be a registered member of the party to vote. Is the Democratic Party that unwilling to accept support from anyone outside the party? Is my support of and belief in a Democratic candidate lessened simply because I’m not registered as a Democrat? Does the Democratic Party truly believe that they are better off without my vote? Or does the Democratic Party truly believe that it is essential that all Democratic voters willingly adhere to all tenets of the Democratic Party platform? Must I be so enamoured of the Democratic Party, and all it’s ideas and programs and efforts, that I be registered as a Democrat? And what if I’m not? What if I agree with some aspects of the Party but not others? What if I support candidate A in race X, but not candidate B in race Y? Am I thus unimportant and my vote not necessary? That’s what the Democratic Party is saying when it bans non registered Democrats from voting in the primary. There also seems to be an underlying assumption that you should vote a straight ticket, no? Otherwise why would I need to be a registered Democrat? Is it such a scary idea to think that I might vote for a Democrat in one race, a Progressive in the second, and *gasp* a Republican in the third? How else would my state end up with a solidly Democratic Legislature and a Republican Governor for a third time? I’m greatful that I live in a state where I do not have to register for a particular party to participate in that party’s presidential primary.
While we’re discussing this registered Democrat phenomenon, I find it extremely ironic that the Democratic party is touting the fact that so many Republicans are supposedly switching parties to vote for Obama. At the same time, in many states you must be a registered Democrat to vote in the Democratic primary. I guess that crossed party lines vote isn’t as important as they make it out to be, considering they are so insistent on getting registered Democrats. I just find it totally mind boggling that we are so caught up in this party nonsense. A candidate is a candidate is a candidate. Some are good, some are bad. Some are better and one is the best. Vote for the best one. Make a logical choice based on the things you hold to be most important and the candidate who will best address those issues. Don’t just depend on the party label the candidate happens to be wearing. I can tell you from experience, there are times when a flaming socialist is the best candidate and gets the most done. And there are times when the Democratic party needs to be smart enough to not run a candidate if they really want the best candidate to win.
Showing posts with label presidential primary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label presidential primary. Show all posts
20 May 2008
And You Thought The Bridge To Nowhere Was Bad
originally blogged Tues. 13 May
An acquaintance recently commented that perhaps it was time for Hillary to bow out of the Democratic Primary race. This acquaintance saw her continued campaign as a great silliness marked by a tragic waste of resources. Why, she asked, should Hillary continue to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a campaign that is doomed to fail? Though I did not vote for Hillary, I do support her right to continue campaigning. I do, however, agree that the amount of money that has been spent, and will continue to be spent, on this political race, by both parties, is tragic. The good that could have been done, here in the US and around the world, with that same money is amazing. I recently finished a book, Pearls, Politics, and Power, in which the author posed the idea that much good can be done in politics by politicians, and that those who volunteer in their communities should not discount politics as an avenue of do-gooding. The points made by the author helped me see just how much good a politician can do, but I still can't help but feel that the good that could have been done with this political money far outways the good that any of the candidates might achieve in office.
After putting to rest my thoughts about the wasteful practices of the current political campaign, I found myself contemplating in what other ways large amounts of resources are wasted on efforts that are, in and of themselves, doing good. Which reminded me of what I recently saw on Animal Planet.
While puttering around the house, I happened to enter the living room just as a skin and bones dog was brought into a vet's office. I don't know what show I caught, but it doesn't much matter. The poor dog had been abandoned to starve in a backyard. The house was in a cold climate, during the winter. The dog was left with no food, no water, and no shelter. The dog was, quite literally, skin and bones. The vet examining the dog stated that it was dying. And yet, they immediately set about trying to save the dog. I realize that it is a heart breaking story, and there are many animal lovers in the world who think it would be just as cruel to kill the dog as it was to leave it without food, water, and shelter in the first place. Yet, I cannot help but think that perhaps saving that dog was a tragic waste of resources. I know, I know, I have just uttered fighting words. With that one thought I will probably have my "animal lover" card revoked and have my pet owners license revoked for eternity. But, let me at least defend myself.
First of all, let me remind you that I am speaking of a dog that a vet has already stated is dying. Not almost dying. Not would have died if it hadn't been found and brought to the vet. Dying. The dog is dying. It's body already in the process of shutting down. The poor animal had no chance to survive. Not to mention the fact that the dog doesn't even have a loving owner to help care for it as it recovers. Despite all this, the vet and her staff immediately began efforts to warm the dog, and provide IV medicine and liquids. Even if the dog survived the night and subsequent days, it will be a long uphill climb to full recovery. A climb that will most likely be blocked numerous times by a multitude of health issues brought on by near death. With absolutely no guarantee of a finally healthy, physically or mentally, dog. For all these kindhearted people know, this dog is extremely aggressive, or has cancer, or heartworms, or failing hips. They could very well be attempting to save a dog that will only continue to require the allocation of resources to maintain whatever semblance of health is finally achieved.
And that's what it comes down to, no? Resources. Who is paying for the care of this nearly dead dog? More than likely, as is often the case on Animal Planet, a rescue organization or humane society has come forward to pay for the care. Perhaps the vet has even offered to allay some of the costs. Either way, a great deal of money will be spent on an effort that has little chance to succeed. We must also consider the time and space given over to this dog. Surely many hours of the vet's time and of tech's and assistant's time were taken away from other needs and devoted to helping this dog. If the dog somehow survived, there is then the time spent by a foster care taker as it continues to regain health. Similarly, the dog takes up space. A kennel or more at the vets office, and then a kennel or even entire room at the foster home. In each case, this dying dog will consume an extreme amount of resources.
Thus I ask, is saving this dog a wasteful use of resources? Should the dog survive, then most people would probably say it was not a waste. How could it be a waste if the ultimate goal, of returning a dying dog to health, is achieved? I will ask the question that I'm sure most would not ask. Is this dog so important, so worthy, that it deserves to have so many resources? Are there not other dogs in the world that would just as easily please a family looking for a pet? If we know nothing else about the plight of dogs in our world, it is that there are always homeless dogs looking for a loving family. And I would offer the idea that there is no one perfect dog for any family.
An acquaintance recently commented that perhaps it was time for Hillary to bow out of the Democratic Primary race. This acquaintance saw her continued campaign as a great silliness marked by a tragic waste of resources. Why, she asked, should Hillary continue to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a campaign that is doomed to fail? Though I did not vote for Hillary, I do support her right to continue campaigning. I do, however, agree that the amount of money that has been spent, and will continue to be spent, on this political race, by both parties, is tragic. The good that could have been done, here in the US and around the world, with that same money is amazing. I recently finished a book, Pearls, Politics, and Power, in which the author posed the idea that much good can be done in politics by politicians, and that those who volunteer in their communities should not discount politics as an avenue of do-gooding. The points made by the author helped me see just how much good a politician can do, but I still can't help but feel that the good that could have been done with this political money far outways the good that any of the candidates might achieve in office.
After putting to rest my thoughts about the wasteful practices of the current political campaign, I found myself contemplating in what other ways large amounts of resources are wasted on efforts that are, in and of themselves, doing good. Which reminded me of what I recently saw on Animal Planet.
While puttering around the house, I happened to enter the living room just as a skin and bones dog was brought into a vet's office. I don't know what show I caught, but it doesn't much matter. The poor dog had been abandoned to starve in a backyard. The house was in a cold climate, during the winter. The dog was left with no food, no water, and no shelter. The dog was, quite literally, skin and bones. The vet examining the dog stated that it was dying. And yet, they immediately set about trying to save the dog. I realize that it is a heart breaking story, and there are many animal lovers in the world who think it would be just as cruel to kill the dog as it was to leave it without food, water, and shelter in the first place. Yet, I cannot help but think that perhaps saving that dog was a tragic waste of resources. I know, I know, I have just uttered fighting words. With that one thought I will probably have my "animal lover" card revoked and have my pet owners license revoked for eternity. But, let me at least defend myself.
First of all, let me remind you that I am speaking of a dog that a vet has already stated is dying. Not almost dying. Not would have died if it hadn't been found and brought to the vet. Dying. The dog is dying. It's body already in the process of shutting down. The poor animal had no chance to survive. Not to mention the fact that the dog doesn't even have a loving owner to help care for it as it recovers. Despite all this, the vet and her staff immediately began efforts to warm the dog, and provide IV medicine and liquids. Even if the dog survived the night and subsequent days, it will be a long uphill climb to full recovery. A climb that will most likely be blocked numerous times by a multitude of health issues brought on by near death. With absolutely no guarantee of a finally healthy, physically or mentally, dog. For all these kindhearted people know, this dog is extremely aggressive, or has cancer, or heartworms, or failing hips. They could very well be attempting to save a dog that will only continue to require the allocation of resources to maintain whatever semblance of health is finally achieved.
And that's what it comes down to, no? Resources. Who is paying for the care of this nearly dead dog? More than likely, as is often the case on Animal Planet, a rescue organization or humane society has come forward to pay for the care. Perhaps the vet has even offered to allay some of the costs. Either way, a great deal of money will be spent on an effort that has little chance to succeed. We must also consider the time and space given over to this dog. Surely many hours of the vet's time and of tech's and assistant's time were taken away from other needs and devoted to helping this dog. If the dog somehow survived, there is then the time spent by a foster care taker as it continues to regain health. Similarly, the dog takes up space. A kennel or more at the vets office, and then a kennel or even entire room at the foster home. In each case, this dying dog will consume an extreme amount of resources.
Thus I ask, is saving this dog a wasteful use of resources? Should the dog survive, then most people would probably say it was not a waste. How could it be a waste if the ultimate goal, of returning a dying dog to health, is achieved? I will ask the question that I'm sure most would not ask. Is this dog so important, so worthy, that it deserves to have so many resources? Are there not other dogs in the world that would just as easily please a family looking for a pet? If we know nothing else about the plight of dogs in our world, it is that there are always homeless dogs looking for a loving family. And I would offer the idea that there is no one perfect dog for any family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
