Field of Science

Finding my voice

I think about this quite a bit. What should my voice be, how can I most effectively make my point to the two of you reading this post. I have thought about this more as the presidential election rapidly approaches and I think the following comparison helps make my point:

Here we have a rational lucid explanation of what he likes and dislikes. You can disagree with specific aspects of Gen. Powell's arguments, but you cannot blow them off as unthoughtful. Then we have:


You know when I listen to Powell (who I have serious issues with over his involvement in pushing forward the lie Iraq war) it makes me reconsider my use of vulgarities when dealing with people and issues they espouse that I have disagreements with. Maybe I am over the top and excluding those people who are open to meaningful conversation and discussion. Maybe I am excluding the Gen. Powells out there.

But then, I see/hear the hate and lies that come from the far right. Evolution is just a theory. Atheists cause all problems. Floods and fires are caused by the friction of 2 men getting it on. Disagreeing with neo-cons means Im a traitor or am unamerican. I remember all the calls ignorance and exclusion. I see how McCain/Palin is going all division and culture war as the only way to garner votes. Know I remember my voice. I remember what Gen. Powell made me forget.

FUCK YOU! Fuck you Michelle Bachmann, dissent is not unamerican, it is the foundation of americanism, your approach Rep. Bachmann is fascist, and that is unamerican. Fuck you Sarah Palin, Obama's terrorist ties? How about looking at yourself in the mirror, Mrs. I married a member of an Alaskan secessionist party. if you are so all up in arms over Ayers, then why aren't you trying to get him rearrested or taking other legal action against him? Is it because you don't really care about that, you only care about talking points to the lowest common denominator? Fuck you everyone who called Barak Obama a Muslim/made an Obama-Osama association like it actually means something/bitched about flag pins. Yep that's my voice.

When the dregs of society crawl back into the sewer they were lured out of, my voice will change. But for now, I will be crass vulgar and offensive. I will help to pull the pendulum back towards the center. I will cheer when I hear comments and discussions like those presented by Gen. Powell. Even those I fundamentally disagree with, George Will springs to mind, I can respect their positions and cheer at thoughtful discourse. I know many pro-lifers who I can talk to and respect their positions, these are not the ones yelling at women at clinics (those people can also go fuck themselves).

I hope that if Obama is elected, he can do much to start a change in the dialogue. In no way can 20 years of the primacy of divisiveness be corrected by one person. However, he could help set the tone and that would be a start. McCain could not do that, he effectively burnt his "working across the aisle" credit over the last few weeks.


Anonymous said...

Nothing like being behind in the polls to bring out the "right's" true colors. Hate speech, lies and fear.

Incidentally--I object to those that are opposed to allowing women to make medical descisions that affect their bodies being called, Pro-life. I know that's what they call themselves, however, is anyone "anti-life"? For that matter is anyone "pro-abortion", which I've heard the anti-choice people call those with pro-choice views. I support the right of a women to have autonomy over her body--and therefor am pro-choice.

Now I realize that that wasn't the point of this post--however I think that it ties in well since it is a subtle way that the neo-cons have used to paint those that support women's right's as some sort of horrible "baby killers"...and that couldn't be further from the truth.

Anonymous said...

Sorry I spelled a few things wrong in that last post...I meant decisions and therefore...

The Lorax said...

Good point shaker, I find myself using the talking points of the Rethuglicans without even trying. It reminds me how pervasive the language of hate has become. When I discuss the science of evolution with a rational person and hear them unwittingly use a talking point of the righteously ignorant (such as microevolution vs macroevolution....). I point out the problem and try to inform them about the issue.

You have just returned the favor. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Keep on fighting the good fight.

Anonymous said...

I think "Who Turned off the Shaker?" (digging the pseudonym btw) makes a good point.

Both sides picked the position names that they did in order to make the other side look "bad". The PLers chose "Pro-Life" because it makes it look as those who support abortion rights are "Anti-Life" and by being "Pro-Life" they look like they're pro-all life and that those who say otherwise are anti-all life, which is patently false.

On the other hand, the PCers chose "Pro-Choice" because it would make those who did not support abortion rights look as though they're "Anti-Choice" and by being "Pro-Choice" they look like they're pro-all choices (which leads to the asshat arguments by PLers that say, "So if you're pro-all choices (because you're pro-choice) you must be pro-my choice to rape women and kill toddlers!") and that those who say otherwise are anti-all choice and therefore anti-freedom (because choice is sometimes seen analogous to freedom).

It's a *fantastic* little semantics game that both positions of the abortion debate have played. It's frustrating as hell when I see fellow PCers yell at PLers for being "hypocrites" because they are anti-killing-fetuses but pro-killing-criminals and Iraqis...when the term "Pro-Life" really only belongs to the abortion debate. It's also equally frustrating when I see PLers use the whole, "You should support my choice to rape and kill and pillage because it's MY CHOICE MY BODY I DO WHAT I WANT!" against Pro-Choicers.

Now, I wasn't alive in 1973 or when the frak ever they decided on the terminology, but I sometimes think it was poor judgment on both sides that lead to the "labels" that "describe" the positions because they are such broad, general terms that were chosen to demonize the opposition more than it was to clarify what each position meant.

I would almost argue (as have many of my pro-choice friend who are sick-to-fucking-death of being called "pro-death" or "pro-abort/abortion") that instead we should use the terms "Pro-abortion rights" and "Anti-abortion rights" because that is pretty damn clear as to what side believes what, but of course, "anti" usually connotates negative feelings, so the "anti" position name won't fly for many "pro-lifers" and I can't really think of a non-polarizing name for them to replace that ("Pro-turning-women-into-slaves-to-their-uterus" comes to mind).

And now I'm done being long winded. Cheers.