Shortly after I announced this blog to the world, my brother thanked me for "effectively linking mom and dad to (his) band's website." Why this is a problem, I'm not sure, other than the copious use of the word "fuck" in one section of it. I'm not sure that's as big an issue as he think it is. Mark may have his own reasons for the 'rents not knowing about it, but I'm not sure what they are because he hasn't been around when I've called.
Shortly after the exchange with Mark, I told April, and she said "Well, you've linked your parents to my blog too." Again, so what?
The problem I see is the only reason to keep a personal blog is to write about what's going on in your life. And the only people who care about that, it seems, are your friends and family. And the people who serve as the catalysts for what goes on in your life are your friends and family. So, if you write honestly, you're sure to offend someone eventually.
Which brings me to the problem with Democracy:
April and I had a heated discussion about my last entry, specifically the reference to NASCAR watchers and Wal-Mart shoppers. April said that was simply a case of name calling and symptomatic of the attitude that has caused the Democrats to be labeled the party of the liberal elite. I'll appolgize and explain myself.
First let me say, I'm not a Democrat. I simply voted for them because as a rule they espouse ideals that fit my opinion of where the country needs to go. In local elections, like last year's mayoral race in Easton, I'll often vote for a Republican. My reasoning is, at the local level, ideology takes a back seat to competence. In the national arena, a candidate is going to toe the party line no matter how qualified and likable he or she is.
Nor do I watch NASCAR. I don't see the value in spending four hours watching 200 mph billboards for products you can buy at Wal-Mart, a store that has refined the practice of killing local economies to a science.
Please forgive me for that cheap dig against conservatives.
That said, I'm disappointed in the 59 million people who voted for Bush. I know that they're good people. I know a number of them. They're hardworking people trying to get along in the world and raise families. Many of them are like me, which is why I don't understand why the voted the way they did.
My best guess is that many people were distracted by the war and the threat of terrorism. That was the red herring in this campaign.
If Ronald Reagan was able to lead the world to an end to the the Cold War, then Justin Timberlake should be able to get us out of this mess. My point is that the CIC is not alone in the Oval Office. His job is not to handle the national defense single handedly, but to take the advice of generals and spymasters and to give them broad goals. The difference between Bush and Kerry in that respect is that W has acted recklessly and in deferrence to the rest of the world. Kerry promised a more pragmatic approach to global issues, beyond that he never really gave us a plan, which I fault him for. But I was willing to give him a chance.
I beleive people who voted for Bush voted largely on "moral issues," which is to say, they voted for the candidate who has promised to impose conservative Christian values on a nation of people with a diverse range of religious beliefs. Stem cells and abortion are thorny issues, but I prefer pragmatism to fundamentalism every time. Lance and Bruce from down the street may disgust you, but does what happens in their bedroom really have any impact on your life? And for that matter, does it really matter a whit whether they can have a family health insurance plan, visit each other in hospital or own property together with the same rights as Jack and Diane next door?
That's all I have time for right now. If you voted for Bush and I've offended you, I'm sorry. I invite you to post a reply or email me and we'll continue the discussion that way.
