*
*
Mine eyes have seen the glory
of the coming of the Lord,
He is trampling out the vintage
where the grapes of wrath are stored....
"The Battle Hymn of the Republic",
Julia Ward Howe
*
Well, it's two and a half hours until midnight, at which time the hour tolls for the the beginning of the USA's Independence Day, the 4th of July. And I thought I'd write a few reasons why I'm proud to have been born an American.
But first of all, let me take care of some ugly business. Which means that I'm just going to say bluntly that it horribly disturbed me when I read some of YH's American groupies making idiotic syrupy sweet comments on YH's blog that they "wish they could be Canadian" as a result of YH's Canada Day blog post. God, but they sounded so stupidly childish in their worship of YH--- so worshipful that it caused them to actually express wishes to abandon the country of their birth. It also disturbed me when I read other brainless YH American groupies trying to garner YH's favor by stating that they're "ashamed of " and "embarassed by" their very own country, the USA.
Hell, these mindless dumb bells worship YH so much that I truly believe that if the YH asked them to walk stark nekkid while shitting nickels down the middle of the Interstate they'd probably do it!
Personally, (and I have absolutely nothing against a wonderful country like Canada) I feel like telling these dissatisfied American YH groupies to please do all of us faithful Americans a favor and LEAVE --- please DO go to Canada if you like! Heck, don't let the door hit you on the way out! With traitorous attitudes like yours, you don't DESERVE to be Americans!
The USA is by no means perfect--- and everyone knows that we are having a lot of problems these days with a lame duck president--- but we certainly don't need childish, ungrateful malcontents bringing our moral down any further. So take them, Canada! But beware---because if their fickle loyalties leave them bereft of patriotism for America, they probably won't be loyal to your beautiful country either.
If it were up to me, such people who take their country for granted would be deported for one year so that they could experience life somewhere else. Because I know that at the end of that year, every single one of them would come crawling back on their hands and knees, back to the country of their birth, begging to be allowed back in.
And like I said, I truly have nothing against Canada--- but I do have something against Americans who cheapen their birthrights by taking their homeland for granted---and would throw it away so easily because of their crush on a self-centered, sanctimonious knitting guru. But anyhoo.... sigh.....back to my reasons of why I'm proud to be an American...
First of all, I am in awe of my country. The USA is the world's largest national economy. We're the richest country in the world---and we're the world's most powerful "superpower". And since the USA has the highest science output of any other country, coupled with the most technological savvy, we are the world's number one science and technological innovators. These abilities spring forth from our keen intelligence, our never-ending quest for knowledge, and our natural competitiveness. It's how the expression "good ole American know-how" came to be.
So what does the above paragraph mean? It means that we're already good at what we do but yet no matter how successful we are, we constantly strive to better ourselves even further. For example, it was the USA who invented the telephone, the phonograph, the movie camera, alternating electrical current, the AC motor, the radio, "heavier than air" airflight, the assembly line, the best computer software, and the internet---just to name a few.
We have the world's most Nobel prize winners, the four largest airlines in the world--- and our young athletes won the most medals in last winter's Olympics.
In addition, the USA offers more opportunity and social mobility to its citizens than any other country in the world. Here, self-made tycoons are a dime a dozen. In fact, my sister is marrying one. He was thrown out of his home when he was 16 years old without a dollar to his name---but today he's a self-made millionaire, owning a large trucking company, a business which he built up by his own blood, sweat, and tears. I'm proud to have him as my brother-in-law. The USA does not have a "class system"; therefore, anybody with drive, ingenuity, and determination can take advantage of what our country offers in education and employment and make anything of themselves that they wish.
And nobody handed us our country. We had to fight tooth and nail for it. We won our independence in the 1700's by sheer determination and guts. We basically won our country using small bands of local militias deploying guerilla warfare against far better equipped soldiers than ourselves. Hell, there were tales of the American Revolution where, many times, small groups of rag-tag farm country militia men fought the sophisticated enemy troops with the only weapons they had---pitchforks, hatchets, and faulty muskets.
At the end of the bloody war, we ended up gaining our independence knowing we were divinely destined to govern ourselves---with liberty and justice for all--- and our founding fathers gave the credit to God.
And speaking of wars--- as our country grew over the next 200 years, the USA developed the finest and fiercest military forces ever known to man. In fact, if the USA had not entered WWII, most of the free world would have been lost to Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan. We basically liberated the world from being enslaved.
And to this day we still fight to help other countries avoid being taken over by evil dictatorships; i.e., Desert Storm....
We also invented space travel; i.e., our spacecrafts have encircled every single planet in our solar system, one of our spacecrafts landed on an asteroid, we invented the Hubble Telescope (which has given the best photographs of outer space ever seen), and we put men on the moon.
Also, we are the most welcoming country in the world. The USA accepts more legal immigrants and permanent residents than all the other countries of the world combined. And not only that, but we even give benefits and care to illegal immigrants.
For example, during my career as an emergency room nurse, I took care of countless illegal aliens, mostly Mexican. It used to break my heart when an illegal alien came in for medical care at our hospital and they didn't know what I was going to do with the thermometer. A thermometer!!! Which means that they had lived in such abject poverty that, up to that point, they had NEVER had any kind of medical care in their lives!
I loved them all and treated them as kindly as I could. (It helped that I can speak really good Spanish.) It has never bothered me a bit that illegal Mexican aliens want to come to America. Hell, if I were in Mexico I'd want to come here, too! Who wouldn't? And these illegals work so very hard---they take some of the most dirtiest and difficult jobs that nobody else wants and they do them with pride. They are good and honest people--- admirable people--- and I don't have any problems at all with granting them citizenship. If anybody deserves to be Americans, they do.
(Hell, I would rather have ONE of those hardworking illegal aliens than TWENTY of those idiotic YH groupies who gush to the YH about how they "wish they were Canadian". Nothing against Canada, but I would prefer having our country populated by grateful people who actually WANT to be here working for the good of our land.)
And speaking of illegal aliens from Mexico, if I lived on the banks of the Rio Grande, I'd be out there throwing life rings out to those swimming in from the Mexican side. I'd be yelling encouragements such as "Swim for it! You can do it!" And I would help them as much as I could, waiting for them with fluffy towels to dry them off, a hot meal, and whatever other help they'd need.
I learned mercy for my fellow man from my beloved country. The good ole USA is a merciful country, yes we are.
Most of you know that I lived overseas while growing up, and I'll tell you---I missed my country desperately during those years. And then, finally, the day came when I was to leave my family to fly back to the USA to go to the university. I was only 17 years old, traveling alone back to the wondrous country I had dreamed about for my entire life--- and when the captain of the aircraft announced we were landing in America, I just so happened to be listening to Sousa's marching band song "The Stars & Stripes Forever" in my radio headphones--- and I flat out cried tears of joy.
I wept those tears of joy because I was home..... I was finally home....
*
Let despots remember the day
When our fathers with might endeavor,
Proclaimed as they marched to the fray,
That by their might and by their right
It waves forever...
("The Stars and Stripes Forever", John Philip Sousa)
*
*
61 comments:
http://www.vancouver2010.com/olympic-medals/
Check your facts. US, most over all, Canada most gold.
Anonymous---you are right. I'll correct it on the blog. Thanks.
HAPPY FOURTH BO and BLAINE!
Donna
are you going to bbq?
Do you even understand some of the words you use?
Could you define "lame duck" and "misogynist" for me, and if you can (which your usage of either suggests you cannot) please tell me how they apply?
Thanks,
Alex
Hi there, Donna!!! Thank you so much!
I'm glad to hear from you! And you are SO RIGHT---Blaine is just now preparing the baby back ribs to put on the barbeque!!! (He keeps telling me to lick the sauce to see if it's okay or else it "needs something", heh!)
Also, Blaine is making his famous potato salad---which I love.
Anyway, last night a bunch of our neighbors set off firecrackers. But tonight I hope they do the kind of firecrackers that go up high and make beautiful lights in the sky!
Today I'm piddling around in the studio. I made a bunch of beads with no holes in them so that I can test the Dremel tool. I really hope I do better this time than when I tried to drill a hole into the pendant my mother gave me and I totally RUINED it!! (But she promised to send me another one...)
Oh for God's sake, Alex. I'm going to indulge you this time.
"Lameduck President"---a President who is not only a novice at Washington D.C. politics but also allows his radical Democrat advisers (or other novice advisors) to make all his decisions and steer him wrong---which causes the GOP to secretly laugh their heads off while digging in their heels, refusing to help the clueless President who doesn't have the confidence to override his adviser's disastrous plans.
BO only knows how to make speeches that are written for him. He has not kept most of his campaign promises (i.e. sending MORE troops to the war when he promised to bring them home).
BO seems oblivious to the mess his advisers are making all over the grid---and yet he's extremely angry at the GOP who ridicules him.
Next: misogynist (if I spelled it right) is a man who has deep rooted resentment to women, and that resentment leaks out whenever he has a relationship with a woman. And he especially has disdain for women he can't control or who couldn't care less what his opinion of her is.
Alright, is that explanatory enough, Alex? Why in the heck would you want me to print these explanations? You are certainly intelligent enough to know what I meant when I used the terms.
A few problems with your post as well:
1) While the US has no official caste system, the truth is that mobility is extremely restricted between lower, lower-middle, middle, upper-middle, and upper classes. The class a person ends up in is linked highest to the class her/his parents belonged to. That is the single highest factor for income in the US. And yes, there are exceptions (there are always exceptions) but they are just that: exceptions. Not everyone can be an exception, otherwise they'd be the rule.
2) Britain was also fighting in India (also known as the Crown Jewel, unlike the Americas which had no nickname so great) to expand its influence over the colony. It was a choice between an area of great wealth and power (India) and a ragtag group of colonies that had very little profitable exportable resources (13 Colonies). Which would a sane person choose?
3) The American terrain provided a great strategic advantage for the colonial fighters. Europe had no concept of guerrilla warfare, which we used effectively. Don't assume that colonials were just so scary that the British cowered in fear.
4) I see you want to talk about wars. What about the Civil War? I guess you forgot about the war that killed the most American soldiers of all time. Not to mention the race problem we still have.
5) Speaking of being the "most welcoming," I see you forgot to talk about the over 1500 laws voted on by state legislatures in the past five years, including Arizona's newest bill giving legislative authority to racially profile in the name of "protecting our borders" and "national security." We sure don't have a problem when those workers are working on our farms and in our factories so we can go to Wal-Mart where our husband farts all over the cheap produce and farm products, but the minute we hit an economic downturn, it's a problem. Yes, we accept the most legal immigrants, but these come from places the government approves of, such as Europe and East Asia. Also, historically, we have had some of the most restrictive policies, such as "giving the Philippines independence... so we can go ahead and limit the number of people that can migrate from the country."
Alex, you are wrong.
1) While there may be circles where wealthy people restrict upward mobility to only those in their families, that is an extremely small population. Dell was started by kids in their garage---and that is a model for just how easy it is for any "common" person to climb their way to riches and prestige.
2) Britain badly wanted the 13 colonies for tax monies and natural resources. Don't give me the excuse that they didn't win because they were "divided" as to which front of their wars they wanted to concentrate on. Britain fought so hard to get us that we had to get the French to help us---and we literally clawed our way to independence. Britain's attempt to use their troops as they always had failed miserably in the face of the guerilla warfare techniques the colonists employed. Read the books about the American Revolution and you will see.
3. See #2 above.
4. The Civil War was a national disgrace. As I said in my blog post, America is certainly not perfect by any means. But the south did manage to admit defeat and move on, and so the country was unified. That was the advantage of the Civil War---that it unified our country--unlike the many civil wars in other countries that never end. Britain too had its problems with unification---do the initials IRA mean anything to you?
5. Statistics don't lie. We are the most welcoming country no matter from which continent we take in the most immigrants. And yes, there are factions who want to stop the influx of illegal Mexican aliens, and they are going through the proper measures to lobby for laws to put their plans in place. This issue is going to be a hard battle and I personally feel a great deal of empathy for the Mexicans. As I said, I have a great respect for their culture.
Alex, why are you bugging me like this?
Please, stick to your Wikipedia while I go on to teach high schoolers some of the intricacies of US history, which obviously you can't comprehend.
Like I said earlier, you can come up with exceptions to the rule that the main SES determinant for anyone is the SES of his/her parent. Mobility is extremely down throughout the SES chain, not just the super-rich.
As for the South, "admitting defeat" only resulted in the Lost Cause, where southerners convinced themselves that slavery was a benign institution and the slaves themselves were loyal to their masters. Additionally, Lost Causers claimed moral superiority over Northern troops, and said only greater resources allowed the North to bring the South back into the US. As for reunification, good luck convincing me of that. Please, give me examples.
Finally, it's not just Mexicans that are coming across our southern border. We have many from all countries in Central and South America, as well as the Caribbean.
America may be unique, but it certainly is not exceptional.
Fine, Alex. You can have the last word.
Oh wait....I just figured it out. Alex, you are one of those radical liberals. I should have figured that out sooner.
Yes, Bo. I'm a radical liberal trying to make the world one socialist culture by inserting rational logic and empirical data into an argument. Apparently that makes any rational human being a radical liberal.
You are bugging me to death, Alex. I'm trying to help Blaine make stuff for our barbeque here. Can't you bug me on a day that isn't a national holiday?
Oh, and radical liberals will be the death of this country. They think they know what is good for the country but they don't. They just may end up being responsible for making America less of a superpower and more of an ass-kissing entity to our enemies---who will end up causing WWIII.
And that's straight out of the Book of Revelation, which is the last word on the future of America and the rest of the world.
Now, can I go back to chopping celery for the potato salad?
I'm not trying to "bug" you, Bo, I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy and ignorance which you possess in abundance.
Here are the things I stand for:
Unemployment benefits, which are the quickest and easiest way to stimulate the economy by putting money in the hands of the many, rather than the hands of the rich which is what happens with tax cuts. The 2 million Americans who will have lost their unemployment benefits after this "national holiday" who mainly lost their jobs because of the economic crisis caused by the rich on Wall Street.
Amnesty and full immigration benefits. If we allow illegal immigrants amnesty and open our borders to everyone and anyone, those workers can unionize and increase benefits and wages for themselves.
Full equality for consenting adults. People complain about too much intervention in the private sector. But when it comes to legislating morality, conservatives have no qualms telling consenting adults who they can and cannot choose to marry, and instead revoke over a thousand federal, not to mention state and local in most regions, rights and responsibilities that straight couples have.
Now, please, tell me how this "radical liberalism" is so horrible for the country. I'd be really interested in the support and logic behind your reasoning.
Actually, I'm in agreement with you about a lot of things. But there is a radical faction which threatens all that is holy about the USA---and I worry that those fanatics will drag this country down until it's no longer the great superpower that it is.
And how exactly is it that you're saying they're trying to do so?
And because the conservatives have set such a great example, such as:
Nevada nominee Sharon Angle calling unemployed "spoiled" because they aren't trying to get jobs.
Representative Joe Barton apologizing to BP, the same company who is causing the largest ecological crisis ever.
Representative John Boehner calling the economic collapse an ant, from which millions have lost their jobs.
Please tell me how the "radical faction" is doing more damage to the US than mainstream conservatives are. I'd love to hear.
God, Alex, you sound like Blaine. I'll tell you what I'm afraid of. I'm afraid of how every time there is a problem in an industry, the current administration's solution is for the government to take over. If left unchecked, this country will end up being run the same way Amtrak is run---and if you've ridden Amtrak lately you'll see exactly how well the government can mess up a business they're running. And also, I fear that many of our personal freedoms will be taken away. And also, we'll be sucking up to terrorist host countries so much that we won't even notice when they get bigger and stronger than us. Already the CIA is pissed and God knows what they're doing in secret behind the idiot's back that BO stuck in there. A lot of crazy things are happening in the government, a government in which a group of radicals has way too much control of certain things. Basically, I think this country is going to hell in a handbasket---and it is breaking my heart as I watch.
And the way to save the country is... extolling the "virtues" and ignoring the negatives, and criticizing anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly support the country?
No, that's not it at all. The "virtues" I extoll are the particular things which I've always respected about our contry. If you noticed in my post, I did say our country is experiencing many problems these days. But I didn't list them because today's a happy holiday, a holiday where the good things of our country are celebrated. All the negative things of our country that you listed are certainly true---but I am afraid that the wrong camps in the administration will get ahold of those issues and, under the guise of "yes we can" will send everything they touch down the toilet. I don't want to even think about those things today because they are depressing.
And thanks a lot for causing me to feel depression on what was heretofor my happy little 4th of July celebration. I just didn't think that today was the day to discuss the horrors that may befall our country if things are left in the wrong hands.
I've asked repeatedly what exactly is it these "factions" are doing to our country. Even though you're convinced these factions exist and are trying to destroy our country, you haven't exactly been vocal about what they intend to do to the US.
I TOLD YOU ALREADY. Whenever some industry or business fails, the administration's radical subgroups start advising BO that the government should take over said failing industry or business. And some of the those radical subgroups are outspoken in their desire that the USA should be a socialist government.
Leave me alone, I'm going to eat my ribs and I'm not going to answer any more of your questions. I have no idea what your purpose was in engaging into this conversation but let's just leave it at that.
alexander needs to move to canada.
interesting how unemployment benefits work, my husbands nephew has been on them for about two years now and makes no effort to find a job, when he thinks they are goiong to run out/not get an extension he starts looking. meanwhile he stays home and plays xbox. he says its Obama money.
unemployment benenfits should be a stop gap not a career.
just the other day I had a kid here from latvia. he is still a teenager on a work exchange program when i asked why he would go so for from home he said forcefully, i will do anything to get an education.
this country not only offers more opportunity to its own people but to nations, education here is easier than anywhere else, in my state, Utah, no one really questions whether you will get an advanced degree, its a given, an assuption.
i have seen people without a dime to their names become millionaires, two nephews raised by a single mother with a devestating and eventually fatal disease have doctorate degrees and work for the state department.
In this country the only handicapp to break barriers in lack of will and laziness. everyone has a choice to be what he wants without a social pre-determination.
no other country in the world is a generous, no other people in the world are as generous.
the only restrictions in this country are the ones people put upon themselves.
even for those in the despair of poverty, there is always a way out, i have seen it over and over again, thousands of organizations and individuals are willing to help. the inability to help yourself is the only factor to determine failure in this country.
you may not be a millionaire but individual success is determined by hard work education and ability not by the state.
This is the greatest country in the world with more personal freedoms and founded by God.
Thank you so much, Maren---you are totally correct in everything you said. Thank God for people like you. This definitely IS the greatest country in the world.
Shouldn't the Mexicans who want to come to the US be viewed with suspicion, then? If their fickle loyalties have left them bereft of patriotism for Mexico, they probably won't be loyal to our beautiful country, either. Anyone who ever wants to leave the country of their birth, for any reason, should be viewed that way, right?
Please note that I'm all for legal immigration. The vast majority of US citizens are born of immigrants, after all. Have at it. And I am happy and grateful to be a US citizen.
Just pointing out that blind loyalty to a country isn't the highest calling that there is.
No, Anonymous---Mexicans who come here illegally don't come here due to "fickle loyalties". They come here because they're hungry, they're sick, they can't find work in their own country, and drug lords pretty much own many of the villages. They come here to find work so they can send money back to their families. They come here to get away from violent crime and the fact that the drug lords steal from them.
I took care of hundreds of them when I was an ER nurse and also a Road Nurse. These people are proud of being Mexican---but they are desperate to find honest work in a peaceful environment.
I wouldn't begrudge them that for anything. In fact, I welcome them.
In the ER and the Road Nurse companies I worked for, I always got the illegal Mexican aliens for my patient assignments because I spoke Spanish. I enjoyed wonderful relationships with their families and they treated me wonderfully. It was the Mexican patients' families who would offer me cold lemonade on hot summer days. It was the Mexican families who held a chair for me when I sat down to do my paperwork. In one little town, I was known as the "Juera", which means blonde American girl in Spanish. They watched over me when I was in dangerous neighborhoods, even leaving one of the family's kids at my car to protect it.
I loved all of them dearly. And all of them had a Mexican flag displayed in their home---because they ARE loyal to their own country.
Ummm....Alexander the Great? You have crossed over into the "stalking" phase. Your misogynistic anger at me is causing you to escalate your comments from discussions re: political beliefs to vicious, uncalled for mudslinging at me and my friends. I am not going to print those comments nor am I going to answer your barbed questions anymore. Go haunt what's-her-face.....
Really? So I've been both a radical liberal and misogynistic? How interesting. Could you tell me how these two are reconciled in me? Oh, and for good measure, I'm also a homosexual. Try to figure that out!
I have never once called anyone a bad name, nor have I pointed out anything besides what is obviously hypocritical and lacking in rational thought.
Alex? SHUT UP! You're driving me nuts! And for the record, I knew you were gay. And no, I'm not going to tell you how I knew. And no, I don't care that you're gay. I'm all for gay rights and marriage.
BUT YOU ARE MAKING ME NUTS. Now, in about 30 minutes, Blaine is going to take me to a hobby store to get some things I need. I'm stressed out about having to go out of the house, and so please have mercy and stop tormenting me.
Good grief! And I wouldn't think you were a misogynist if you'd tell me the TRUTH about why you're mad at me. Nobody ever tells me. They deny that it's because of my argument with YH but yet they won't tell me the damn truth.
Oh, and gay men can be misogynistic. Many gay men have issues with women. Usually the gay men who are the "male" partner. And a lot of gay men hate women because they view them as "competition". Common sense.
Like I've said many times, including in the comments you refused to post, I only point out gaps in rational thinking.
You're right. I only came here initially because of Stephanie and your emails and her blog post about all that. But I've not once called you a crazypants or a twat or a c*nt or any other nasty word that criticizes you as a person or your personality. That's much more than can be said for people who choose to attack the person rather than the argument. I'm pointing out that there are large gaps in your reasoning and apparently when I do, the cognitive dissonance you feel is too much to handle so you have to scream and yell and cover your ears and pretend you can't hear me.
As for women, I do not hate women. I have no problem with women. I don't view women as competition because I'm not interested in straight men. I'm interested in men who are interested in me. Also, both men in a homosexual relationship are the "male" partner, so stop spouting stereotypes, ok? Thanks!
Alex
As one who has many gay friends I am very offended by your comment on how gays don't like women because they see them as "competition." I assume this also means you view gays as competition as a straight woman? Men who are gay are not likely to stop being gay because they meet the right girl. Either you are gay or you aren't- but the gender is not competition.
I am also confused. When people disagreed with Bush policies you called them anti-American. Why aren't you then anti-American for disliking Obama?
Also the US does not have the best social mobility. I can look up the statistic for you, but while there is opportunity the truth is if you are born into poverty in this country you will most likely remain poor. This has to do with a range of factors- poor education, poor nutrition etc. To make it as simple as saying if people tried harder is missing many key issues.
The US has the greatest foreign debt (and yes, this huge debt issue started under Bush. The truth is you can't grow the military and have two wars while lowering taxes.)
The US is facing major issues, ones I believe they are capable of fixing, but the polarizing of "you're with us or against us" is creating a system in which this won't happen.
" And a lot of gay men hate women because they view them as "competition"
OMG, you are such a fracking idiot! Most women are not looking to have a relationship with a gay man, as gay men are not looking for women-so where, in your twisted logic, is the "competition"????
Go back to your trailer and soap operas, and leave rational commenting to those with a brain...
~kate
Alex, you have TOTALLY read me wrong. The so-called "gaps" in my rational thinking are gaps---but they are gaps that I purposefully make because I don't wish to sit here on my comments page and write a time consuming treatise or thesis on all the topics you raise on the subjects of political science, civics, psychology, sociology, current events, and the American government. God, if I wrote out all that I believe, it would take me weeks---just like it did when I actually DID write a thesis on a psychological topic. (And I wrote my thesis in my senior year of college, thank you very much. And it was published.)
I think I've answered your queries and flat out show-down remarks as best as I can in the time I was willing to take because I did believe that you were truly trying to engage in an intelligent line of discussion.
BUT, you don't allow me to abbreviate things---noooooooooo, you want me to engage in far more time-consuming discussion than I'm willing to give. Lord, I DO have a life, you know.
And you came over here in a hostile fashion anyway, since you admit you came over here on the "YH Issue".
God, I wish people would just give me a break on that. I have an opinion about her and THAT'S IT. I am allowed my damn opinion. But for some reason, her stupid fans have translated the fact that I don't like her into my being the next thing to Satan or something.
But let me tell you, I don't give a rat's ass what their opinion of me is. If they want to live their lives putting alters in their homes to worship the YH, that's fine with me. They probably light incense and do the rosary at an alter with her tumbleweed-headed face on there.
Now, hopefully I've pissed you off enough to get even with my frustration that you have caused me.
And I'm sorry but you're wrong about gayness. I studied many types of humans and psychologies in my years at the university and it is a fact that some gay men prefer to take on a feminine roll and some take on a masculine roll. And many gay men have issues with the female sex. I can't believe that you don't know this, being gay yourself.
Um...Anonymous who "has many gay friends"?
I'm sorry but I can't answer your comments, much as I'd like to, because that damn Alexander the Great has drained me dry. I literally don't have the wherewithall to get into another argument with somebody about all those lovely topics like gay stereotyping, American government, civics, anthropology, upward mobility in America, history, political beliefs, the GOP vs. the idiot Democrats, and so on.
I'm pooped.
Umm...the other Anonymous who called me a "fracking idiot" over my comment about gay men viewing women as "competition".
Obviously you have never taken a class in psychology and learned about the subconscious mind. Just like misogyny, some (and I said "some") gay men have subconscious resentment towards straight women.
It is in the SUBCONSCIOUS MIND---and the guy may not even be aware of the reason for his resentment of women.
GOD, hasn't anybody here taken a fucking psychology or sociology class in the university or post graduate level? I feel like I'm dealing with a bunch of ignorant high schoolers.
Actually I teach psychology at the university level, and in addition to my private practice I volunteer time at a local HIV clinic. Based on my education and experience I have seen no research on this issue of competition.
Those roles are socially constructed roles, not something that people "prefer" to take on. Just because you were born with a vagina doesn't mean you are more inclined to like pink, be a caretaker, or like baking. Just because I was born with a penis doesn't mean I'm more inclined to like blue, want to play sports, or want to go into a field in science or mathematics.
None of my comments on this post have ever criticized you for your views on Stephanie. I haven't berated you for disagreeing with her, I haven't called you names, and I don't consider you a lesser person. I said I came over here because of it, but I didn't say that I came here because I thought you were crazypants, a twat, or a c*nt. Apparently, working through your cognitive dissonance is too tiring to actually lay out your arguments.
As for your comments about "gayness," first off, call it homosexuality, not "gayness," because that makes you seem uneducated. I'm sure you have done research, and I'm not saying you are a bad person, but when exactly were these studies you did? I have a hard time believing that someone who studied this earlier than the past decade had severe social bias (not that you're homophobic; society was and still is on the whole homophobic) looking to diagnose and stigmatize rather than actually study. Unfortunately, I don't fit into your constructed categories of masculine and feminine.
Like I have said before, I have no problem with women as a gender. I have a problem with people (male, female, transgender) who whine and complain when holes are presented to them in their beliefs, instead of engaging in an adult discussion, allowing others to present their arguments.
Look, Anonymous who teaches psychology. No offense, but it must be a basic "101" course you teach. There are now many courses offered which specifically teach gender psychology---you know, the psychology of homosexual humans, cross-dressers, transgenders, etc.
You must be from the covered wagon days because the above topics I listed are very important and are being taught at most universities. (Maybe not at the Baptist University in North Carolina, but at most other universities.)
(Heh, that was a joke, get it?)
Alex:
Yes, you are correct that being born with certain sexual organs DOES NOT cause the person to gravitate towards that sex's stereotypical behavior. I happen to believe that homosexuality is genetic. But some parts of society just don't want to deal with that.
Thank you for not jumping on the Stephanie bandwagon. But I am gun shy on that because so many sheer numbers of people HAVE insulted me for the last solid year because of my opinion on her, so give me a break.
And yes, it is tiring to lay out all my arguments. You know why? Because I have Blaine in one ear, and I'm in my studio working on jewelry. I have more to do in my day than argue. Arguing of any kind does tire me out. It always feels as if I'm trying to defend myself, and it gets old, especially since I've been defending myself for the last year. And I've found that no matter what I say to defend myself, it is thrown back into my face as "stupidity", "ignorant", "looney tunes" and other humiliating descriptory terms.
And another thing: I am very educated. And I did not put you into a category. If you noticed, whenever I described a certain type of behavior, I used the term "some" to describe it. Not everybody, gay or straight, fits into the categories I was talking about. I said SOME, not ALL. Geez, read slower so you can catch all the adjectives, etc.
Okay, I am going to go and get some chips and salsa---I'm tired, I'm hungry, and I'm really tired of defending myself for whatever reason.
Also where'd you get the story that the US Embassy in Iraq was under rocket attack yesterday?
How come none of the papers of record even mentioned such a big story?
To the IDIOT ANONYMOUS who doesn't read the paper:
HERE is the news bulletin about the US Embassy in Iraq being attacked by rockets yesterday, July 4th--read it and weep:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/04/biden-urging-iraqi-leaders-end-political-rivalry/
You are SOME DUMB ASININE BITCH and haven't the intellect of a snail.
Oh, and did I mention that you'll have to copy and paste to get that link to work? I feel it necessary to tell you that since you're SO FUCKING STUPID.
Ha. That anonymous is an "asinine bitch"? No, you never get personally insulting.
Ha again. Foxnews.com is not a paper of record. It's not even on the same continent as any paper of record.
Why can't I find your bombing tale by googling, or the NY Times or the LA Times or the Washington Post or the Times of London??
Here's more you dumb ass. Read much? You probably only read the comics in the Sunday paper. You have NO CLUE as to the world of politics. Stick to your knitting:
http://hanan-revue.blogspot.com/2010/07/mortars-hit-green-zone-during-biden.html
http://militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?1580416-3-arrested-for-rocket-attack-during-Biden-visit
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/172444/3-arrested-for-rocket-attack-during-biden-visit
http://news.findtarget.com/world/green_zone_shelled_during_biden_visit/
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/2546882/posts
Oh, forgot to say---these links were all from me googling. There are literally hundreds of them, reporting the same thing. So like it or not, you shit-for-brains, the American Embassy was attacked by rockets yesterday.
Speshul Kitteh (who teaches humanities, history, English, French, and Spanish) would like to point out that your definition of a "lameduck president" is wrong. A lame duck (two words) president is one who is near the end of his or her term, will not be re-elected, and who (possibly) has a successor already lined up (post-election). The lame duck refers to the fact that the president has effectively very little power and very little consequence as his or her term is nearly up. Even President Bush was, for a period, a lame duck president.
A simple Google search (since you mention that you do use Google) would have brought you to the correct information, rather than the treatise you wrote defining Barack Obama as a lame duck. It will be a while before he becomes a lame duck.
I respectfully disagree, Speshul Kitteh. There are different definitions of "lame duck President" depending on which circles you are in.
I grew up in politics. My parents were both diplomats and I hung out with all kinds of celebrities and important political figures.
The way that the diplomatic world views a "lame duck President" is one in which his own party begins to be embarassed about him but tries to bail him out on his lack of political abilities by convincing America that what BO does is his own work rather than the fact that he is clueless as a politician. So his party bails him out by telling him what to do. Basically, they write those grand speeches---but the real BO is actually in a panic these days. He knows NOT what to do about all the big issues---his inadequacy can be seen by how late he responds to urgent issues.
Also, in diplomatic circles, a "lame duck President" is one where the security of the United States of America is viewed as in jeopardy---and the security agencies all begin to work with each other to protect themselves against BO's total refusal to work with them. The CIA, the NSA, and the "unmentionable Men in Black" are all disgusted with this inadequate President. What they are doing right now is working with each other on God knows what, and they are all sitting back laughing at how the lame duck has no control over them.
Actually, the CIA (called the "Agency" in diplomatic circles) usually does exactly what they want, so this stupid President only helps them mask what they're doing more easily than if there was a savvy President in office.
How do I know these things? My parents started out as diplomats and ended up "recruited", if you know what I mean.
BO is a lame duck. His own party knew this long ago---which is why they wanted him elected, so that they could run things on his puppet strings. The GOP has further stymied things by totally refusing to cooperate with the lame duck.
Trust me, BO's only friends are the common people who are still living off the high of the election. But, gradually, they're seeing the truth---that he is totally inadequate.
Speshul Kitteh challenges you to find credible sources that support your definition. It's kind of hard to argue with Constitutional amendments, case law, and historical fact. Remember that what we hear isn't always correct. Celebrities and diplomats have been known to lie.
Of course, just so that you can educate yourself on the legal and historical meanings of the term "lame duck", start with Wikipedia (which, although not always the most credible source, provides references in this case): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame_duck_(politics)
We also have the nice, multi-page, multi-reference information from How Stuff Works: http://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/lame-duck-president.htm
Or from Answers.com with multiple sources: http://www.answers.com/topic/lame-duck
•Beerman, Jack M. "Presidential power in transition." Boston University School of Law. http://www-test.bu.edu/law/faculty/scholarship/
workingpapers/abstracts/2002/pdf_files/BeermannJ111402.pdf
•Cannon, Carl M. "Fowl territory." National Journal. July 27, 2007. http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2007/0727nj1.htm
•Dobbs, Lou. "Beware the lame duck." CNN October 17, 2007. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/16/Dobbs.Oct17/index.html
•Doyle, Leonard and Buncombe, Andrew. "Remember him? Bush begins Middle East tour." The Independent. January 7, 2008. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/
remember-him-bush-begins-middle-east-tour-768556.html
•Lewsi, Anthony. "Abroad at home, a terrible precedent." New York Times. January 5, 1999. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0CE2
D9173EF936A35752C0A96F958260
•Mason, Julie. "With a year to go, Bush focuses on his legacy." Houston Chronicle. January 19, 2008.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/5470094.html
•Seib, Gerald F. and McKinnon, John D. "Lame duck president has fewer tools to advance his shrinking agenda." Wall Street Journal. August 28, 2007. http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB118824654074510133.html
•Sracic, Paul and Ritchey, Nathan P. "All tied up in presidential what-ifs." Washington Post. August 22, 2004.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20375-2004Aug20.html
•"Electoral College primer." Associated Press. Noveer 22, 2000. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/08/politics/main247900.shtml
•"Lame Duck." The Phrase Finder.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/lame-duck.html
•"Lame Duck Day." Holiday Insights. http://www.holidayinsights.com/moreholidays/February/lameduckday.htm
•"Pardons granted by President Clinton (1994-2001)." U.S. Department of Justice. http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm#january202001
•"Remarks on the bicentennial of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court History. January 16, 1990. http://www.supremecourthistory.org/04_library/subs_volumes/04_c12_e.html
•"Twentieth Amendment commencement of the terms of the President, Vice President, and members of Congress, etc." Cornell University Law School. http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt20_user.html#amdt20_hd2
•"U.S. Constitution: Twentieth Amendment." FindLaw. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment20/
Like I told you, Speshul Kitteh, there are different definitions depending on which sociological group you're in.
I just told you the definition according to the diplomatic circles and also the "security" circles (i.e. the Agency, etc.)
Jimmy Carter was a lame duck the entire time he was in office (according to the diplomatic circles I was in) and now it's BO being called a lame duck.
No, it may not be the collegiate version of the term "lame duck" that you have listed, but those definitions don't mean a thing to people in diplomatic circles. They call things as they see it, and perhaps their terminology doesn't agree with yours, but it means somethin to THEM.
How can you say BO is not a lame duck? He's so lame duck that we can hear his miserable quacks a mile away.
His fear is so great that it is seen for miles. He knows he's a lame duck. He knows that he has sunk to a "token" status.
You underestimate my knowledge because you have no idea of the circles my family runs in. I come from (like I said) diplomatic circles and also Houston oil money.
(OOOH!!! I said the bad word! Oil!!!)
Evidence?
If so many people subscribe to the defition you gave, surely you can cite a source. Even just one?
And, by the way, the definition is not a "collegiate" one--it's based on law and history.
Really, I'm just asking you for proof of what you stated earlier as a definition of lame duck president. If you can't do that, just admit it and I'll drop the issue.
By the way, "sociological circles" refers to lines of thought within the field of sociology. Might you have been referring to "social circles," which would be an accurate description of the diplomatic circles you describe?
Oh good grief, Speshul Kitteh. You are now delving into the term "semantics". You know damn well that there's not going to be a Thesaurus or Dictionary term for lame duck that is only referred to by diplomatic circles, the "Agency", etc. It's a term. Just like, for example, "dark horse". It means different things to different groups.
(Is "group" a term that suits you better, instead of the sociological references?)
I get it, secret club, special words, secret phrases, need a decoder ring, can't prove anything. Case closed.
Can't admit you might be a little wrong, can you?
I'm not wrong. For an example, look up the definition of "dark horse". It has multiple meanings, just like lame duck President.
You're arguing semantics, which is stupid. And if you were really as intelligent as you pretend you are, you'd KNOW that you're arguing semantics.
I'm just asking you to provide any source in print (or online) that has your definition of lame duck.
And, yes, it is semantics because we are discussing the meaning of words.
Like I said, your definition does not appear anywhere, but where you have posted it. If it such a well known and highly regarded definition, surely a diplomat has used it publicly. I can't imagine that the language police have found it possible to remove "lame duck," as you use it, from print.
By the way, as someone who has noted that she speaks French and Spanish, along with English, it looks rather foolish and shortsighted of you to discount the study of the meaning of words.
As someone who is educated and has written, you should know the value of citing your sources and backing up your claims with evidence. I have provided you with evidence (legal, historical, and otherwise) and am awaiting yours.
Here you go (and hopefully I got these links copied okay):
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama-fighting-for-his-presidency_-not-reform-8114039-53354747.html
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/is-obama-already-a-lame-duck-president/question-834749/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100109122059AA5WFP5
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/4/3/6/9/p143695_index.html
Where are you Speshul Kitteh? Did you read the proof I gave you? Why do people who DEMAND proof of my reasoning get angry and go away when I provide them the proof they demanded? Huh? What is it with them?
The last link didn't post correctly, but the other three don't prove your case.
Link 1: Washington Examiner--talks about Obama's inability to get things done and questions if he is like a lame duck president.
*Speshul Kitteh
Link 2: Sodahead--again about Obama being ineffective by not being able to do anything, like a lame duck who is about to leave office.
*Speshul Kitteh
Link 3: Yahoo Answers--the first two responses talk about being ineffective at the end of a term, the last two responses are, well, uneducated drivel that don't even address the question.
So, again, where are the sources that use "lame duck" in the manner you define it? I'll be glad to read them when you provide them. I read the ones you gave and summarized them for other readers who might not take the time to do so.
Speshul Kitteh: You refuse my evidence as "uneducated drivel". That alone shows me that you are whistling out your ass. Define "uneducated drivel"? Is it just a term you use to throw away anybody who doesn't agree with you on definitions & word usage?
Listen, I skipped 2 grades in school and then wrote my thesis in my last undergraduate year. (Which was published if I may add.)
My IQ is very high and I am very smart.
So don't blow smoke up my ass because I can see you coming a mile away. I am FINISHED indulging you. You are simply engaging me to irritate me, because you know I'm right but it bugs the hell out of you.
So leave me alone.
Speshul Kitteh:
I never in any way, shape, or fashion said to you that the general term "lame duck president" used in the diplomatic and US security circles that I come from is written or defined in any respected tome or whatever.
I simply told you that the meaning WE GAVE to the term "lame duck President" in our circles MEANT A CERTAIN THING WHEN WE REFERRED TO CERTAIN PRESIDENTS.
THAT IS IT. FINAL. It was used with OUR MEANING. OUR MEANING.
And if we were using the term in error as to the souces you give, then that is TOO FUCKING BAD. THAT'S HOW WE REFERRED TO CERTAIN PRESIDENTS no matter WHERE they were in their terms. And we're now using that term for BO as we speak.
GOD, get it through your head---WE USE THE TERM FOR OUR MEANING. Maybe it's not your cited meanings, but it's OUR MEANING.
Can you get it? OUR MEANING. OUR MEANING. How many times do I have to tell you that we use the term as to OUR MEANING.
God, what is your major malfunction?
Hey Bo, get a grip. Speshul Kitteh provided another definition of lame duck and asked you to provide some background to yours other than what you know from experience. There's no reason to scream about it (at least that's how I'm taking your ALL CAPS). Your responses haven't been very nice, civil, or like that southern lady I once liked.
I'm sorry, Savannah, but lately I keep getting these people who know exactly what I'm saying but they keep on me and keep on me, demanding "proof", and I just don't believe they want proof---I think they're real purpose is to humiliate me. I try to accomodate them in the beginning but they keep on and keep on because they can't accept my response. And, finally, I get mad and stop printing their comments and I "yell" at them with caps. They never want a real conversation---they just want to find some way to prove me wrong and humiliate me---which isn't going to happen.
What they do is make me so angry that I ban them from the blog. I will no longer take any posts from Speshul Kitteh or Alexander the Great. Both their techniques are to keep asking the SAME question, over and over, and they get more angry as time goes on and I don't agree with them or the facts show that I'm RIGHT. (They hate the fact that I'm right about what we're arguing about.)
Post a Comment