I was flipping through a dieting pamphlet over ¹the weekend where it edcuated me on the fact that there are apparently two different kinds of “carbs.”  The first type – dubbed “paleocarbs” – are the carbohydrates we got when we were merely “hunters and gatherers.”  They have always existed and supposedly there is a certain purity about them, or something, so our systems could break them down easier.  The other kind, the “neocarb,” are the carbs that were “invented” when farming came about around 10,000 years ago.  And now they are the enemy.   According to people like Mr. Atkins  and the like, they are what turn us into blobs and stop us from shedding those unsightly pounds.

After that stimulating piece of reading, I moved onto American newspapers… which is just as invigorating. There I notice that we have a new buzzword popping up every three words in campaign coverage.  Last week it was “lipstick,” this week it appears to be “neocon” (derived from “neoconservative”).   From what I gather, the conservatives of the past, the paleocons if you will, were the guys who believe believe in lowering taxes by reducing the size/influence of the federal government and by cutting back on unnecessary spending, in theory anyway.  The “neocons,” who started milling about somewhere in the Great Depression, have evolved into the guys who like to give tax-cuts to the people who don’t really need them and create “preventative wars.” ²  These guys are the carbs that eventually lead to heart attacks.

Hm, and here I was thinking that a carb is just a carb.

______

Other than the occasional social issue, I try to stay as clear as possible from politics. It’s not the politics that I find distressing, but rather the politics OF the politics that I find particularly off-putting, but really that’s an argument for another day. Upon creating this website, I never had any intentions of it being a political haven, particularly because I don’t think I can speak articulately enough on any one political subject well enough for it to be so, nor honestly, do I care. But it would seem now, with the November election rapidly approaching, I find myself a lot more interested, and not to mention, scared.

Yes, to repeat that, I am scared of which what the political winds are blowing. I’ve heard countless times that this may be the most important presidential election America has ever seen, and though I can’t argue if that is necessarily the case ¹I cannot deny that the election is crucial to the future of our country. The notion of John McCain taking office terrifies me. Actually terrifies me. The below video pretty much sums up why:

McCain will be the next Dubbya, and then some. Over the last eight years, the USA has tumbled² from grace due to the current administration and to be honest, I don’t think that we are strong enough to take another four years of decline. That’s over a decade falling, and that’s bound to do some damage. The economy is worse off than it has ever been. (From 3 trillion surplus to 5 trillion debt, is nothing to scoff at, even though the numbers are fairly hard to comprehend.) McCain will surely continue that with his notions of what “rich” is and how we should continue to stay in the futile war we’ve been drowning in for the last seven years. If McCain wins the presidency, America will go even further into debt with the war, not to mention, lose lives that ought not be lost, run screaming towards Christian Evangelical Fundamentalism and most certainly set social issues back twenty years. ³

We need Obama.  And though I really like him and think that he will do a good job as president, I am not claiming that Obama has to be the most 100% perfect man for the job.  We just can’t have McCain — at this point, even if it were 2000 McCain and not 2008 McCain — because Bush has already set us back too far. Maybe it would be different, tolerable at least, if he was coming straight off the heels of Clinton, but he’s not, our grave is being dug as I type this.  

Frankly, I don’t trust My Fellow Americans to make the right choice.  People vote their wallets an unfortunate amount of the time, even if they don’t have the wallets that are going to benefit.  Plus there’s the ignorant contingent that we have to deal with who just like to have their freedom to bare arms and not having to deal with those different (or more intelligent) than them.  Not to mention, those looney’s who vote Independent, thinking that that is a way to keep the evil away by not voting for it.  You know what, stay home, independents, because all you do is take away from the good guys, since your “parties” are generally little off-shoot denominations of Democrats anyway.  Thirdly, what’s to stop the GOP from stealing yet another election?  Twice in a row they’ve done it, and not subtly, either, so what’s to stop them from doing it again?  What’s the swing state of choice this time?  And finally, Obama is counting on a lot of votes from demographics that aren’t the most reliable when it comes to rolling out of bed on that Tuesday in November, and though they seem to be changing their tune this year, old habits die hard.  I can’t say that the outcome is optimistic here. 

The last thing I want to be is cynical, and to be honest, I think that my new found viewing of the West Wing is only exacerbating the issue.  (Why can’t Martin Sheen run for president?  Or at least Laura Roslin?  They’ve done nothing but proven awesome at it on screen, who’s to say they won’t do better than the standard Dubbya set?)  Is it so wrong that I want tomorrow to be better and that I believe that, in our case, if it doesn’t get better, it’s going to get a lot, LOT, worse?  I know I’m not the most informed person in the political playground, in fact, I’m pretty sure I’m the kid on the leash that has to sit in the corner facing the opposite direction, but I do my best to stay informed and alert.

I’m scared about the election.  I’m scared it’s going to turn out the way that I’m scared of it turning out.

Wii Fit:

Down to 22.27% BMI, thats 59.9 kg.  Fingers crossed.

________

Last night at dinner I was called “Conservative,” which was an “Et tu, Brute?” moment for me, considering it came from one of my closer friends and also my partner.  This is something I have never come to call myself nor have I ever heard anyone refer to me as.  Upon this little dinnertime outburst I did a quick mental checklist and decided that ultimately, I still fell in the liberal category, politically, socially and fiscally.  Yes, people should be treated equally and pax taxes (though, if you’re volunteering to pave the roads yourself, I guess we can discuss the latter.)

According to Wikipedia¹ defines conservatism as the following:

… a term used to describe political philosophies that favour tradition, where tradition refers to various religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs.

This is where they were getting me, traditions.  I believe in the institution of marriage.  Crap, I knew that one would come back to bite me in the ass.  I’ve always wanted to be married and have a big family.  Family values are something that are important and are something that I would like to pass down to my children.  Of course, I absolutely acknowledge that anyone can have a family without marriage being involved.  There are so many types of families out there in the world, who am I to say which ones are better than others, so if you don’t want to get married, don’t, but I do.  And it goes beyond “insurance” and the like with me, it’s the universal recognition that I am now legally related to my spouse.²  After weighing up the pros and cons, I have decided that marriage is for me, so woo marriage.  On the other hand, the friend that I happened to be dining with last night does not believe in the institution  – which I take to mean that she has decided it is not for her, opposed to flat out not believing that it exists in the world — an that is perfectly okay by me.  Wanting to get married alone does not make me conservative, believing that it is the right thing for everyone and that marriage must mean the same thing to everyone personally would be, however.³

They also got me on the fact that I had morals.  Er, I would like to admit now that this was one that I did not see coming, especially over my views on abortion (more on that one later).  It was laid out on the table that I knew where I stood on moral issues and inherently felt that there is a way in which people should behave.  I couldn’t disagree with that one but wasn’t too certain on how that actually made me conservative, or liberal, for that matter.  Everyone has views on what the “Moral Rules” should be, no matter who you are.  It’s just happens, you either feel this way or you don’t, just pick a topic.  I guess there are various stances you can take on each issue, but to be honest, I’ve never run into someone who believes “Kill people on your whim, and take things that don’t rightfully belong to you.”  And even that rare belief would still be considered a “moral stance.”  Does that make that person conservative?  I think that moral conservatism actually has to do with the morals that you uphold, not the fact that you actually have them.

The only really “conservative” moral that I believe myself to hold is my stance on abortion, which ironically didn’t come up in this particular conversation until I, myself,  brought it up.  I am pro-life. ⁴ I am under the impression that when life begins, it begins.  Since when was it a thought that you could be pregnant with something that wasn’t alive? If we started saying “I’m not pregnant yet, but there is a sack of cells developing caused my prior copulation and instigated by a successful sperm,” it would not only be difficult to get out in one breath but it would be difficult to start to define when this so called “real pregnancy” aka life, begins.  People say it’s not that simple and there are so many things to consider, but it should be in my book.  Don’t get me started on it any further than that because the last thing you want is an all out abortion debate; everyone hates those.  Life is life and I do not believe that any humans have the right to say when another human dies, fetal, prisoner or otherwise. 

But don’t you worry, those of you who believe in a woman’s right to choose, I will never vote to outlaw abortion because it is one of those things that you will never be able to make everyone believe.  Whether abortion is legal or not, there are going to still be people out there who are going to have them and I am willing to acknowledge that it is wiser to have them do it some where legitimate and safe opposed to having a repeat of the 40′s and 50′s that involves coat hangers and/or dirty instruments.

I guess no one can be perfect.

Though I guess that should be my point. I think people get hung up with these “conservative” and “liberal” labels, myself included, but ultimately there are far too many grey areas and to box yourself in gives you a lot of implications that you might not want to take on.  What I think is more important is that you do know where you stand on issues of morality, politics, religion and otherwise.  There are so many people out there who don’t know where they stand and can be lead around by their noses. Uncertainty is okay to an extent because we are only human and we can’t be expected to know everything, but you can’t just leave it at that.  Saying “I don’t know” is one thing, but it’s a whole other kettle of fish not to then search for the answer — whether it be internally or externally.  Not knowing breeds ignorance and you owe it to your descendants, and to me personally, not to be stupid.  Get the facts, know where you stand and don’t discredit it if it feels like it’s coming from your heart and not your head.  That’s legitimate too.  

Know where you stand, it’s your best weapon.  

People should be allowed to believe what they believe without the judgement of others as long as they’re not hurting anyone. (Please note that last bit)  No more of this “I know what’s best” mentality, because you don’t.  There’s no way anyone could possibly have that capability when it comes to such grey matters.

Another thing I learned is there is a reason not to discuss such things at the dinner table.  In all the kerfuffle I forgot to go back to the buffet and get a fried ice cream (which is probably to my benefit since my Wii Fit weight is on the rise once again.)

I apologize for the quality of this post.  I promise I will at least attempt to be more coherent, or at least more entertaining when I get less ill.

“Obama Campaign Reaches out to Gay Georgians”

When I first saw this headline, I thought, “what, all four of them?”  Even as a lesbian from Georgia’s neighbor, South Carolina, I still find it hard to grasp onto the idea that there are more than a handful of gays and lesbians in the deep south and I think that it is insanely important (not to mention comforting) that people as politically powerful as Obama are able to recognize that gays and lesbians don’t just live in California and New York.  According to the 2006 U.S. Census analysis by UCLA’s Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law & Public Policy, there are over 280,000 GLB’s roaming the dirt roads of Georgia, and a number that meaty isn’t only surprising, but makes you go “Hm, maybe Obama’s onto something.”   And hey, maybe if this little experiment works out for him in Georgia, he can head on next door to my neck of the woods and see what kind of support he can rustle up over there.

According to the article in Southern Voice, Obama has turned some of his campaigning efforts in Georgia towards the GLB community in hopes of getting the southern st­ate to turn a pretty shade of blue in November for the first time since Bill’s first election in ‘92.

It would appear that Obama’s tactic is so appealing that, according to this article at least, even some of the gay Republicans can’t help being interested in his views on gay rights.

Ah, the controversy of the Gay Republican.  Being born and bred on the buckle of the Bible belt myself, the concept of the “Gay Republican” is not foreign to me, though that does not makes it any less baffling.  So many of my peers and elders alike have lectured me about how “politics has nothing to do with sexuality and therefore doesn’t influence who I vote for.”  I’m sorry to burst any bubbles, but it does and it should, especially once anyone, GOP or otherwise, starts using a particular stance on sexuality for political sway. “Yes, you might be one of the few who gets a tax cut, but you must also resign yourself to wearing a pink triangle on your arm so that we can keep an eye on you.” It becomes unavoidably apparent that sexual and political preferences unquestionably go hand in hand. The question that does remain to be asked, however, is where is the line here? And what trade-offs are we willing to make for these “clear cut politics” so many people speak of?