I read a couple of interesting opinion articles today that I thought were worth sharing. Well, one is really more of a press release, but it's definitely an opinion. Both have to do with the "RIGHT Policy" series that I'm working on.
First, liberal "scholar" (I guess that is the best term) Camille Paglia wrote this article for Salon.com. It's a pretty interesting article. She mainly wanted to address how Sarah Palin is a "real feminist". I don't really have much of an opinion in that regard, but she make some good point. I recommend you read the entire article, but the quote I want to share today is this one...
But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, "Sexual Personae,") has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature's fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive.
Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman's body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman's entrance into society and citizenship.
She has some really crazy views, but at least she admits that abortion is indeed murder. Most liberals would never admit this of course. But she is RIGHT. She goes on to talk about how the way liberals defend the pro-choice viewpoint will never work, so they are left with attacking pro-life women.
And the second thing I want to share is Ron Paul's press release today. Some excerpts...
The coverage of the presidential election is designed to be a grand distraction. This is not new, but this year, it’s more so than ever.
Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.
The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.
---
The two parties and their candidates have no real disagreements on foreign policy, monetary policy, privacy issues, or the welfare state. They both are willing to abuse the Rule of Law and ignore constitutional restraint on Executive Powers. Neither major party champions free markets and private-property ownership.
---
The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems. This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates—Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)
Yes, these individuals do have strong philosophic disagreements on various issues, but they all stand for challenging the status quo—those special interest who control our federal government. And because of this, on the big issues of war, civil liberties, deficits, and the Federal Reserve they have much in common. People will waste their vote in voting for the lesser of two evils. That can’t be stopped overnight, but for us to have an impact we must maximize the total votes of those rejecting the two major candidates.
For me, though, my advice—for what it’s worth—is to vote! Reject the two candidates who demand perpetuation of the status quo and pick one of the alternatives that you have the greatest affinity to, based on the other issues.
A huge vote for those running on principle will be a lot more valuable by sending a message that we’ve had enough and want real change than wasting one’s vote on a supposed lesser of two evils.
Well, this is what the series I'm working on is really all about I guess. I'm really torn here. Ron Paul is exactly RIGHT that we are not going to change anything if we keep holding our nose and voting for the lesser of two evils. But some things about the (yes, minor) differences in Obama and McCain's policies are down right scary. Some things about liberal platform are extremely dangerous. Can I live with voting for someone who I know will lose or not voting at all even when the consequences could affect our country for many years to come? Tough decision indeed.
Posts
1 comments: