paulareed

Calendar

««Nov 2009»»
SMTWTFS
123
4
5
6
7
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930

Search Box

 

Paula's Website

Is There Such a Thing as Too Moderate?

posted Tuesday, 6 December 2005
This is my question for today. I consider myself a left-of-center moderate. Yes, yes, I identify myself as liberal in my profile. I also say I’m a Protestant. That’s a total technicality. I’m Unitarian Universalist, which is technically Protestant but is not Christian. Neither am I agnostic nor anything else offered as an option, and I didn’t like “other.”

I don’t think I’m a bleeding heart. I think we are far too prone to see everyone as a victim these days, every weakness as a disease. For most of us, life is hard. Get over it and get to work. On the other hand, I have no doubt that some people are mentally ill or dealing with circumstances and disabilities that require decent human beings to reach out with a little compassion and what help they can offer.

I don’t believe in capital punishment. This was a debate topic one year, and at the time, I supported it. By the time I had thoroughly researched it with the kids (both sides, as is required by competitive debate), I had done a complete 180. All the evidence showed that, as a system, it has been unquestionably racist. It is not a deterrent, and may even be a cause of violence. It is not cheaper than life imprisonment, but I have to say that I don’t think that cost should be a factor in the decision anyway. Our strongest argument in favor of it was the idea that revenge is a justifiable element of justice. I just didn’t feel good about making my personal decision about capital punishment based on this. Others may certainly disagree; that’s just where I am with it.

At the same time, I believe that people are accountable for their actions (barring the truly criminally insane or mentally retarded people who have committed crimes). I realize that murderers probably have some horrific experiences of their own in their backgrounds, but that isn’t just cause for taking another’s life. Get therapy. Take your meds. Do whatever you have to to get a grip. Every time someone talks about bullying “causing” Eric and Dylan to murder 13 people, I have to squelch the urge to flatten him. Bullshit. Deal with it. Otherwise, you go to jail, and if you are the kind of person who is going to be an on-going threat, you stay in jail.

I believe in marriage. It’s not that I think everyone should get married, but I believe in it as an institution. My marriage is a huge asset in my life, and yes, I think the covenant my husband and I have made deepens our relationship. Legally, it’s very handy-dandy. It makes filing taxes as a household convenient. If I get bonked on the head and sent to the hospital, my DH automatically gets all the info about me. If my brain stops working, no one has to rely solely upon a living will that may or may not make my wishes clear under the given circumstances. Everyone knows that my DH gets to make the decisions, and I am perfectly comfortable with that. We’ve been together over 28 years; he knows me better than anyone. If the kids need something, a permission slip signed or medical attention, either one of us can take care of it. I think gay couples can need and should have access to all of these advantages. I do not think that gay marriage undermines my marriage. I don’t think that anybody else’s marriage (or choice not to marry) has any impact on my marriage.

So am I a weenie? Should I be choosing up sides on the extreme ends of the spectrum as the media would have us believe that we are all doing these days, or are you a closet moderate, too?




1. Mike Leuszler left...
Tuesday, 6 December 2005 1:24 pm

If you're a weenie, I'm a weenie. And the world, in this case, needs more weenies.

I wish we were all Oscar Mayer weinies. That is what we truly need to beeeee....

Mike Leuszler http://openmike.blog-city.com


2. Pimme left...
Tuesday, 6 December 2005 3:50 pm :: http://pimme.blog-city.com

Most situations have plenty of "gray area" to consider. Universal qualifiers such as "all" "none" "always" and "never" rarely ring true 100% of the time.

For example, I can't say that I support or oppose the death penalty 100% either way. Ray Krone, who was from my area, was the 100th person exonerated by DNA evidence while on death row. Good for him! However, if there's absolute proof that someone killed people in cold blood and would be too dangerous to ever release, then I feel that he/she should die. Don't waste money keeping him alive.

What works for one thing may not work for another, so some situations call for conservative action while others call for more liberal viewpoints.


3. rosebud left...
Tuesday, 6 December 2005 4:49 pm :: http://rambling-rosebud.blog-city.com

I absolutely agree that the death penalty should be abolished. I used to think it was a good idea until I read up on the topic and did some serious pondering on the subject. And, I agree that that people should be punished when they commit crimes. It would be better though if an attempt at rehabilitation occurred while criminals are in prison, regardless of whether they are ever going to be released.


4. --W-- left...
Tuesday, 6 December 2005 6:15 pm :: http://confessionsofalibertine.blog-city

Bleeding heart or compassionate? It all depends on what you call it, and the world has seen precious little compassion, which is part of the problem.

I try to avoid seeing simple solutions to complex problems; that's the easy way out.

I have nothing against people who want a traditional marriage for themselves, but I don't think it's the only ethical ballgame in town, nor is it a "one size fits all" kind of a deal.

Nor do I think the legal part of marriage makes the commitment; the couple does that privately. For religious people, I'd think the religious ceremony should mean more to them than the civil legal part of it.

Marriage was made for people; people were not made for marriage, and if the shoe doesn't fit, get another shoe,wear boots, or go barefoot, don't cut the toes off to make it fit.

I also don't think the government has any business regulating people's personal and private relationships -- it's not up to them to decide what is a legitimate personal relationship and what is not. However consenting adults wish to relate to one another is their own business.

You mention all the legal benefits that come with marriage, such as tax breaks. I would guess that a single parent household would need those tax breaks just as much or more than a childless married couple -- such things should be based on need, not relationship status.

Rather than framing laws regarding the welfare of children around how their parents relate to one another, it should be based squarely on how each parent relates to the child.

Stepping off the soapbox; this issue can really get me worked up.


5. MonkeySpit left...
Tuesday, 6 December 2005 9:10 pm

I agree with Pimme on capital punishment, that each case should be taken into consideration for the evidence of guilt.

If someone murders another person in cold blood, then they forfiet their right to live. It doesnt matter how many children's books they write while in jail, the fact still remains that they knowingly and willfully murdered someone without remorse. There is no redemption, no rehabilitation for a person like this.

Thats the way I see it.


6. Paula Reed left...
Wednesday, 7 December 2005 6:18 am

Actually, I didn't say anything about tax breaks, only the fact that it's convenient to file as a household rather than separately. I hear a lot about it actually being more expensive to file as a couple, but we have a CPA do our taxes, so I'm not sure exactly what the monetary difference is. I agree that the commitment part of a marriage is religious/spiritual (whichever word you prefer), which I why I was saying that I don't worry a great deal about what other people's marriages should or shouldn't look like. I think for some major decisions, like life support, you need a clear "buck stops here" designation.

I think being a moderate means you don't go for simple solutions. The far left can be as guilty as the far right when it comes to knee-jerk responses.