03 October 2007


Even whilst bemoaning the fact that the current presidential election campaign has been the longest and most expensive in our country's history, I'm still paying attention to it and an active participant in it. Which is silly, because if I want to encourage the powers that be to cease and desist with the huge money-sucking mess, I ought to ignore it and urge you to do the same.

But I've never been able to ignore politics, from about the age of 10 on, I've been highly interested in the political machine and the governance of not just the United States, but much of the world.

I caught a snippet the other day of Glen Beck criticizing Hilliary Rodham Clinton, which made me exasperated at his ignorance. And I don't think he's an idiot, let me be clear on that. I disagree with him a lot, but mostly I think he's a smart guy. He was talking about Clinton's new plan to give every child $5,000 for college or to purchase a home. Nice idea, impractical, but hey, no less crazy than some of the other things presidential candidates have been talking about lately.

During his critique, he brought out the dreaded word "Socialist." Which usually has every red-blooded American running for the hills, screaming "Commie! Commie!!" Allow me to edumacate y'all for a second; first, socialism isn't communism. Second, Dictionary.com defines socialism as a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Is socialism evil? Not inherently so. I think it has lofty ideals that don't end up working well in practice, because of the basic human trait of greed, but in a perfect world.....

Is it counter to capitalism? I hate to admit it, but sure, some of the ideals of socialism are directly opposed to capitalism, but again, that's a case of good ideas on paper not working well in the real world; the human factor.

It just frustrates the living hell out of me that people like Mr. Beck, in the interest of sensationalism and ratings, toss the term around as if it is something we all ought to be terrified of.

Personally? I'm more frightened of W's destruction of habeas corpus and the possibility that Mit Romney might be our next president than I am of a few socialist programs. I have not yet made up my mind who I shall vote for (and note, please, that the day in question is MORE THAN A YEAR from now) but my vote will go to a candidate who is pro-choice, first and foremost. That issue, more than any other, is a deciding factor for me. Socialist programs? Not so much a deciding factor.


Anonymous said...

No offense and I know this is a blogspot for opinions, but I could not help but comment on your statement "my vote will go to a candidate who is pro-choice, first and foremost. That issue, more than any other, is a deciding factor for me." I am pro-choice female as well and it's a top issue of concern, but the FIRST AND FOREMOST factor is too extreme. With all due respect, there are more important things in this world than aborting babies. Funding, advocating, and educating women to protect themselves sexually in order to prevent pregnancy is one of them.

Lucy Arin said...

Thank you for commenting, it always thrills me when what I've written affects someone enough to make a remark.

And you're not wrong; we do need to make sure that funding for all programs that impact women's health, not just reproductive rights, are protected.

That said, as far as I'm concerned, protecting our right to do what we want to with our own bodies trumps that. Personal freedom. I do vote based on a candidate's stance on abortion, it is that important to me.

I started this blog solely because I was terrified that we would lose the right to choose; although I've stepped away from writing about the abortion debate lately, it is the single issue that I am most passionate about. I make no apologies for that.

Thanks again for taking the time to voice your opinion.