Why can't arguments be more fun?

I had to unfriend a person on Facebook for the first time recently. She was fairly conservative, and tended to post things of that nature. Me being... well... me, I would sometimes dispute some premises, facts, or conclusions, resulting in an argument. From my perspective, it's all in good fun. Unfortunately, it eventually became apparent that she did not share this view (yeah, it took me a while to realize how bad it was, even with my girlfriend getting annoyed with me, between it being the internet and that I can be somewhat oblivious to these things).

Let me make it clear: I didn't unfriend her because of any animosity on my part, nor that I tired of attempts to convince her of my position. She seems like a genuinely decent person, nor is conversion to my side the point (it was apparent early on that was unlikely, anyway). No, the problem was that I was unnecessarily upsetting her, a fellow follower of Christ. I have a hard time keeping my opinions to myself when I see something I disagree with, so it was best just to take away that temptation.

I have continued to receive emails listing replies to some posts I commented on, despite no longer having the ability to see the actual page. I had to raise an eyebrow when one person felt I was a "libtard and provocateur" that should "fall off a cliff." Really? The post I had replied to in that case had some historical inaccuracies I pointed out (keep in mind I consider history important), and for that I should die? Was pointing out that some facts were wrong really that bad?

Truthfully, I don't really understand why differing opinions upset people. I know it's common, and I try to be understanding of their feelings, but it doesn't really make sense to me. Provided there's no ad hominem, bigotry, or just rudeness involved, why would it be upsetting that someone's beliefs are different, even wrong? They are ideas, not people, and I believe people should be the priority.

There's the part of me that wants to blame all this animosity between the liberal and conservative sides over the last decade or so on pundits like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, but honestly it's been going on a long time. If you look at the history books, politics has always produced bitter feuds. In the early days of the USA, the famous duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr is a good example.

Something in human nature just creates a lot of fear, anger, and hate over opposing beliefs. My best guess is that many people consider their beliefs vital to their person, and having those challenged, even by someone who simply says they disagree, threatens their worldview, prompting an angry response, rather than thoughtful debate.

Perhaps there's a remnant of tribalism behind the animosity as well. By disputing their tribe's view of the world, I'm marking myself as a member of a rival tribe, and therefore to be hated. In that case, the ideas aren't even that important. They are only identifiers. What really matters is that I have been identified as one of "them." It would explain why, in multiple cases, statements I've made that were inconsistent with views stereotypical of the opposing tribe I was accused of belonging to were either ignored or discounted (sometimes I was accused of outright lying). From a tribal view, there are few gray areas when it comes to affiliation, people are considered either one of "us," or one of "them."

In this particular situation, it's not that big of a deal. It is a little unfortunate that I have gotten this kind of thing from both ends of the political spectrum, but I'll walk away from this with a little head-scratching and a shrug, as I've done in the past.

Why Palin ensures I can't vote McCain

I've already been an Obama supporter for quite a while now, but I did have a certain amount of respect for McCain. He was my candidate of choice back in 2000, but I just haven't felt he's the right guy for the job this time around.

However, while his VP selection of Sarah Palin has been news-grabbing, the things I've read about her actual decisions and governance style leave me certain I could never support a ticket that includes her.

Personally, I find her strong support for killing wolves the most offensive. I like wolves, and I've studied enough to know that killing wolves is very rarely necessary. They moderate their populations themselves, tend to stay clear of people, and prefer to hunt sick and weak animals. They are apex predators, and messing with their population tends to mess with the entire ecosystem.

Below are a few quotes and links to some articles on Palin I find particularly relevant.

"Many lawmakers contend that Ms. Palin is overly reliant on a small inner circle that leaves her isolated. Democrats and Republicans alike describe her as often missing in action. Since taking office in 2007, Ms. Palin has spent 312 nights at her Wasilla home, some 600 miles to the north of the governor's mansion in Juneau, records show.

"During the last legislative session, some lawmakers became so frustrated with her absences that they took to wearing "Where's Sarah?" pins." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?em

"Governor Palin is an active promoter of Alaska's aerial hunting program whereby wolves and bears are shot from the air or chased by airplanes to the point of exhaustion before the pilot lands the plane and a gunner shoots the animals point blank." http://www.defendersactionfund.org/newsroom/sarah_palin.html

"The cunning of the Palin choice as a political strategy is that a candidate who embodies fear of change can be sold as a "maverick" simply because she looks the part. Her marketers have a lot to work with. Palin is not only the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket, but she is young, vibrant and a Washington outsider with no explicit connection to Bush or the war in Iraq. That package looks like change even if what's inside is anything but." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14rich.html?em

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

I've recently been seeing quite a few ads for a children's book entitled Why Mommy is a Democrat, advertised as "The book George Bush doesn't want your kids to read!"

After checking out the website, I definitely wonder about the wisdom of the book. Obviously, I'm not going to question any parent's right to buy this book and read it to their children if they choose, nor their intentions in doing so. I just can't help but wonder why you would want to instill "Democrat" in a child, instead of focusing on the values themselves, and let them worry about party affiliation when they get older.

One thing that bothers me about the book is that, just based on the sample pages, it seems to oversimplify political positions a bit in a way that makes Democrats the "good guy." A children's book has to be simple, but giving a child a false impression of the world can sometimes make for more difficult explanations later.

Of course, I do have a rather different upbringing than many I know. My mom is a dedicated Republican, while my dad has been a longtime Democrat. Upon hearing of this, one of my friends once commented, "no wonder you're a moderate."

Barack Obama

I've recently been getting interested in the Draft Obama movement.

What I think really stands out about Obama for me is that he doesn't use hot-button issues the way many career politicians do. Many use little sound bites (involving easy, one-sided answers to complex problems) in order to signal to certain groups of people that he/she is "one of them." They then reinforce those kinds of opinions by repeatedly pushing those buttons in order to reinforce support among those who have the same view, while further alienating those who do not. It's the politics of the last 14 years.

I'm definitely ready for something different.

Cindy Sheehan to run for senate?

So, Cindy Sheehan, the infamous (to Republicans) woman who is most famous for camping outside President Bush's ranch thinks that maybe she should be a senator?

She lost her son in Iraq, so I can see why her attacks on Bush could come from personal grief. I do sometimes wonder about those who seem to use her as some kind of figurehead for the anti-war movement, though.

Can she win a senate seat on her anti-war platform? I highly doubt it. California certainly is home to some of the most liberal people in the country, but it also has a decent population of conservatives here in the Central Valley, and a sizeable population of moderates spread throughout. Sheehan might make a decent showing, but she's a little controversial to do well, and I don't think she'll get much support at all if her only platform is "bring the troops home right now."

There is the possibility that she could get elected if she were to show that she has a political stance that actually has something to do with California itself, and not just Iraq. Senator Feinstein, who Sheehan would be running against, would have to basically throw the election, too. Feinstein is a pretty well-entrenched incumbent, and she hasn't made any major mistakes which would significantly erode her support, either.

The last thing I have to wonder is what Cindy Sheehan thinks she can do if she were to win the seat. At that point, Bush would only have two more years in office, and Sheehan would be a brand new senator with no prior experience in political office (as far as I can tell). By the time she could really get much going, Bush would be out of office. I suppose she could make an effort to try Bush for war crimes, but I don't see there being much support for that.

When I look at it from the perspective of the above, there is the possibility that Sheehan will not run at all. It could be that she is actually trying to pressure Feinstein into supporting her agenda in the senate. It would actually be a lot smarter than fighting it out. If she can pressure an experienced incumbent into going along with her, Sheehan will gain far more than trying to do it herself. However, she is not a person I would equate with subtle political maneuvering. She so far has wielded what power she has the same way Southern Baptists often do: like a bludgeon, and often a bit clumsily.

Political Party Test

You scored as Democrat Democrat 75% Green 67% Socialist 58% Anarchism 58% Republican 50% Communism 25% Fascism 17% Nazi 0% What Political Party Do Your Beliefs Put You In? created with QuizFarm.com

Interesting test. I doubt it's that accurate, as I think I don't fit as a Democrat any better than I do as a Republican. I also can't imagine why they would even bother putting Nazi on the test, as so few people are likely to test as that.