September 21st, 2009 was the day of the Great Flood in Georgia.
When we left the house for work that morning, I had no idea how bad things would get by the end of the day. The fact that there was a traffic jam on the highway just a few miles from our house that early in the morning should have been an indication. There was a mudslide on the highway, with only one lane open at that time, and those giving traffic updates on the radio and TV were saying to stay at home and try getting to work later, when the sun was up. So that's what Bruce and I did - turned around and went back home.
I started working from home and decided to just stay at home and work that day, after speaking with my boss, because more and more often, the traffic and weather people were saying to do that. Bruce couldn't, because of the project they were working on in his office, but by the end of the day, he was wishing he had. It took him an hour and a half to get to work that morning, and four-and-a-half-hours to get home. He had tried to stay off the highways because there were quite a few traffic accidents and bad traffic jams, but going on the back roads turned out to be a bad idea as it rained quite heavily several times on Monday and caused floods on so many of those roads that he had to keep turning around or taking detours. At one point, he was only about seven miles from home, I think, but the road he was on goes over the Yellow River at the bottom of a hill and was no longer passable as a result of the heavy rainfall. He finally ended up on the highways he had tried to avoid and got home at about 8:30 that night.
The floods were so bad that some people could not even return to their homes that night - the houses were inaccessible. My intern wasn't able to get to work that morning because the area she lived in was completely cut off by the floods - she was only able to get out on Thursday. There was almost non-stop news coverage on TV that night and the next morning about the damage wrought by the floods - some houses were almost completely covered by flood water. Ironically, in the middle of all that water, one lone house was on fire - it had apparently been struck by lightning. Lots of people had flooded basements, at the very least, if not more - lots of damage to furniture and appliances. I can't even begin to imagine how heartbreaking it must have been to lose so much at one go.
The worst of it is that most houses in Georgia are not covered by flood insurance, because they were not built in flood plains. One man said that he had tried several times to purchase flood insurance but was told he couldn't because it wasn't allowed, as he wasn't in a flood plain. That is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a while, and I hope it changes soon. (I'm sure insurance agencies would be fighting that, though, because they would have had to make huge payouts after this flood, if enough affected people had bought flood insurance beforehand.) People should be allowed to buy whatever insurance they want, if they want it and are willing to pay the premium. There is so much nonsensical bureaucracy in this world.
We, thankfully, had no damage. We had a bit of a lake in the backyard at one point that afternoon, but that soon disappeared into the ground.
October is supposed to be a dry month but we've already had more rainy than sunny days in the last two-and-a-half-weeks, I think, and lots of people are now paranoid every time it rains. The sun seems like a stranger these days. Even today, when it was supposed to be sunny, we've only seen clouds and some rain The one good thing about all this rain is that the lakes are now back to full pool, as they call it, after two or more years of drought.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Hum ...
... is for hummingbirds. There's one perching on our hummingbird feeder as I write this. Perching, not hovering as they normally do. We've had two regulars in the last few weeks; one of them seems to be a little less confident, so it hovers while drinking and flies off quickly. The other actually settles down on the feeder, drinking long and hard. Yesterday, I was standing at the French doors that lead to the backyard because I'd seen a bird on the ground I didn't recognize, so I was trying to get as close as possible for a better look without going outside and scaring it away. While I was standing there, probably about two feet from the hummingbird feeder, which was on the other side of the glass in the door, the perching hummingbird arrived for a feed. I've never been that close to one before - it was amazing! The throat muscles were moving as fast as their wings do when they hover. Then, just now, one of our "regulars" seemed to be in a fight with another hummingbird - perhaps a newcomer? They were diving through the air at each other, and one (the percher) apparently won the challenge because the other backed off. Our feeder has four separate flowers/holes through which they can get to the nectar, so it's a shame that they aren't willing to share.
... is for humans, 40,000 of them in one place at one time, Bruce and I among them. Our friend Amy Jackson was with us, as well (her husband, John, was working, unfortunately, so couldn't be with us). We were at Peidmont Park in Atlanta on Saturday, August 15th, for the outdoor Paul McCartney concert. Bruce was thrilled to be there, because he's a huge fan of Sir Paul as well as the Beatles but hadn't seen McCartney live before. It's difficult to believe that Paul McCartney is 67 - he sang/performed for almost two-and-a-half hours without taking a break. It was a great concert, despite the heat (we went there several hours before he came onstage so that we wouldn't be too far from the stage, which meant we had to bake in the sun) and the sudden downpour during the concert. It didn't rain very long (about 20 minutes) and no one minded (although I wish we had brought along our ponchos). Since the concert was outdoors, there were no seats, so we sat on the ground on blankets. Once Paul McCartney was on stage, we were all on our feet (which happens at most indoor concerts, as well). The best thing was seeing teenagers and kids in the crowd, dancing and singing along. We weren't close enough to the stage to see Paul McCartney up close, but there were two huge screens on either side of the stage with close-ups of him and the band.
August has been a humming month.
... is for humans, 40,000 of them in one place at one time, Bruce and I among them. Our friend Amy Jackson was with us, as well (her husband, John, was working, unfortunately, so couldn't be with us). We were at Peidmont Park in Atlanta on Saturday, August 15th, for the outdoor Paul McCartney concert. Bruce was thrilled to be there, because he's a huge fan of Sir Paul as well as the Beatles but hadn't seen McCartney live before. It's difficult to believe that Paul McCartney is 67 - he sang/performed for almost two-and-a-half hours without taking a break. It was a great concert, despite the heat (we went there several hours before he came onstage so that we wouldn't be too far from the stage, which meant we had to bake in the sun) and the sudden downpour during the concert. It didn't rain very long (about 20 minutes) and no one minded (although I wish we had brought along our ponchos). Since the concert was outdoors, there were no seats, so we sat on the ground on blankets. Once Paul McCartney was on stage, we were all on our feet (which happens at most indoor concerts, as well). The best thing was seeing teenagers and kids in the crowd, dancing and singing along. We weren't close enough to the stage to see Paul McCartney up close, but there were two huge screens on either side of the stage with close-ups of him and the band.
August has been a humming month.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Chortle
Joey: "It's a moo point."
Rachel: "A moo point?"
Joey: "Yes. It's a cow's opinion. It doesn't mean a thing. It's moo."
I was watching a re-run of Friends last night and that exchange reminded me why I loved the series. I was laughing so hard and so loudly that Bruce came into the room to see what was so funny.
I think that particular bit struck my funny bone more than any others because several people in Bruce's old office used to say, "It's a mute point" when they meant "moot", and genuinely thought that was the expression. I'd never heard variations of the phrase before, but Joey's takes the cake, especially because of his delivery. I think I have a new favourite saying ...
Rachel: "A moo point?"
Joey: "Yes. It's a cow's opinion. It doesn't mean a thing. It's moo."
I was watching a re-run of Friends last night and that exchange reminded me why I loved the series. I was laughing so hard and so loudly that Bruce came into the room to see what was so funny.
I think that particular bit struck my funny bone more than any others because several people in Bruce's old office used to say, "It's a mute point" when they meant "moot", and genuinely thought that was the expression. I'd never heard variations of the phrase before, but Joey's takes the cake, especially because of his delivery. I think I have a new favourite saying ...
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Calling Henry Higgins
Another thing that drives me nuts about having to read so much for my job each day is the increasing number of language errors I find. I can understand careless mistakes, but these don't fall into that category. These are made by people paid to write headlines and press releases, which means someone else proofread and edited their work.
This is just one example of the many ridiculous headlines I've seen in the past year:
New Study Reveals Swimming Can Cut Men's Risk of Dying in Half
So, if you are a man and you swim, you increase your chance of not dying by 50%?! And dying is a risk, not a certainty? Amazing! Man has been searching for immortality for centuries but the answer all this time was right there in water? And the immortality is only for men, apparently.
Do people not understand what that sentence means? Every time a new study comes out, there will be at least a couple of headlines like that one. Not "this will reduce your chances of dying young/early" but reduce your chances of dying altogether. Aaaarrrrgggghhh!
In Malaysia, I always understood if someone's English was poor, because that most likely meant English was their second or third language. But in America, where a large number of people speak only English, what is the excuse? Shouldn't everyone be fluent in at least one language and full understand what the words they use convey?
I understand that language is fluid and changes as people add and drop words, but shouldn't it still contain accurate meaning? This isn't language innovation - it's ignorance. For someone who loves language and all the written word can convey as much as I do, this is sad and aggravating, especially when it happens consistently, not occasionally.
There is apparently a small group of people in this country who are going around correcting errors in signs that they come across (see link below for an example). They've even done this to historical signs, because they cannot tolerate the mistakes they keep seeing. This is apparently against the law but I am completely on their side. They are my kind of people!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/chi-typo-guys-0521may21,0,6902266.story
This is just one example of the many ridiculous headlines I've seen in the past year:
New Study Reveals Swimming Can Cut Men's Risk of Dying in Half
So, if you are a man and you swim, you increase your chance of not dying by 50%?! And dying is a risk, not a certainty? Amazing! Man has been searching for immortality for centuries but the answer all this time was right there in water? And the immortality is only for men, apparently.
Do people not understand what that sentence means? Every time a new study comes out, there will be at least a couple of headlines like that one. Not "this will reduce your chances of dying young/early" but reduce your chances of dying altogether. Aaaarrrrgggghhh!
In Malaysia, I always understood if someone's English was poor, because that most likely meant English was their second or third language. But in America, where a large number of people speak only English, what is the excuse? Shouldn't everyone be fluent in at least one language and full understand what the words they use convey?
I understand that language is fluid and changes as people add and drop words, but shouldn't it still contain accurate meaning? This isn't language innovation - it's ignorance. For someone who loves language and all the written word can convey as much as I do, this is sad and aggravating, especially when it happens consistently, not occasionally.
There is apparently a small group of people in this country who are going around correcting errors in signs that they come across (see link below for an example). They've even done this to historical signs, because they cannot tolerate the mistakes they keep seeing. This is apparently against the law but I am completely on their side. They are my kind of people!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/chi-typo-guys-0521may21,0,6902266.story
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Rainy Day Thoughts
Sometimes, I don't like my job. Not because of the job itself, but because of the news and press releases I have to scan every day as part of my job. There is so much negativity in comments posted in response to news articles, in press releases by the Republican Party, in the news itself ... it begins to weigh down one's spirit after a while to be exposed to such constant negativity. It's been going on for over two years, ever since Barack Obama announced his candidacy, and now the economic crisis is making things much worse.
I know life is difficult for many people these days, but especially at times like this, I like to concentrate on positive, happy stories. There are some of those, about how people are helping others in need (I'm particularly fond of "random acts of kindness" types of stories, since I'm a sap), but most articles I read (especially in The Wall Street Journal, which I'm beginning to resent having to look at six days a week) are negative or critical of President Obama. I'd expect that from the WSJ, of course, since it's clearly a pro-Republican newspaper (I am constantly surprised when I read an article in it that is positive about the president or the Democratic Party), but the criticisms are everywhere.
I've been thinking a lot about why I'm having such a hard time with the criticisms (I've always tried to stay away from negativity and negative people because the lack of sunshine and positive thoughts begins to sit heavily on me if I'm around it too long, but I don't usually have a problem with well-grounded or intelligent criticism and opposition). It's partly because I'm so sure that if given enough time, Barack Obama can make things better, because of the person I think he is, and it's therefore grating to see people say insulting things about him personally as well as about his handling thus far of the presidency. I think I'm reacting defensively on his behalf (which is ironic because he doesn't seem to let that sort of thing get to him). But I think it's largely because I've been here long enough now to understand the differences between the Republicans and Democrats, and the Republicans are increasingly getting on my nerves.
It's ironic, because they are supposed to represent conservatism and I'm conservative by nature. I believe in spending money wisely but in saving more than spending, so that you always have a safety net. That's conservative, isn't it? I believe that people should learn skills and abilities that will allow them to be financially independent so that they don't depend on government handouts or welfare (when I learnt many years ago that a large number of Australians didn't work because they could depend on welfare, whether they needed it or not, I was horrified). I believe that abortion is wrong (although I do not believe that life begins at conception and I therefore don't see abortion, especially in the early days and weeks, as murder. I may be wrong, but that's my belief and I am entitled to it). However, and this is a big however, I attach many caveats to those beliefs.
While I don't personally believe in abortion, I also don't believe people have the right to force a woman to carry to term a child that she doesn't want. No one should talk her into an abortion, but neither should they stop her from getting one if that is what she still wants after she has had time to really think about it, after knowing that there are alternatives. And that includes ensuring that medical assistance is available, if she cannot afford the necessary healthcare while pregnant and during as well as after delivery. That includes providing financial assistance or housing if that is what she needs, and seeing to it that adoption isn't an unnecessarily complicated process. It includes making sure counselling and support are available if she is a scared teenager who doesn't know how to tell her parents, or who won't be able to count on them if she does tell them. There needs to be a complete support system for people who might otherwise contemplate abortion. And there has to be a much better education policy in place, so that kids understand exactly what pregnancy and parenthood entails. I think there would be far less abortions if girls and women contemplating abortion did not feel alone, helpless, scared or not in control. Why aren't people spending more time and energy on that and less on protesting abortion and measures that make it possible for abortion to be done safely and legally?
But what irks me most about things like abortion is that religion becomes involved in what should be purely a legal process, since that is one of the principles the USA was founded on - courts, rather than churches, of law. People came to America to get away from religious persecution. The country was founded on principles of separation of church and state. So why is it the Republicans and the religious right think it is all right to bring religious views into laws? I can believe something is wrong and explain to anyone who cares to understand my viewpoint, but I'm not going to insist that I am right and they are wrong if they disagree with me. The western world criticizes the Middle East for Islamic laws that they think are abhorrent, yet the same thing goes on in countries like America, where it seems like people are trying to curtail more and more personal freedoms.
Comments Republicans have made about President Obama being a socialist and his handling of the economy also irritate me. While I believe people should be financially independent as far as possible, this is an ideal that will never be a fact. There will always be people who lack the skills or abilities to be independent, and who therefore need help. And from what I've seen of the lives some people were leading in the last few years, lives of extravagance that helped contribute to the housing and economic crash, there is a serious lack of financial education. People apparently felt entitled to the "American Dream" without understanding the basics of finances and economics, without being aware of what they could and couldn't financially afford. There was supposed to be a golden rule here that you could afford a house that cost two-and-a-half times what you make a year. So, if you earn $50,000 annually, your house should not cost more than $125,000. That seems simple enough, but in the last few years, as the housing market when through a ridiculous boom, people were buying property between five and even ten times more than what they earned. That is unbelievable. How do some people not know the golden rule about property ownership? Were they just uneducated? Or was it a feeling of entitlement that drove them? And they certainly should not keep houses they can't afford, but the solution is not to leave them homeless.
Yes, the bankers and mortgage lenders who approved their loans were unscrupulous and greedy, thinking only about the profits they'd be making, but people weren't taking responsibility for their own finances. Yet, if these homeowners are punished for their ignorance and greed, for wanting to keep up with the Joneses, and aren't helped out of the quagmire they now find themselves in, the economy will continue to suffer. I read comment after comment from people who didn't buy more house than they could afford and who continued to pay their bills on time, who now resent having to help those in need. Apparently, Democrats like President Obama who want to try and help as many people as possible are promoting socialism (and they make it sound like communism).
That's one of the major things that bugs me about Republicans. Is there no middle ground? Is everything black and white? Abortion is wrong, end of story. Euthanasia is wrong, end of story. Helping people who can't help themselves is wrong, end of story. Is it wimpy or socialist to be compassionate, to reach out to others without preaching to them? I heard someone from the Republican party say on TV today that it is their job to be the opposition. Does that mean they have to criticize everything the president and Democrats do just for the sake of opposing them? That is an important role most of the time, because everyone needs a good check and balance system, but right now, can't people work together to get the world's economy back on track instead of nitpicking and contributing to the cloud of gloom encasing the planet?
Clearly, things need to change financially, at least. That includes getting rid of what I think is the ridiculous idea of cashing in on your home equity (the amount of money you've paid thus far for the house - if you bought a house for $100,000 and have paid off $20,000, that's the equity you have in the house). What I learnt from Mummy and Papa is that you buy a house and pay off the mortgage. Then, the house is yours. It's that simple. So what went wrong in America? Who on earth came up with the idea of the home equity loan, where, instead of paying off what you owe for a house, you keep borrowing against it and end up paying more for the house than it's worth? That makes absolutely no sense to me, yet it is standard practice here (and I've seen advertisements for it in Malaysian newspapers). How did it come to that and why don't more people see how dumb a notion it is?
I've read some Republican comments saying the housing problem started with the Clinton administration. If that's true, the Republicans had eight years to fix the problems. Why didn't they? The first thing I would have done was get rid of home equity loans - they are nothing more than a money-making scheme for banks and mortgage lenders. If people need loans, their homes should not be used as collateral - that is what has led to the housing crisis here. That's why people owe more than their houses are worth - because banks kept increasing their loans and pushing up the value of the house to ridiculous levels.
Why aren't more Republicans preaching conservative values about finances to their constituents? How can I be more financially and socially conservative than Republicans and still feel more affinity for Democrats and their ideals? It's because I'm somewhat conservative about my own beliefs but don't believe in forcing them on others. I think it's that simple. I started off with very conservative, narrow views when I was a teenager but read a lot, learned a lot from friends and acquaintances and evolved. I changed my opinions on some things because as I got older, I realized that very little in life is black and white. Most things are in shades of gray. You can have firm beliefs about some things, you can have a moral code that guides you through life and makes you the best person you can be, and you can hopefully influence others by the example you show, but you don't have the right to force others to adhere to your beliefs (unless those are laws that they have agreed to follow by living in that country). I thought that was why the war of independence was fought in the first place - to create a better country and way of life, with more freedom. But now, things seem to be moving backwards.
Then again, everything seems to be cyclical. So I guess people moves from liberalism to moderate beliefs to conservatism and then the cycle begins again.
And now, it's Sunday night and a new, busy work week begins - back to reading more bad news and negativity. Sigh ...
I know life is difficult for many people these days, but especially at times like this, I like to concentrate on positive, happy stories. There are some of those, about how people are helping others in need (I'm particularly fond of "random acts of kindness" types of stories, since I'm a sap), but most articles I read (especially in The Wall Street Journal, which I'm beginning to resent having to look at six days a week) are negative or critical of President Obama. I'd expect that from the WSJ, of course, since it's clearly a pro-Republican newspaper (I am constantly surprised when I read an article in it that is positive about the president or the Democratic Party), but the criticisms are everywhere.
I've been thinking a lot about why I'm having such a hard time with the criticisms (I've always tried to stay away from negativity and negative people because the lack of sunshine and positive thoughts begins to sit heavily on me if I'm around it too long, but I don't usually have a problem with well-grounded or intelligent criticism and opposition). It's partly because I'm so sure that if given enough time, Barack Obama can make things better, because of the person I think he is, and it's therefore grating to see people say insulting things about him personally as well as about his handling thus far of the presidency. I think I'm reacting defensively on his behalf (which is ironic because he doesn't seem to let that sort of thing get to him). But I think it's largely because I've been here long enough now to understand the differences between the Republicans and Democrats, and the Republicans are increasingly getting on my nerves.
It's ironic, because they are supposed to represent conservatism and I'm conservative by nature. I believe in spending money wisely but in saving more than spending, so that you always have a safety net. That's conservative, isn't it? I believe that people should learn skills and abilities that will allow them to be financially independent so that they don't depend on government handouts or welfare (when I learnt many years ago that a large number of Australians didn't work because they could depend on welfare, whether they needed it or not, I was horrified). I believe that abortion is wrong (although I do not believe that life begins at conception and I therefore don't see abortion, especially in the early days and weeks, as murder. I may be wrong, but that's my belief and I am entitled to it). However, and this is a big however, I attach many caveats to those beliefs.
While I don't personally believe in abortion, I also don't believe people have the right to force a woman to carry to term a child that she doesn't want. No one should talk her into an abortion, but neither should they stop her from getting one if that is what she still wants after she has had time to really think about it, after knowing that there are alternatives. And that includes ensuring that medical assistance is available, if she cannot afford the necessary healthcare while pregnant and during as well as after delivery. That includes providing financial assistance or housing if that is what she needs, and seeing to it that adoption isn't an unnecessarily complicated process. It includes making sure counselling and support are available if she is a scared teenager who doesn't know how to tell her parents, or who won't be able to count on them if she does tell them. There needs to be a complete support system for people who might otherwise contemplate abortion. And there has to be a much better education policy in place, so that kids understand exactly what pregnancy and parenthood entails. I think there would be far less abortions if girls and women contemplating abortion did not feel alone, helpless, scared or not in control. Why aren't people spending more time and energy on that and less on protesting abortion and measures that make it possible for abortion to be done safely and legally?
But what irks me most about things like abortion is that religion becomes involved in what should be purely a legal process, since that is one of the principles the USA was founded on - courts, rather than churches, of law. People came to America to get away from religious persecution. The country was founded on principles of separation of church and state. So why is it the Republicans and the religious right think it is all right to bring religious views into laws? I can believe something is wrong and explain to anyone who cares to understand my viewpoint, but I'm not going to insist that I am right and they are wrong if they disagree with me. The western world criticizes the Middle East for Islamic laws that they think are abhorrent, yet the same thing goes on in countries like America, where it seems like people are trying to curtail more and more personal freedoms.
Comments Republicans have made about President Obama being a socialist and his handling of the economy also irritate me. While I believe people should be financially independent as far as possible, this is an ideal that will never be a fact. There will always be people who lack the skills or abilities to be independent, and who therefore need help. And from what I've seen of the lives some people were leading in the last few years, lives of extravagance that helped contribute to the housing and economic crash, there is a serious lack of financial education. People apparently felt entitled to the "American Dream" without understanding the basics of finances and economics, without being aware of what they could and couldn't financially afford. There was supposed to be a golden rule here that you could afford a house that cost two-and-a-half times what you make a year. So, if you earn $50,000 annually, your house should not cost more than $125,000. That seems simple enough, but in the last few years, as the housing market when through a ridiculous boom, people were buying property between five and even ten times more than what they earned. That is unbelievable. How do some people not know the golden rule about property ownership? Were they just uneducated? Or was it a feeling of entitlement that drove them? And they certainly should not keep houses they can't afford, but the solution is not to leave them homeless.
Yes, the bankers and mortgage lenders who approved their loans were unscrupulous and greedy, thinking only about the profits they'd be making, but people weren't taking responsibility for their own finances. Yet, if these homeowners are punished for their ignorance and greed, for wanting to keep up with the Joneses, and aren't helped out of the quagmire they now find themselves in, the economy will continue to suffer. I read comment after comment from people who didn't buy more house than they could afford and who continued to pay their bills on time, who now resent having to help those in need. Apparently, Democrats like President Obama who want to try and help as many people as possible are promoting socialism (and they make it sound like communism).
That's one of the major things that bugs me about Republicans. Is there no middle ground? Is everything black and white? Abortion is wrong, end of story. Euthanasia is wrong, end of story. Helping people who can't help themselves is wrong, end of story. Is it wimpy or socialist to be compassionate, to reach out to others without preaching to them? I heard someone from the Republican party say on TV today that it is their job to be the opposition. Does that mean they have to criticize everything the president and Democrats do just for the sake of opposing them? That is an important role most of the time, because everyone needs a good check and balance system, but right now, can't people work together to get the world's economy back on track instead of nitpicking and contributing to the cloud of gloom encasing the planet?
Clearly, things need to change financially, at least. That includes getting rid of what I think is the ridiculous idea of cashing in on your home equity (the amount of money you've paid thus far for the house - if you bought a house for $100,000 and have paid off $20,000, that's the equity you have in the house). What I learnt from Mummy and Papa is that you buy a house and pay off the mortgage. Then, the house is yours. It's that simple. So what went wrong in America? Who on earth came up with the idea of the home equity loan, where, instead of paying off what you owe for a house, you keep borrowing against it and end up paying more for the house than it's worth? That makes absolutely no sense to me, yet it is standard practice here (and I've seen advertisements for it in Malaysian newspapers). How did it come to that and why don't more people see how dumb a notion it is?
I've read some Republican comments saying the housing problem started with the Clinton administration. If that's true, the Republicans had eight years to fix the problems. Why didn't they? The first thing I would have done was get rid of home equity loans - they are nothing more than a money-making scheme for banks and mortgage lenders. If people need loans, their homes should not be used as collateral - that is what has led to the housing crisis here. That's why people owe more than their houses are worth - because banks kept increasing their loans and pushing up the value of the house to ridiculous levels.
Why aren't more Republicans preaching conservative values about finances to their constituents? How can I be more financially and socially conservative than Republicans and still feel more affinity for Democrats and their ideals? It's because I'm somewhat conservative about my own beliefs but don't believe in forcing them on others. I think it's that simple. I started off with very conservative, narrow views when I was a teenager but read a lot, learned a lot from friends and acquaintances and evolved. I changed my opinions on some things because as I got older, I realized that very little in life is black and white. Most things are in shades of gray. You can have firm beliefs about some things, you can have a moral code that guides you through life and makes you the best person you can be, and you can hopefully influence others by the example you show, but you don't have the right to force others to adhere to your beliefs (unless those are laws that they have agreed to follow by living in that country). I thought that was why the war of independence was fought in the first place - to create a better country and way of life, with more freedom. But now, things seem to be moving backwards.
Then again, everything seems to be cyclical. So I guess people moves from liberalism to moderate beliefs to conservatism and then the cycle begins again.
And now, it's Sunday night and a new, busy work week begins - back to reading more bad news and negativity. Sigh ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)