Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Bert, what right do you or I or anybody have to tell others that their political beliefs and allegiances go “against their upbringing, culture and heritage?” People come equipped in life with the capacity for independent thinking, if they choose to use it.

This automatic assumption that if you belong to a certain race and think a certain way everybody else of your group MUST shares your views or be said to have “a self-delusional character flaw” is incredibly wrong-headed.

If I were to say that all Americans, if they want to be “real Americans,” must swear their undying allegiance to our president and never question anything he says or does, that would be no different from your saying that a real black or latino must support unquestioningly the version of reality put forth by the Democratic party (and typified by your interpretation of domestic events and the Iraq war—which is definitely not shared by all thinking people of any race).

There is a racism belief among some of the left that people of “minority” races ought to think like them. This post is just another sad example of this OVERT, unabashed racism. If someone on the right where to declare that white people from voted for John Kerry were denying their “upbringing, culture and heritage” they would be rightfully called racist. This post is a sad comentary from a political ideology that is so narrow-minded that it cannot tolerate those who disagree with it- especially if those are from the supposed “disadvantaged” races that must shut and follow the left-wing party line.

There are many good reasons to be a conservative, and those reasons are based upon IDEAS, not the racist assumptions about racial determinism that the premise of this post is based upon. I should hope my friends on the left would join me in condeming this kind of thinking- are you with me? or are you gonna excuse racism just because it comes from your side of the political spectrum?

(also, note that if Bush did nto appoint minorities- he would be accused of catering to racist rednecks. Now that he has appointed many minorities, those minorities must be traitors to their heritage. What a nice world to live in that the other side is damned if they do, and damned if they dont)

Martin,

Your ‘Independent thinking’ is to my ‘character flaw’, as Bush’s ‘Clear Skies Initiative’ is to sound Environmental policy.

Is ‘Independent Thinking’, choosing a party that runs an avowed White Supremacists for Congress? Is it working for a man and a party whose Immigration policy is to send just people of your race and skin color, back to their country?

Is it ‘Independent Thinking’ to work for a President who files a supporting brief to end Affirmative Action, which you have benefited from in your life? Yes, to be real Black or Latino you do not belong to this kind of party.

Unlike your President’s campaign Martin, there are no Allegiance or Loyalty Oaths to sign in the Democratic Party. We have pro-life and pro-choice in this party. We have pro-war and anti-war in this party. We have pro-Death Penalty and anti-Death Penalty in this party.

The fact that the lion share of Black and Latino Americans belong to the Dems, attests to how welcome they’d feel in the GOP. And, that the character flaw is not contagious.

Bert-
(1) bush is pushing what ammounts of an elligal immigrant anmesty that much of the right opposes (including me, since I think it is an insult to those of us, like myself and my family, who waited for years in line to come into this country the RIGHT way). he is doing this while is conservative base is pissed OFF about it.

(2) A black man or hispanic man can clearly see that AA is racist. They are just as smart as any person of any color to see that racism is wrong, no matter what ends it tries to serve. They do not need to buy into the liberal ideology that minorities are so “handicapped” that they cannot make it without getting unearned benefits over others.

(3) It is hilarious that you would bring up the pro-life thing, as two pro-choice republicans spoke prominently at the republican convention JUST THIS YEAR. Meanwhile, the Democratic party spit on now dead Pennsylvania Democratic Governor Robert Casey when he wanted to talk at your 1992 convention for ONLY one reason- he was pro-life. It has not corrected this by letting any pro-lifers talk at the democratic convention. Some party of inclusion.

i have come to the conclusion that if you want to post editorials on this blog…you’d best be full of inflammatory rhetoric…

this post was made for a fight….as misha and martin have clearly stepped up to bat….

lets try to focus on finding answers instead of just yelling names at eachother…

Misha,

First, I think you’re using ‘racist’ in the wrong context, because your last post made me go look up the definition. You might wanna substitute ‘prejudice’ or ‘discriminatory’ instead.

(1.) I agree, Bush’s plan is wrong and politically motivated. Instead of forcing growers to raise the pay of their laborers and provide health benefits, he is now guaranteeing them cheap labor, while pandering the Mexican American base.

But oooh, the Conservative base is pissed off! Will they capitulate just as they did while Bush ran up the deficit, expanded government and went on a spending spree?

(2.) Racist is defined as ‘feeling superior to another due to race or ethnicity’ or ‘purposely discriminating against someone on the same basis’.

Which leads me to ask you Misha, do you believe racism and discrimination are no longer intrinsic in society and the workplace?

(3) If those two pro-choice candidates were not Guiliani or Gov. Ahhnold, they’d never would be on that stage! Funny, I don’t remember either including that fact in their speeches?

I’m curious, if Bush gets his illegal immigrant amnesty, do their employers have to start paying them minimum wage? It would be interesting to know what rights are guaranteed to the workers who qualify.

And correct me if I’m wrong, but the idea is to get all the illegals registered, and deport those who don’t have jobs, right?

Seems to me, if employers have to raise their wages, they’re not going to be “incentivized” to report their illegals, and the whole plan just becomes another big expensive Bush boondoggle, like the perscription drug fiasco.

Interesting article, Bert. Not fearing other’s feigned “put off”-ness over acknowleding diversity, I have to agree that Powell seems to hold a very different world-view compared to most others in the administration. It’s no surprise that he’s leaving the State Dept.

(1) yes, minimum wage laws would apply- but since very few americans actually make minimum wage, they would still keep their jobs and more would come in.

(2) I shouldnt of used “racist”, i should have said “racial determinist”- which is the philosophy that justifies racism. Sorry for being sloppy.

(3) Well Bert, you can mock people on the right for bending to Bush’s abandoning their principles and thats fine. But Bush’s decifits was one of the key reasons to push me for the first time in my life to vote for a third party (libertarian). i think more would have joined me in leaving Bush if the Dem’s hadnt nominated just a left-wing candidate

(4) I beleive there is discrimination in the work place, although much less than before. Even if i believed there was MASSIVE discrimination, I would not support affirmative action. Not because i do not think discrimination is wrong (which I do), but because that I firmly believe that the ends never ever justify the means. If racism is wrong, then affirmative action MUST be wrong by the very same principle.

This guy is bad, but I don’t if anyone can be worse than Ashcroft.

Bush’s cabinet is the most diverse in American history. Just because he chose people like Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice for the content of their characters, not the color of their skins makes them less appealing to liberals. Roberto Gonzales is a long time Bush friends and ally. I have no doubt that is why Bush chose him. The subject of his “status” is so yesterday.

We are or should be moving beyond the traditional ideas about race, or maybe back to the original liberal idea that we shouldn’t judge people based on it. I heard Shelby Steele give a talk on this subject. He said that the U.S. civil rights struggle led by Dr. Martin Luther King was a movement for individual rights and responsibilities. He says it was in harmony with American traditions of individualism, liberty and fairness, and that’s why it was so successful. Unfortunately, its character began to change in the late 1960s. Instead of working to improve the prosperity and competitiveness of blacks so that they could take their rightful places in society, the movement focused more on black demands and white guilt. To make progress we have to get away from that.

A link to his talk is at http://www.usinfo.pl/events/docs/steele_more.htm

Misha,

I hope you might agree that I am an intelligent, capable Black man, who would be very valuable as your employee. However, I did experience racism in the workplace, as I was held to a different and stricter standard than my white counterparts.

Discrimination no longer exists on a massive scale, I agree. However, it does it exists in much subtler ways, such as a Black man only being considered for promotion to positions traditionally held by Blacks or specifically dealing with Black customers or Black oriented product.

Jack,

Colin Powell is pro-choice, pro-Affirmative Action and not a ‘true believer’ in the neo-Con, chicken hawk, Wolfowitz Doctrine mode - and if he were White, he would never have been chosen as Bush’s Secretary of State.

Second, I was very much open to the Shelby Steele argument you cited, until I read the link you provided.

I guess the Conservative Right has now found the Black version of Michelle Malkin! So it’s not surprisingly you left out the fact that Mr. Steele believes racism no longer exist.

And it’s funny, my history books and my parents would differ with Mr. Steele, as to Dr. King’s priority just before his death. He was marching for voting rights for Blacks, protection from discrimination in employment and housing, and an end to the Vietnam War.

Is that focusing on Black demands and White guilt?

Bert- I agree that there is some discrimination- in some areas, a lot. But notice what i said: “if i believed there was MASSIVE discrimination, I would not support affirmative action.” That is, I think discrimination is wrong in principle, even if that discrimination would benefit minorities. I oppose affirmative action for the same reason I oppose racism- not because of who it hurts, but because of what it IS (that is, wrong in principle).

I would hold this opinion no matter what race I am. For example, there is a certain amount of “affirmative action” for people from other countries during admissions to law schools- which is why I left the question of place of birth blank on all of my applications.

I still think it is very dangerous that believe that people of one race ought ot all think the same- and that they cannot agree with well reasoned arguments that affirmative action is wrong, that we needed to be pro-active against Iraq and even go to war, that we need less taxes and more individual responsibility. These are all opinions that ANYONE OF ANY COLOR can hold, and I wish you would take back some of the racially determinist comments that you placed in your original post.

Misha,

I just realize what is at the heart of our disagreement. You wrote:

I still think it is very dangerous that believe that people of one race ought to all think the same- and that they cannot agree with well reasoned arguments that affirmative action is wrong

16 years ago before I started my last job, I would have been very persuadable to your argument on Affirmative Action - until I experienced discrimination and racism first hand.

That is what I mean by ‘upbringing, culture and heritage’. A legacy of discrimination cannot be erased by your argument, just as I have grounds to doubt the scale at which it still exist today. Don’t you find it telling when the only people claiming that racism and discrimination is disappearing are all White?

Lastly, I will stand by my original entry statements, in light of the fact that you and Martin have distorted exactly what I said.

I never said an entire race of people should all think the same. I merely suggested that an individual must be flawed, if they decide to join a political party that advocates the injustices suffered by his ancestors (throughout history), have suddenly dissipated.

Bert:

“as individual must be flawed, if they decide to join a political party that advocates the injustices suffered by his ancestors”.

A statement like this is pretty narrow and bigotted coming from a party that has shown so much contempt for the majority of americans in the red states. After what I have read in the papers since November 2, from democrats I think democrats should take the log out of their own eye first before taking the speck out of ours.

Craig

Bert

I would like to explore this topic. On the red side, I would like to write an article about affirmative action from my point of view. I would very much appreciate your critique and active participation in the discussion.

Craig,

I cannot respond effectively to your post, seeing that you did not copy and paste my entire quote. In addition, I am not clear as to how my comments are narrow and bigoted, could you expand on your point?

If you’re expecting me to apologies or make excuses for the criticism directed at the Bush Majority from those of us in the Kerry Minority - not gonna happen!

I’d be interested in what you think about the additional criticism coming from the rest of the world, including the overwhelming condemnation from our Coalition partner, Great Britain?

The volume of the ‘contempt’ is due to the fact that we made a convincing case that change was badly needed, to stop the spiral this country is headed for. However, the Red States chose to ignore the evidence of Bush’s failure in Iraq, on the economy, etc. Showed his ineptitude in 3 debates, but the Swift Boat ads had more of an impression on Red State voters.

He moved voters by playing on their fear and intolerance, convincing them these were more important than outsourced jobs and health care.

Our side now realize we need to take our case face-to-face in the Red States, and we will.

Bert:

I don’t think you need to take your case face to face with the red “states”. I would encourage you to look at the following URL. It is a red country. What you are really taking your case “face to face” is basically in general the non urban USA. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm
Democrat support is urban.

For instance when you say you cannot understand why minorities would be a part of a party with a history of racial bigotry, I would simply respond that I can’t understand why minorities would be a part of a party turning it’s back on those of faith. I am a conservative christian. I don’t really appreciate being stereotyped by members of your party (bigotry), and then being called a bigot. Seems there is enough bigotry to go around in both parties.

I am sure you are well aware that people who attend church regulary are overwelmingly republican. The exception being african americans. If this anti faith attitude continues, I wonder how long african americans will remain democratic.

Bert, you need to know that my family roots are all democratic. My views at one time were middle of the road democratic. Pro Union, Blue collar, church goin people were the heart and soul of the democratic party. I grew up in such a neighborhood. Now we are being called religious zealots and compared with right wing islamic fundamentalism. It is not we who have changed.

I also have a deep respect for the old democratic party. As a product of a Union blue collar home, I wonder if we would of had good medical dental coverage, if not for “old definition” liberal policies that created a safe working environment for my dad, as well as quality benefits.

But some issues are dearer than medical benefits.
There is a reason the map is red instead of blue. It is because people who attend church, whose parents are life long Rosevelt democrats, have found a home in the Republican party because we are wanted there.

Putting down the people who left, will not regain democrats a majority. The only way to regain the majority is go go back and win small town american again. You will find many of those people in church.

Craig

this is the most ironic thing I have read all day: “He moved voters by playing on their fear and intolerance, convincing them these were more important than outsourced jobs and health care.”

What is outsourcing rhetoric other than playing on people’s xenophobia, fear and economic illiteracy and ignorance. To show you what i mean, let me quote Steven Landsburg, Economic Writer for Slate:

If George Bush had chosen the racist David Duke as a running mate, I’d have voted against him, almost without regard to any other issue. Instead, John Kerry chose the xenophobe John Edwards as a running mate. I will therefore vote against John Kerry.

Duke thinks it’s imperative to protect white jobs from black competition. Edwards thinks it’s imperative to protect American jobs from foreign competition. There’s not a dime’s worth of moral difference there. While Duke would discriminate on the arbitrary basis of skin color, Edwards would discriminate on the arbitrary basis of birthplace. Either way, bigotry is bigotry, and appeals to base instincts should always be repudiated.

The two-americas healthcare rhetoric is also based on fear and expoliting of people’s ignorance. It tries to confuse people into thinking that the evil rich people and companies are causing them to not have healthcare, and that the oh-so-benevolent government ought to take care of it for them.

You see, Bert, I actually agree with you that Bush used people’s ignorace to win- but Kerry and your side were doing the same thing (and it looks like you still are by bringing up topics that feed into people’s fear of foreigners and class-based animus). I wish both parties would stop doing it- but lets not pretend it was just Bush. (oh, and dont even make me bring up Kerry’s implication that Bush would re-institute the draft- talk about playign on people’s fear and ignorance; and how about Far. 9.11… nevermidn this case is so easy to make that I dont even need to bother going on…)

that quote actually ends at repudiated….

Craig wrote:

For instance when you say you cannot understand why minorities would be a part of a party with a history of racial bigotry, I would simply respond that I can’t understand why minorities would be a part of a party turning it’s back on those of faith.

Please provide an example of this? Are you saying there are no people of faith in the Democratic Party?

And, please refrain from using your ‘faith’ as a shield against criticism of how it used by your leaders.

Craig, how are people to react when you have as leaders of your movement Rev. Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Rev. Fred Phelps, Gary Bauer and Ralph Reed? They have used lies and distortions, all in the name of your faith, to deny basic rights for gays/lesbians and impose your beliefs on our government. This is at the heart of the opposition to those of the Christian Right.

You are labeled as bigots, homophobic and racist, because you allow these men to do these things in your name.

My side does not care to win back small town America, if they continue to choose their leaders based on fear and intolerance, over issues like jobs and an unjust war.

Lastly, I am a gay man who realized recently, that my personal sense of decency, respect for others, kindness and desire to form strong bonds with friends and family, stems from my years as a young adult active in a Christian Reformed Church.

Yet regardless, I am an abomination and threat to this nation, according to those you call your leaders.

Misha:
“I oppose affirmative action for the same reason I oppose racism- not because of who it hurts, but because of what it IS (that is, wrong in principle).”

Affirmative Action was an attempt to right the wrong of slavery and the economic lag which people of color have suffered due to past discrimination. It will only cease being necessary and become wrong in principle when that segment of our society appears much more economically similar to the white segment.
Some might say that two wrongs don’t make a right, but in this instance, I really don’t see how else such a shamefully unfair situation could have been handled.

Misha:
“Edwards thinks it’s imperative to protect American jobs from foreign competition.”

It is imperative.
Without jobs, people can’t pay taxes, without everyone (especially the rich) paying taxes, the country ceases to function.
This is not rocket science.

“There’s not a dime’s worth of moral difference there. While Duke would discriminate on the arbitrary basis of skin color, Edwards would discriminate on the arbitrary basis of birthplace. Either way, bigotry is bigotry, and appeals to base instincts should always be repudiated.”

This argument is apples and oranges - it doesn’t equate.

“tries to confuse people into thinking that the evil rich people and companies are causing them to not have healthcare,”

But this is true. Employers no longer want to pay for health care because the insurance companies and the health care providers have gotten excruciatingly greedy.

“and that the oh-so-benevolent government ought to take care of it for them.”

If insurance companies and health care providers had tried to be benevolent rather than trying to gouge people, we would never have had to look towards the government in the hopes that they could help us get more affordable health care. This is a perfect example of what happens when capitalistic greed is allowed to go unchecked until it becomes harmful to an entire society.

Bert wrote:

“They have used lies and distortions, all in the name of your faith, to deny basic rights for gays/lesbians and impose your beliefs on our government. This is at the heart of the opposition to those of the Christian Right.”

Exactly, Bert. It really has nothing to do with anyones faith in God at all. It has to do with their using their faith as a reason to interfere with the government and try to deny basic rights and legislate issues of morality and privacy.

Bert:

On your first point. Pew research came out with statistics last summer that said people who attend church at least once a week are more likely to be republican. (the numbers were almost 60-40). These numbers were backed up in the latest election. If you want to hold my feet to the fire I will hunt them down for you. I believe African Americans are one of the counter examples to this trend. African Americans who go to church at least once in a week, overwelming still vote democratic. I am not saying there are no people of faith in the democratic party. I am saying white democrats go to church far less than republicans, and in general have a more secular view that is closer to European than the republican view.

My counter point to you is why should minorities stay in a party that at times is hostile to people of their faith?

Secondly

>

I would suppose you would react the same way we reacted when we saw Michael Moore sitting with Jimmy Carter in the presidential booth at the democratic national convention. After the lies of his “documentary” were well known.

So the democratic party doesn’t want small town america anymore? Hmmm, I guess there is no place for me then, because I am small town america in my heart. And I support many gay rights. None of the leaders you mentioned are “my leaders.” They are the right fringe. Well I guess I wont fight for gay rights anymore. I am painted red with one brush.

I fear for the future of the democratic party.

Craig

Bert:

I need you to know that I agree with you that the extreme right distorts MY faith. MY personal faith is inside out. That means it changes a persons heart first. Coming to faith means being more loving, more kind, more forgiving, more compassionate. It means being less angry, hateful,resentful etc. It means being humble because of having ones sins forgiven.

The extreme right uses language that is outside in. Being a Christian means being hetrosexual, conservative. It means you abstain from sex before marriage, and abstain from alchohol. No smoking allowed!! Vote a straight republican ticket, and give 10% of you income to the church.

The people that approach faith from an outside in approach are not my leaders, and I believe as a matter of faith, misuse the faith we both adhere to.

I have been an elected official for nine years this month. (School Board). Never has “MY faith” been an issue in the community. Margarett Thatcher once said “Being Powerful is like being a lady, if you have to say you are you aren’t”. The quote works well for being a man of faith. “Being a man of faith is like being a lady, if you have to say you are you aren’t”.

I say this because there are many in the “Red” area that voted red but are not your enemy.

All the best,

Craig

Bert:

Craig’s quote:

“For instance when you say you cannot understand why minorities would be a part of a party with a history of racial bigotry, I would simply respond that I can’t understand why minorities would be a part of a party turning it’s back on those of faith.”

Bert’s response:

“Please provide an example of this? Are you saying there are no people of faith in the Democratic Party?”

Here is some interesting data on this recent electtion:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

In a nut shell people who attend services weakly voted for Bush 61% to 39%. People that never attend church voted for Kerry 62% to 36%. If you take out the African American vote, pretty much if a voter is white and goes to church weekly, they voted for Bush.

Hope that helped.

Craig

Adrienne-
1. i want you to examine why, exactly, racism and discrimination is so sickening to you. I think if you boil it down to the principle, I beleive it will be because people ought to be treated by their merit, rather than the color of their skin. Making judgments and giving advantages based purely on race is wrong in principle, no matter who it harms or hurts.
It doesnt matter whom racism harms- it is wrong, and nothing can justify it (not even the war on terror- which is why i oppose profiling!)

Two wrongs never make a right- and if you abandon that principle, you have alraedy given up the entire fight. To justify wrong to recrify another wrong is just a sign of not believing there is anything like true principles (like “all racism is wrong”) to govern our conduct. And once you give up the idea that there are such principles, all you are being is a social engineer who wants to impose her views of the world on other people, becuase you have abandoned the moral highground (because without the principles, that moral highground is non-existent).

2. your curt “apples and organges” point shows that either you do not want to address the moral issue, or you just dont think about foreigners as equal human beings to americans. I think all people have human rights- including the right to offer their labor to those who want to pay for it. I think the government has no right to “priveledge” whites over blacks in getting jobs- and for that same reason, it has no right to require discrimination against foreigners. Again, it seems you are forgeting the principle at stake- which is exactly why that quote is correct. I care about human rights, not some Pat Buchanan version of American-isolationism that the left has now adopted to scare people into voting for them.

Misha:
“To justify wrong to recrify another wrong is just a sign of not believing there is anything like true principles (like “all racism is wrong”) to govern our conduct.”

Humor me for a moment, and come down off your philosophical high horse, if you please.
I’m only being pragmatic - everyone knows that afirmative action has _worked_. It has lifted African-Americans up to a point where we can actually be having this discussion. We wouldn’t even be talking about whether or not it is _fair_ if we had been having this conversation in 1960.

“And once you give up the idea that there are such principles, all you are being is a social engineer who wants to impose her views of the world on other people, becuase you have abandoned the moral highground (because without the principles, that moral highground is non-existent).”

Affirmative action was and is the moral highground - after years of grinding poverty, cruel discrimination and Jim Crow. And it has worked. If it was given another twenty or twenty-five years, it may in fact, become unnecessary. Like I said before - when African-American economic conditions more closely resemble those of Whites in America. Only then will we have a level enough playing field that we’ll be able to seriously discuss the kind of color-blind meritocracy we all want to reach in America.

“your curt “apples and organges” point shows that either you do not want to address the moral issue, or you just dont think about foreigners as equal human beings to americans.”

Actually I thought the two arguments had nothing to do with one another. Bert was talking about Affirmative Action, and then you throw in a discussion about whether or not we should protect American jobs from foreign competition.

“I think all people have human rights- including the right to offer their labor to those who want to pay for it. I think the government has no right to “priveledge” whites over blacks in getting jobs- and for that same reason, it has no right to require discrimination against foreigners.”

This is quite frankly, bullshit. Most of the people who are getting our jobs overseas are being ruthlessly EXPLOITED by American owned corporations. Meanwhile, back at Dubya’s ranch, American’s are losing their jobs in record numbers, while new jobs that pay the same aren’t being created, and job training is no longer being funded. All this while housing, heating and transportation costs are going through the roof. Maybe you don’t feel any of this - I don’t know your situation, but things have been really tough for a lot of people I know - and keep getting tougher (especially for those with families).

“Again, it seems you are forgeting the principle at stake- which is exactly why that quote is correct.”

I’m talking about the most basic principle of all - survival.

“I care about human rights,”

So do I - but I’m afraid I’m not buying the idea that giving our jobs to people who will simply do them for a whole lot less overseas is some sort of a benevolent human rights program intitiated by American Corporations.

“not some Pat Buchanan version of American-isolationism that the left has now adopted to scare people into voting for them.”

That’s funny, I thought the Republican’s made a much more concerted effort to scare people shitless before the election - although I must admit, I was quite surprized that so many American’s could fall for such cheap theatrics.

Craig,

I’d like to respectfully ask that you do a little exercises for me?

Without mentioning or citing any aspects of the Democratic Party, describe the attributes and principles of the Republican Party that causes 61% percent of those who attend church weekly to gravitate to and vote for them?

Adrienne:

I’m sorry but you seem to simply throw out comments that are just inaccurate, yet you treat them as truth. Here is an example:

“Most of the people who are getting our jobs overseas are being ruthlessly EXPLOITED by American owned corporations.”

I had a nice conversation with a business owner I know just yesterday about where his business was headed. He said he was having problems—-his Mexico plant is his most productive and efficient plant, meaning it is more profitable than his US plants. His business is hurting (9-11 among other things really hurt his company). His raw good costs are rising dramatically, which is driving up his costs, but he has long term contracts that prohibit him from raising his prices. Additionally, due to competition (much of it from overseas markets), he is having to sell his products at a price that he can’t sustain for long.

He can pay his Mexican workers more than they expect, which keeps them very happy, and still pay far less than he is paying his US workers, who are not happy with their wages.

His comment was that foreign workers are NOT being exploited—they are happy to work for less than American counterparts because they don’t need as much. Consider this before you go off on your next harangue. This guy stated that in America, we’ve come to NEED the second car, the VCR and the DVD both in the family room AND the bedroom. We can’t handle summers without air conditioning, and we just gotta have the next newest and latest electronic gadget.

In his Mexico plant, the workers have a different lifestyle. Its not a bad one, but it certainly doesnt feature all the creature comforts that we have come to take for granted here in the US. His point is that its not that other countries have such a low standard of living—-its that we in the US have such a HIGH standard of expectation.

Bottom line: What does this guy do as head of his company? If he continues with the low prices, his company dies slowly. If he cuts wages in the US to help him be more competitive, he faces strikes from the unions. If he utilizes the Mexico factory, where he can produce products and sell them at a profit (not an outrageous profit, but a steady profit), he might make his company last. If not, the company might fold, taking both the foreign AND American jobs with it.

So far, he’s been workign on increasing productivity, but it has been fraught with higher efficiency problems. He continues to work on this area.
There is no easy utopian answer where EVERYone is happy. But this is the reality with which he is faced. I’d be interested in what steps this guy can do that would meet with your approval.

Jbod-

I’m sorry but you seem to simply throw out comments that are just inaccurate, yet you treat them as truth. Here is an example:

“I had a nice conversation with a business owner I know just yesterday about where his business was headed. He said he was having problems—-his Mexico plant is his most productive and efficient plant, meaning it is more profitable than his US plants.”

When what I wrote was:
“Most of the people who are getting our jobs overseas are being ruthlessly EXPLOITED by American owned corporations.”

The operative word is _overseas_. I meant corporations like Matel who pay their employees in China the equivalent of a dollar a day - people who couldn’t even afford to buy their kids one of the Barbie doll’s they’re making. Or look at all the products made in Indonesia - same situation.

This whole conversation is off topic but since I can’t help myself:

“He can pay his Mexican workers more than they expect, which keeps them very happy, and still pay far less than he is paying his US workers,”
and:
His comment was that foreign workers are NOT being exploited—they are happy to work for less than American counterparts because they don’t need as much”

First of all, I hope you realize that “more than they expect which keeps them very happy” and “they are happy to work for less because they don’t need as much” are obnoxious comments. Secondly, who exactly is buying his products and keeping him in business? Is it American’s by any chance?

“This guy stated that in America, we’ve come to NEED the second car,”

Yeah, because the wife has to go to work too in order for the family to make ends meet.

“the VCR and the DVD both in the family room AND the bedroom. We can’t handle summers without air conditioning, and we just gotta have the next newest and latest electronic gadget.”

For the average American that’s called credit card debt. And its sales like those that we consider an economic indicator - and which your friend most likely profits by with his own products.
After WWII America created a consumer culture which American companies profitted by - now they don’t want to pay their employees enough to keep that consumer culture going, they just want to rake in profits while people go into debt. This is bound to bring the country to its knees at some point in the future. I think we are already seeing the downward spiral.

“Bottom line: What does this guy do as head of his company? If he continues with the low prices, his company dies slowly. If he cuts wages in the US to help him be more competitive, he faces strikes from the unions. If he utilizes the Mexico factory, where he can produce products and sell them at a profit (not an outrageous profit, but a steady profit), he might make his company last. If not, the company might fold, taking both the foreign AND American jobs with it.”

Bottom line: Sounds like your friend tried to grow his company by using cheap Mexican labor rather than by keeping his business in America and doing right by the people who actually buy his products. But perhaps, his Mexican workers will eventually form their own union and begin demanding a higher standard of living so they can live like American’s. Also, Mexico may one day decide to enact environmental health restrictions that may make him spend more if he wishes to keep his plant there. But no doubt, he’ll simply close that one and head off to Indonesia or China to open another plant where they don’t have unions and/or environmental regulations.

“There is no easy utopian answer where EVERYone is happy.”

Yes, there is. Its called feeling a sense of responsibility toward the people who work for you and who make your business successful.
Consumers have a responsibility, too - and some of us are aware of that fact, which is why lots of American’s, including myself, always buy American and Union made goods whenever possible.
For instance, I buy locally produced meat from a butcher, organic locally grown vegtables at the farmers market and my coffee from a local roaster who uses responsible global exchange coffee from South America. I’d also rather go to my local hardware store and pay a dollar more for something rather than going to Home Depot. I never buy anything at Walmart, instead I buy my shampoo and soap from a local shop. To clean my house I use Clorox bleach, Arm and Hammer baking soda and Twenty Mule Team Borax - all made in America. I wear New Balance trainers, and buy Carhart jeans for my husband - also made in America. Things that I buy from foreign countries are usually from businesses owned by those people rather than by some explotative American corporation.
I realize that because I live where I do (San Francisco Bay Area), all this is possible for me - but if more people actually thought about what they are supporting when they spend their money, this world would be a much better place.

jbod —

His comment was that foreign workers are NOT being exploited—they are happy to work for less than American counterparts because they don’t need as much. Consider this before you go off on your next harangue. This guy stated that in America, we’ve come to NEED the second car, the VCR and the DVD both in the family room AND the bedroom. We can’t handle summers without air conditioning, and we just gotta have the next newest and latest electronic gadget.

Wow, are you serious? Outsourcing is justified because Americans are spoiled and people from other countries are happy for whatever they can get? When we talk about “poor” in the US we aren’t talking about people who can’t afford their second car, we’re talking about people who can’t afford the second loaf of bread. I live in a poor area of Columbus, Ohio, and I promise you none of my neighbors are wishing for second cars — they’re wishing their first car would run.

Bert:

Very good question. My first response would be to say the same things that caused about the same percentage to vote for President Bush in 2000, just greater numbers. So the percentage changed, just a bigger turnout this time. If I may alter your question a bit, why did more of the 61 or so percent turn out this year?

1. The war on terror/iraq. I think that those who attend church regularly are more likely to support the president in times of war. I also think that regular church attenders are more likely to defend the president when attacked by democrats during a war. I hope you do not misunderstand my point on this. I believe the anti war demonstrators increased the turn out of the 61%.

2. I think the “face of” the last election, drove more of the 61% to the polls. The liberal hollywood elite frightened churchers with a combination of more sexually explicite material on TV, (bare breasts while watching the superbowl with their family), focal liberal celebraties actively campaigning, and liberal judges ruling for gay marriage over the will of the voters. (a sense of not having a say with the issue of the definition of marriage).

To answer what motivates the 61% to support President Bush or someone like him in any election not matter what the turn out, I would have to say the following.

1. An open belief in God. Church going people by definition are more open about their faith. President Bush is someone they can relate to. I don’t think it is as much of a conspiracy as it is cultural. President Bush and I have something in common. We are comfortable and open about our faith in God. I know what he means when he speaks about his faith. I don’t know what Senator Kerry means when he speaks about his faith. He sounds like someone from another culture trying to pass.

2. A belief that Government is not the highest solution to our problems. People who attend church regularly have a fundamental different view of what federal government should/should not do. Several issues that Liberals think would be up to the state to do, Church goes would think were up to them, or the church.

3. Personal morality. Regular church goers are more likely to believe in moral absolutes. They would believe that there is an absolute right, and an absolute wrong. Liberals are more likely to focus on corporate morality. I see that in your writings. You are very concerned about the unjust war in Iraq. (your view). Liberals focus on corporate values, conservatives focus more on personal values. So as Kerry was explaining why it is sort of immoral what is going on in Iraq, what church going people were “hearing” was, those awful wife swapping liberal hollywood types are going to ruin our children.

An example of this is Clinton. Liberals loved him because he was very careful to work for a more moral american (corportately), conservatives hated him because of his personal morality, and the effect it had on our conservative children.

So in the end we are both relatively blind to our own morality, but have 20/20 vision when looking at the other sides immorality. In God’s eyes (kinda nervous speaking for God), there is room for growth in us all.

Short answer. The 61% of regular church goes that support Bush/Republicans in general, support him because he speaks their language on personal morality. The same percentage (heathen ) that do not go to church probably then support the democrats because the democratic party speaks their language on corporate morality. (the war, feeding the hungry, civil rights, access to medical care).

How did I do???

Craig

Craig:
“Personal morality. Regular church goers are more likely to believe in moral absolutes. They would believe that there is an absolute right, and an absolute wrong. Liberals are more likely to focus on corporate morality.”

There is no such thing as “corporate morality.” Corporations do not, and indeed, legally cannot have “morality” unless it improves the bottom line. (Has to do with having a fiduciary duty towards their shareholders). Yet, there are many things that a decent and “moral” society needs that are not profitable.
Liberals believe that “we the people” form our government, and we do so, in part, to provide those things that individuals cannot do on their own and business would not choose to do.
When you drink clean tap water or go outside and breath fresh air, it is because liberals thought that was important. It is, after all much cheaper for businesses to dump waste into our air and water. When you put money in your bank, it is safe and insured (FDIC) because of liberals who thought it important to protect people against greed and corruption in the banking industry. When you put cream on your skin and it doesn’t burn, thank liberals who insisted on safety testing. When you eat your hamburger, liberals thought there should be no rodent hairs in it. When you go to drive to work, thank liberals for the roads, or if you take public transportation, another liberal scheme. Then, at work, thank them for a living wage and for the fact that your workplace is safe, well-lit, and has ventilation. If you are injured at work and can’t work, thank liberals for disability and workmen’s’ comp so you won’t starve.

What is absolute morality? Is it moral to ignore the downtrodden and begrudge them a hot meal or shelter because we want another… .whatever? Is it moral to deplete money from social services so that workers cannot even protect children from abuse, never-mind teach abusers how not to abuse, or teenage parents how to care for their babies? Is it moral to take the money from healthcare, children services, the elderly, the infirmed, and the mentally ill and use it to subsidize corporate global expansion? Is it moral for us to not bother to ask our government how many innocent civilian deaths the Iraq war has cost? If this is absolute morality, then it truly is a different set of values. It seems that absolute morality is a way to feel safe, but it avoids really tackling the complex questions and problems.
You say you know what Bush means when he talks about faith. Ever question if he actually means it or if he just knows how to use the right buzz words?

Not very well Craig, in my estimation.

In every case you described, political opinions were based solely on the objections to the perceived (and usually erroneous) beliefs of the Left.

How can those of faith hold Democrats and Liberals to stricter standards, when their own church teachings and leadership oppose the Iraq War and the Death Penalty?

How can you believe in moral absolutes and oppose Gay Marriage, when there is legal prostitution in the state of Nevada which the government earns taxes on?

Do you believe your faith is morally superior to those of Islam, and other religions? Because the President shares your faith, does that mean it’s ok for it to hold sway over Americans who practice another belief?

And, what ‘Hollywood Liberal’ peddler of smut got the biggest FCC fine this year? FOX!

You see Craig, you want all of us to accept and believe that Jerry Falwell and James Dobson are not your leaders, and do not speak for you. But, you will not accept or understand that not all Liberals are against the war, and those of us who are, have credible reasons to oppose an unjust war.

You will not acknowledge that court decision like the Massachusetts decision on Gay Marriage, are rooted in legal precedent and provisions of our Constitution. And, if there was truly a separation of church and state, we would not be having this argument.

Your last comment reads like a laundry list of distortions and manipulations, that the Republican Party has been so successful in brainwashing those who are now apart of the Bush Majority.

At the heart, it is rooted in prejudice, ignorance, intolerance, racism and hypocrisy. It is not about what I stand for, but who I stand against.

Bert:

1. Church leaders and teachings are split on the war in Iraq.

2. You said:

>

The religious right is opposed to prostitution and gay marriage. Gay marriage is not a relgious right issue, it is an overwelming majority view. In a CBS poll, only 30% of Americans favor gay marriage. Pushing an issue with only 30% support is going get a backlash.

3. AS for moral superiority, I don’t believe I am morally superior to anyone. If I am it is because of God’s grace. Not anything I have done.

4. I understand that liberals might be split on the war. I know from polling data that the democratic party is split. Liberals have lead the way in describing the war in moral terms. And have done so most of my life. It was liberals who lead the anti war effort in vietnam for instance.

5. You said:

“You will not acknowledge that court decision like the Massachusetts decision on Gay Marriage, are rooted in legal precedent and provisions of our Constitution. And, if there was truly a separation of church and state, we would not be having this argument.”

I disagree. The latest polling data I read shows that only 30% of Americans support gay marriage. Moderate minded Americans are opposed as well as conservatives. It isn’t a church and state issue at all. It is democracy. On THIS issue the country is on the side of conservatives by an overwelming margin.

6. Your final point,

“At the heart, it is rooted in prejudice, ignorance, intolerance, racism and hypocrisy. It is not about what I stand for, but who I stand against.”

Hmmm, I will have to think about that one. I attend church once a week, and I supported President Bush. That means my faith is rooted in ingnorance, intolerance, racism and hypocricy. And you stand against me.

I stand with you on:

1. The right of partners to be next of kin.
2. The right of gay couples to adopt children.
3. The right of gay couples to recieve the same beneficiary options on Social Security and IRA’s.
4. The right of gay couples to be added onto medical policies.
And probably more that I haven’t thought of.

With those rights, I would of course one a strict legal agreements between the two. Otherwise, the system would break down. (For instance if people could name anyone as beneficiaries on SS, the system would go bankrupt.) This sounds like Civil Unions.

It feels a little weird being for all these things and being placed in the intolerant group.
Such is the life of a moderate.

All the best,

Craig

Jo:

I agree with almost all of your post. There is no absolute moralty. Not with humans!! And I agree that liberals have lead the way on the issues that you mention.

It is the personal morality that I struggle with. Wow TV from Hollywood is discusting. Teen pregnancy is high,drug use is high, Aids is climbing dramatically among black men. (usually liberals!!)

Neither side is more moral than the other. We just have different definitions of what “moral” is. Liberals for instance would be far more concerned about what a corportate CEO did with his company’s books that with who he was sleeping with. Liberals (and I know I am generalizing) would not care if the man was sleeping with a diffent mistress each night, and telling his wife he was pure, as long as the corporation was living up the liberal moral standards on energy use, polution etc. Shoot have an orgy at every corporate board of directors meeting, just don’t pollute. Conservatives are just the opposite.

I know I am overstating things here a bit, but both liberals and conservatives see the faults in the other side without seeing our own. We need to listen and learn from each other.

Thank you for your response,

Craig

Craig, I’d have to put part of the 60% down to the Catholic priests and bishops who told their congregations that, if they voted for Kerry, they couldn’t receive Communion.

I know in Georgia, many of the Catholic priests are preaching that Democrats are baby killers, and now they say Democrats want to euthanize all the old people - and they get standing ovations by their predominantly Republican congregations!

Catholic Democrats are being driven out of the church.

Craig,

Sorry, but this a cop-out:

Church leaders and teachings are split on the war in Iraq.

Is a good example of this when Catholic Bishops want to deny John Kerry communion for being pro-choice, but are not as strident at asserting their opposition to the Iraq War and the Death Penalty? Plus, being opposed to homosexuality after enabling, covering up and paying millions in sexual abuse settlements?

Numbers 2, 3 and 4 in your comment are not my quotes.

5. The precedent and Constitutional provisions that are the basis for the Mass. Court decision, are the polling done of the American people since our nation’s birth, especially our Founding Fathers. It is over 2 centuries worth of experience, strife, injustice and enlightenment recorded in our laws for future generations. It is the weighted opinion of those who learned how and why we should treat people who are different, but still Americans.

Just the debate on Affirmative Action, those of you want to ignore our history and the laws they represent, because you don’t agree with them.

Hmmm, I will have to think about that one. I attend church once a week, and I supported President Bush. That means my faith is rooted in ignorance, intolerance, racism and hypocrisy. And you stand against me.

Again Craig, do not get defensive and use your ‘faith’ as a shield against criticism. I believe you when you insist that the Falwells’, Robertsons’ and Dobsons’ do not represent you, but that’s like me insisting as a Black man that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do not represent me.

What Jerry Falwell has done in the name of your faith, is all we see. And, just as hear what Jesse Jackson might be crusading against, you assume the Black community thinks the same.

Bert said:

Lastly, I am a gay man who realized recently, that my personal sense of decency, respect for others, kindness and desire to form strong bonds with friends and family, stems from my years as a young adult active in a Christian Reformed Church.

I don’t know if you took notice of this or not, but i was wondering if you were surprised by what I said?

Why? Because I was shocked by the things you believe gay couples should be entitled to. Maybe we can start clearing away some of the misconceptions we both have?

Jo-

Excellent post. Very well said.

Craig:
“I agree with almost all of your post. There is no absolute moralty. Not with humans!! And I agree that liberals have lead the way on the issues that you mention.”

Glad you agree with Jo’s post, Craig. There are many rightwingers who would never do so.
I think it is important to remember that each of those issues described were uphill struggles Liberal’s fought against the entrenched Republican ideal that profitability is always more important than people or their environment.

“It is the personal morality that I struggle with. Wow TV from Hollywood is discusting.”

But the truth is, if it didn’t sell, you wouldn’t see it. This is the funny paradox about “Red State” America. If what Hollywood was peddling didn’t actually appeal to the majority of God-fearing American’s, the business of Hollywood would change their product. But the truth is, whether that majority will admit it openly or not, it actually likes the product and tunes in every week for it. Therefore, those in Hollywood seem to be giving the people exactly what they want. Am I the only one who smell’s the pungent whiff of hypocrisy here?

“Neither side is more moral than the other. We just have different definitions of what “moral” is. Liberals for instance would be far more concerned about what a corportate CEO did with his company’s books that with who he was sleeping with. Liberals (and I know I am generalizing) would not care if the man was sleeping with a diffent mistress each night, and telling his wife he was pure, as long as the corporation was living up the liberal moral standards on energy use, polution etc. Shoot have an orgy at every corporate board of directors meeting, just don’t pollute.”

Right, because a public figure like a CEO makes very powerful decisions, and Liberal’s are more concerned with the overall outcome of such actions. We are more interested in the common good, rather than the personal hypocrisy or goodness of the individual who makes such far reaching decisions which in turn, affect us all.

“Conservatives are just the opposite.”

Then to me it seems you are missing the forest for the trees.

“I know I am overstating things here a bit, but both liberals and conservatives see the faults in the other side without seeing our own. We need to listen and learn from each other.”

Well, I always try to keep in mind the fact that Republican’s weren’t always so short sighted.

Abe Lincoln was a man of principle who went against the “CEO’s” of his day and age to promote equality, fairness and dignity as American Ideals, while managing to hold our Union together. In his second inaugual address he asked us to put aside the North/South enmity created by the Civil War:

“With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nations wounds; to care for the him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan— to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.”

Words to live by. As relevant now as they were then.
And not just relevant as pertains to war - a just and lasting peace with malice toward none and charity for all could also apply to giving full civil rights and acknowledging civil unions among gay people.

And then there was Teddy Roosevelt. The kind of Republican leader who realized that Monopoly’s and Big Business had the power to crush the common good if given the power to do whatever they wanted. He also knew that we had to protect and conserve the beauty and pristine quality of nature in America by designating that certain places would be public lands owned by us all. Because of him, these priceless preserves of nature were not destroyed by the shortsighted greed of Big Business.

I wish there were more Republican’s like those two. And I wish modern Republican’s would demand leaders like them, rather than men who merely pay lip-service by mentioning God, while using touchy moral dilemas to draw up divisions and barriers among the We the People of this nation. And indeed, by using the rhetoric of absolutes like good and evil, or ultimatums like “with us or against us” when addressing the people of the world at large.

Bert:

Lastly, I am a gay man who realized recently, that my personal sense of decency, respect for others, kindness and desire to form strong bonds with friends and family, stems from my years as a young adult active in a Christian Reformed Church.

And thank you for your kind words at the end of your post.

If the goal is to “accomplish things” as opposed to “being right” then working with the middle, and influencing the middle is where it is at. For instance, you have mentioned many times that Jerry Falwell and company as “leaders”. If the middle sides with you they have no power. On the other hand, if the middle sides with the right then you have little power.

I believe the middle sides with gays in particular and liberal in general in improving the lives of gays by increasing their civil rights. On the other hand, I think the the middle sides with the Jerry Falwell and company on the issue of legalizing gay marriage.

So if for the gay community marriage is a do or die issue, life life is going to be tough for a while. On the other hand, I would be happy to reach across the political spectrum to people from the left to make sure that you are more secure in your possessions are your relationships. I believe a majority of Americans would as well.

A part of what I am hoping for is time to ponder. Five or Ten years from now I may change or be more comfortable with further concepts. The list I gave in my previous post is where I am today. I do expect to add to it in the future as I learn and grow.

You know Bert I truely do not give a d@mn what you do in your bedroom. In fact it is an active not give a d@mn. I truely do not want to know. And further, I think people that do want to know are weird and don’t have a life.

I do want to know cetain things about gays. I want to know that they are safe, and can have life liberty and the pursuit of happiness like every other citizen. The devil is always in the detail. I am moving (like the country) in your direction, but I am certain not fast enough to please many.

I am able to separate my religion from my politics. I think the middle can do so very nicely.

Sorry for the personal tone to this post.

All the best,

Craig

Craig,

Thanks for those kind words, but I need to clarify just one last misconception.

For the gay/lesbian community, Gay Marriage is not a do or die issue, however I understand how you could reach that assumption. Trust me Craig that I know my community.

You reached that conclusion, because the social Conservatives like Gary Bauer and the American Family Council perpetuated that myth. Am I the very first person that has ever challenged this notion you accepted as true?

If you listen to Pat Buchanan and Rick Santorum, you would never actually discover who ‘They’ were, because that person or organization never existed. Who did you see repeatedly on TV? The straight Mayors of San Francisco and New Paltz, N.Y.

These were simply the actions of individuals who took advantage of ambiguous marriage statutes, pure and simple and nothing conspiratorial and organized. But, that is how it was sold to you - as a threat to you and the sanctity of marriage.

Bert:

For the gay/lesbian community, Gay Marriage is not a do or die issue, however I understand how you could reach that assumption. Trust me Craig that I know my community.

You reached that conclusion, because the social Conservatives like Gary Bauer and the American Family Council perpetuated that myth. Am I the very first person that has ever challenged this notion you accepted as true?

Grinning. Actually I do not listen to the American Family Council. Based on our previous posts, I thought that was your viewpoint. Isn’t the gay community all over the place on most issues of the day? (Maybe trending more liberal than society as a whole).

Not much is actually “sold” to me. I am a leader in my own right. I tend to pick and choose and set trends on a local level. I am conservative, but on the school board that I serve on I have strong relationships with our union leadership and teachers. My reputation is being fair and giving thought to issues before I speak. I usually form my opinions from bottom up rather than top down. For instance when there are issues that effect teachers before the board you will see me in faculty lounges listening and thinking.

My viwpoints of gay issues actually comes from gay people. I am very curious, and so when I meet gay people in my daily life, I usually pester them with questions trying to figure out how they “tick”. This gives me a “body” of grassroots info so that when someone wants to “pigeon hole” my opinion and get another “notch on their belt” I usually have established relationships with someone that I can call first and say “what do you think”?

For instance my view on gay adoption came from a wonderful lesbian couple that I got to have a front row seat watching them bring their baby home. As a financial advisor, (my trade), I of course thought of all of the what if’s. What if one partner dies? what if one partner gives up benefits to stay home with the baby? What if? what if? what if? When gay adoption is a reality, we need to support the new family. Politics has to work. As I say in the school business, “the busses have to run tomorrow”. We can talk theory all day long, but people’s lives has to work. The system must support people not the other way around.

You and I may have disagreements from time to time, but if we were across the table from one another negotiating, you would see me check ideology at the door and fix the problem.

Thank you for this conversation,

Craig

All,
This dialogue is encouraging and enlightening.

Adrienne:
“Consumers have a responsibility, too”

If only more people realized the incredible power and responsibility American consumers have.

“After WWII America created a consumer culture which American companies profitted by - now they don’t want to pay their employees enough to keep that consumer culture going, they just want to rake in profits while people go into debt.”

I agree and it is worrisome. I think of the Grapes of Wrath, where oranges decayed behind guarded fences while starving masses had no money left to buy them. At the local level, I see Bush’s tax cuts hurting working and retired home owners whose property taxes are increasing beyond their means in proportion to the federal and state cut-backs. Bankruptcy and foreclosures are on the rise in many places.

Craig,
“Liberals (and I know I am generalizing) would not care if the man was sleeping with a diffent mistress each night, and telling his wife he was pure, as long as the corporation was living up the liberal moral standards on energy use, polution etc.”

I am glad you realize you are generalizing. Did you know that Massachusetts, the gay marriage state, has one of the lowest rates of divorce in the country, while the Southern bible belt has the highest? Further, I assume you are talking about consensual sex, between adults. The impact - one or two people. As Adrienne pointed out, the morality liberals are concerned with affect the lives and health of many. Did you know, for example, that the EPA under this administration recently decreased the “price” of a human life? This cost is used in a cost/ benefit analysis, a comparison of the cost of an environmental hazard in human lives against the cost for an industry to clean or avoid it. If human life is valued lower, it takes more dead people to justify a change in environmental policy. Is this moral?

“It is the personal morality that I struggle with.”

But isn’t worrying about other people’s “personal morality” an oxymoron? If it is for you to dictate what my moral choices should be, then it is no longer my personal morality. Personal morality, in my mind, is not something dictated or imposed against one’s will.

Interestingly, the GOP has supported and attracted quite a few people who rate rather low on what I perceive to be your test of morality. For an interesting opinion on the subject see: http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/religiousmenu.htm

I agree with you, however, that television is out of control, because I believe in choice and free will. If an adult wants to watch sex or graphic violence, then so be it. But that does not mean children should have access to it. Nor should such exposure be forced on people who do not want it. The Janet Jackson thing angered people because their choice was taken away. They did not consent.

Finally, on diversity in our universities, I must ask why people who are so concerned about minority quotas seem unconcerned about legacy quotas. A significant percentage of applicants are accepted solely on the basis of their familial connections; money and/or power. The backlash against affirmative action is a misdirected frustration for the fact that poor and working class whites increasingly find themselves shut out of opportunity. Instead of attacking a system that lets in a C student with pedigree, i.e. Bush, they blame minorities. The frustration is real, but the problem is not diversity.