?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

It's not over till its over

Thanks to spaced_oddity and dragnflye for the kind invitations, but I think I'll sit tight and see how this one pans out.
Be it one more night, eleven more days, or four years and one day, I think nephthys510 said it right in infojunkies:
This country belongs to everyone, and the beauty of America is that we are allowed to try to change what we do not like.

Do not let them run you out of your own country, and do not give up on America. Stay and fight. If everyone turns tail and takes off for foreign lands, then America will continue, unchallenged, down this path that so many people hate.

This country is worth fighting for. Take responsibility for your country and exercise your rights to [dissent and] change, and improve it.

If you think your best option is to leave America, then you do not deserve her and how great she can be.

So, I might kid about moving to Alberta, or I might really seek a summer faculty visit (or, later, a sabbatical) there - but I'm not shuffling off the Murkian coil just yet.

Equally, it isn't over until Rosanne Barr sings, as Cousin Balki put it.

Edits:

10:25 CST: Now it's over. The election, that is. The good fight is never-ending, as neadods so aptly put it.
11:05 CST: Kudos to Senator John Kerry for a gracious and timely concession, and much more praise to him and Senator John Edwards for a well-fought campaign. Thanks as well to those friends on my LiveJournal friends list who are reacting rationally and with good sportsmanship to the news. mirabehn pointed me to this cogent post by smhwpf: "Democracy didn't start on election day, and it doesn't end there." And so remember: elections are not just every four years in this country.

--
Banazir

Comments

( 5 comments — Leave a comment )
celandineb
Nov. 3rd, 2004 03:50 am (UTC)
Do not let them run you out of your own country, and do not give up on America. Stay and fight. If everyone turns tail and takes off for foreign lands, then America will continue, unchallenged, down this path that so many people hate.

This country is worth fighting for. Take responsibility for your country and exercise your rights to [dissent and] change, and improve it.

If you think your best option is to leave America, then you do not deserve her and how great she can be.

So, I might kid about moving to Alberta, or I might really seek a summer faculty visit (or, later, a sabbatical) there - but I'm not shuffling off the Murkian coil just yet.


Yes, but when you've been struggling and it's not making any difference, and greatness is becoming a distant memory rather than something achievable in the future, it's awfully tempting to look elsewhere. No country is perfect, certainly, but I begin to think of it rather as "America doesn't deserve me and how great I can be." I don't especially like the idea that through no fault of my own I'm going to be tarred as an idiot for being a citizen of a country that reelected a president rightly despised by much of the world.
cretaceousrick
Nov. 3rd, 2004 04:47 am (UTC)
If it were just a matter of an idiot getting elected every four years or so, I'd stay without qualms. But it goes deeper than that, into a dirty sociological chasm between humanist goals and more orthodox religious "morality." The figures on why people voted for the person they voted for are intriguing, albeit troubling: Those concerned about the economy, Iraq, the environment, the real quality of life issues, voted overwhelmingly Kerry; those who claimed "morality" went in droves for Bush. America is an anomaly in the world community, clinging to evangelical worldviews and throwing its weight around for everyone to see, just in case anyone wanted to say anything against that. If we start leaving this country to find more welcoming climes (instead of white flight we could call it left theft...?), we are dooming those left behind to a steadily weakening leftist power base, and I agree with you about that being a bad thing, maybe even traitorous. But since it is a social issue, not something an election here and there will quickly fix, some may wonder what the point of staying behind is.

Or maybe we're just sore losers, like everyone said we were four years ago.
scottharmon
Nov. 3rd, 2004 06:39 am (UTC)
I think they are both pretty idiotic. Do you really think Kerry would do *anything* differently? Probably not.

I believe that morality (or "morality" as you put it) is an important social issue. How we are "morally" as a people or society really defines us. How we go to war for no seemingly 'just' reason. How we treat our own people and prisoners of other countries. How we treat our children and old people. How we treat our neighbors. Even how we treat our environment. If not morality, then what defines us? Who won the world series? Our favorite breakfast cereal? Our beliefs as a nation are what defines the actions that we take as a nation. Nothing else should drive those things (or should bribery drive our policies?)
cretaceousrick
Nov. 3rd, 2004 06:52 am (UTC)
I do believe Kerry would have approached environmental and some (not most) foreign policy issues differently, and almost certianly a few domestic social issues (women's rights especially) wouldn't have been in as much danger as with Bush. Other than that, a Kerry victory would have been largely symbolic.

I put "morality" into quotation marks for precisely that reason: the people who voted for Bush because of his "moral" agenda are leading America toward a dangerous definition of national morality. The environment is a moral issue, and here Bush behaves immorally. Same with invading countries for no reason: Bush's activities violated humanist morality as well as my interpretation of Christian morality. Locking up what amount to political prisoners in Guantanamo marks Bush's administration as immoral, as does refusing to hold American officers and soldiers accountable for actions violating numerous treaties and conventions. The long list of social issues that Bush takes a stand on could be at best seen as "differently moral," whether it's welfare or social security or placing corporate well-being over public well-being.

People who placed a "moral" vote for Bush really seem to be supporting three things: Discrimination against homosexuals, the curtailing of women's rights, and installing evangelical Christian leadership, none of which fit what I would consider a good national definition of morality. That's why I put "morality" in quotation marks, and if my meaning wasn't clear, I apologize. :)
jadziadax
Nov. 3rd, 2004 08:57 am (UTC)
So I know I was joking about a civil war....but maybe we need a political civil war. The two-party system sucks.

Still want to temporarily relocate to Canada.
( 5 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

December 2008
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

KSU Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GEC) Lab

Teunciness

Breakfast

Science, Technology, Engineering, Math (STEM) Communities

Fresh Pages

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Naoto Kishi