Hi, anonymous.

Hi Anonymous. Thanks, I guess, for your comment. I'm not sure how you found my blog, or maybe we know each other somehow or from a long time ago? Anyway, it is a little odd to get an anonymous, Republican comment on my own little personal corner of the internet, I admit. My better instincts tell me not to engage with you, but hey. I'm a risk-taker, so what the hell.

I'm a little confused by the tone of your comment to start. Are you being friendly? Confrontational? Are you trying to convince me of something? Let me assure you that is not going to happen. After 34 years of living in different cities and countries, reading healthcare and foreign policies as part of my various jobs, and generally being smart (not tooting my own horn here - I think any of my friends would attest to that), my experience has led me to believe that the Republican small government-free market route is folly, and will eventually crumble, taking all of us down with it. My experience has also led me to believe that by voting Republican as a woman one is completely voting against one's best interests anyway, so putting aside all the governmental philosophy reasons it is a bad platform, it's a party that hates women, too (and blacks, and gays, and (fill in the blank, as long as it isn't 'white rich men'). By the way, I think there is plenty wrong with the Democrats as well, and I never drank the Obama kool-aid. They just have more in common with my philosophies of the two major parties. So I'm just saying - not sure what think you are gaining by posting your generalistic and unimaginative thoughts on this blog. I don't mean that in a mean way, but you aren't saying anything that I haven't thought of - probably in more depth than you have by the sound of it.

Lillet pretty much summed up my thoughts on your comment, but how about a couple more? First of all, I can only assume you are a new reader, because I've said outright that I think we should pay even more taxes for better social services. Also, if you have read my writing for any length of time, you would know that I lived and worked in Europe for five years. Believe me, there are far better governmental systems out there and a good handful of them work much better than ours. If we could completely re-shape our thinking and have a more collective, Netherlands-ish view of how to live, it definitely could work. Government is not inherently inept. OUR goverment is just inept. Have I done the math on how much I think we should pay? Not really, because what I think relies on a completely different sort of system. Math based on the current one is a useless exercise.

So what if parties in charge change? The kind of social system I'm talking about doesn't necessarily change just because someone different is holding the reins. The kind of system I'm talking about requires a philosophical paradigm shift - a shift that would require everyone to start recognizing that they have a societal interest in helping each other, not just looking out for oneself. Believe me, I know this is never going to happen in America - at least not anytime soon. We are too self-centered and personally selfish, as your comment "I DON'T think it's fair for government to put an inordinate tax burden on ME because I've worked my ass off and put in years of time, energy, and sacrifice to excel professionally" illustrates. But it IS my dream for us.

You think it is your civic duty to contribute to your society, but you support a party that, in essence, doesn't. I hope that you are an active volunteer somewhere, because that's the sort of societal contribution that Republicans support. Don't get me wrong - I'm not anti-volunteerism. I just don't think that should be the basis for good social programming.

"If you are liberal and practice what you preach, you should embrace a variety of views, not just those that go along with your belief system." I don't get it. If I am liberal and practive what I preach, I should embrace ideologies that are counter to my beliefs? That's just stupid. I never said people can't say what they want, or believe what they want to believe. I just think that most people are woefully uninformed, and make decisions based on personality, sound bites, and commercials. I believe that if people were smarter and more forward-thinking, they would see the benefit in well-funded, well-managed social systems. In foreign policy that goes beyond "we're going to smoke him out" and "I can see Russia from my house". If you are supporting McCain-Palin this year, which I have to believe you are, you are essentially saying "fuck you" to the world, your children, and, honestly, yourself. Nice.

Republicans make myopic decisions. I'm glad you get to keep so much of your money. Good for you. Good for me. Right now. But when you are in a car accident, say, and lose your job, and eventually lose your health insurance, and can't feed your children, I'm sure you'll wonder why there aren't more social systems to help you in your time of need. Unless, of course, you are very very wealthy, in which case it makes sense you don't worry about people who go through that exact same scenario every day. I, on the other hand, am well aware that my life, while comfortable right now, is carefully balanced on fate. I hope I don't get cancer, because I KNOW our system would fail me, my husband, and my family.

By the way, just because you think people should have the right to burn the American flag doesn't make you open-minded. I hate it when people use that example. Woopie for you. I think women should have the right to choose, even though I probably wouldn't get an abortion myself. I think gay people should have the right to marry. There's always a counter-example that a real Republican would bristle at. And if you also believe in my two examples, there is absolutely NO reason you should be Republican.

So, whatever. Those are my thoughts. Respond or not, I don't care, though I probably won't respond to you again if you do. Sorry if you are someone I know from college or something, who happened to find me here. I'm a nice person, who really just wants to use this blog to talk mostly about shoes, Dallas life, my husband, and my cats. But I really take umbrage with anyone who will accuse me of somehow being close-minded to other views. Anyone who knows me or has read this blog for any length of time knows that simply isn't true. But I have strong belief in my own world views. So please reconsider how you phrase things in the future to people you (I assume) don't know.

Comments

[A frequent reader]

You GO Girl!!!!!!!

[Angela]

Whoah. My husband thinks the revolution should start sooner rather than later. I am a little afraid of what he may be plotting. He said that there are qualifying questions:

"What is your name?"
"What is your quest?"
"What is your favorite color"

I worry about him.

[anonymous]

For someone who professes they 'don't care,' you certainly had a lot to say in your response! Such passive-aggressiveness!

I read your blog from time to time (found thru other blog links) because it's interesting and you have a nice / emotional style of writing. Disappointing, though, that you automatically assume I'm attacking you specifically and then respond with your litany of not-so-subtle typical liberal put-downs. I wasn't trying to convince you of anything or gain anything, simply offer a different perspective b/c I think about things differently than you do.

I have a lot of friends who share my views and a lot of friends who completely disagree with me. It's stimulating to discuss and emphatically disagree on issues. It would be sooo boring to have everyone agree with me all the time; how do you deal with it?

BTW, it's too bad you think that I'm keeping "so much of (my) money." On what planet is the gov't taking more that a THIRD of someone's paycheck OK? Ugh...Don't worry, I won't respond anymore because I "don't really care", either.

[ashbloem]

I'm very sorry if I offended you on my own personal blog. I'm not sure that having a lot to say in direct response to a perceived criticism is the definition of "passive-aggressiveness". As I said, I thought you weren't very clear in whether you wanted to start a dialog or be gratuitously aggressive. I went with you being aggressive because I was offended you suggested I was close-minded. Which I am not.

"It would be sooo boring to have everyone agree with me all the time; how do you deal with it?": How do you have any idea at all how my friends or family view politics? While you are somewhat right - I generally choose to surround myself with people who have the same world view as me - I also know plenty of people with differing views. That's just how Texas is, babe. If I cut everyone who hated gays and loved guns out of my circle here, I might not have many friends.

Since I paid MORE than a third of my paycheck while living in the Netherlands, but had the peace of mind of knowing that if I became incapacitated or laid off I would be given assistance, not to mention I had inexpensive and reasonable healthcare, I actually think 35% in the USA for no apparent pay-off IS ridiculous. On that we agree!

I'm sorry if I offended you. I was offended too. I did feel that the tone of your comment was unreadable and it is, after all, my personal blog. I appreciate your nice comment about my writing style. Best of luck out there on the internets.

[Not Jeff Gannon]

I think ANONYMOUS hit the NAIL on the HEAD. People like me (NOT Jeff Gannon) and ANONYMOUS don't TRUST our government.

Luckily, we've had these last 8 years of GLORIOUS TRUST and are now comfortable allowing our COMMANDER AND CHIEF to ignore that WORTHLESS FISA court and spy on the ENEMIES amongst us. We've also had these last 8 years of UNIQUE TRUST and can TOTALLY understand that it wasn't REPUBLICAN DEREGULATION that FORCED us to use tax payer money to BAILOUT gigantic corporations. It was a LIBERAL PLOY. They knew this was GOING TO HAPPEN and are SECRETLY happy that we HAD TO GET ALL LIBERAL and BUY GEIKO.

[ashbloem]

ZOMG it is NOT JEFF GANNON!

/swoon

[sheryl]

Passive aggressive does not mean responding to something when you say you don't care much about it. (Not saying that's what Ashbloem di anyway)

Passive aggressiveness is when a person does not respond, when a person is stubbornly unresponsive, when they procrastinate or remain silent, as a form of aggression.