A Moral Dilemma / Morality Test
Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 01:42:47 PM PDT
I received this interesting e-mail forward. I know a forward isn't exactly diary material, but I found this one interesting -- to say the least. And with recent events, I think it's highly relevant.
Give it a read over, answer the question for yourself, and see how you compare with each other.
And allow me to not take credit for creating this test.
Moral Dilemma
----------------------
So where do you stand morally?
This test only has one question, but it's a very important one.
By giving an honest answer, you will discover where you stand morally.
Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous.
Please scroll down slowly and give due consideration to each line.
-------------------------
THE SITUATION
You are in New Orleans to be specific.
(continued below the fold)
The DLC is wrong... twice.
Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 12:31:40 PM PDT
There is a myth going around that Democrats are divided by ideology.
"Leftists and Centrists are fighting for the heart of the Democratic party."
But it's not true. ... well, at least not to the degree that it's being played up.
And while the SCLM is content to represent this as a struggle of believers versus atheists, or hawks versus pacifists, there ARE a few people who are more than content to lob stones at their exaggerated enemy.
DON'T BUY INTO IT.
Want to make sure you're not falling into the trap? Read on:
Iraq War Fatalities and "The Late Pass"
Mon Jun 27, 2005 at 01:08:48 PM PDT
The public deserves to know how well the War in Iraq is going. And this is very telling:
http://www.obleek.com/iraq/index.html
I was quite well prepared for what I was about to see. I haven't been hiding under a rock (or, as the American Public calls it, Fox News).
But as I continued to watch this fatality count, my jaw just dropped further and further.
And if someone who opposed the war months before it started can see the war in a new light, you can be damn well sure that perceptions are about to be rattled.
(More thoughts below the fold.)
Science Friday: Four Environmental Heresies
Fri May 13, 2005 at 02:04:18 PM PDT
In politics, it's considered foolish if you change your mind about something. But in science, art and philosophy, it's considered a virtue to have an open mind.
Someone referred me to a very interesting article about the future of the environment. In particular, it claims that environmentalists will reverse their positions on four important things in the coming years.
- Population Growth
- Urbanization
- Genetically Engineered Organisms
- Nuclear Power
More below the fold.
Ask a Republican: How do you feel about Terri?
Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 12:12:06 PM PDT
I went out and found an average Republican and asked him how he felt about Terri Schiavo.
Here is his response, verbatim.
The woman is basically dead anyways. Signs point to her dying. It's almost a certainty. If she wanted to die, then damn, let her, I guess. I'm torn on this one.
One thing I think is gay, though, is Congress being involved. And Bush getting involved.
But me being pro-life is more about abortions. I am against abortion.
This is a pretty average Republican response:
- overall pro-life sentiment
- mixed feelings about Terri
- defaulting towards personal choice
- criticism of big government
- latent homophobia
Open Thread: Is Abortion a make-or-break issue?
Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 03:05:55 PM PDT
I'm not going to lie. There's a
hidden agenda in this open thread. I'm pro-choice. Strongly. Anyone who tries to gradually erode a woman's abortion rights deserves to have their scrotum gradually eroded with my adidas.
But the hidden agenda of this diary is the question of ideological purity: to what degree should we be flexible? Is political expediency unhealthy? Where's the balance between winning the voters of today, winning the voters of tomorrow, and doing the right thing?
Recommend this diary if you think discussing our party's stance on abortion is important, or if you think the question of ideological purity is coming up again and again.
Discussion below the fold.
Two Mainstreams: A New Civil War, the Battleground, & How to Win
Thu Jan 20, 2005 at 03:42:20 PM PDT
I never understood why it's the "liberal" media. There's nothing liberal about it. Especially when you look at how inane the coverage of the then-pending Iraq war was, you know exactly what I mean.
But the media is liberal.
It might not be liberal for the reasons we thought, but by some definition, it IS. If anything, the beef that you have with the "So Called Liberal Media" may actually reveal some common ground with conservatives these days.
(Doesn't that make you feel dirty?)
There are legitimate reasons why conservatives think the media is liberal, and I will attempt to describe them. But more importantly, there's a civil war going on in America. And until someone can win an election by more than 3% of the popular vote, this country will never rest.
(More below the fold...)
Criticizing Reagan: Kerry's Unfinished Business
Sat Jan 15, 2005 at 06:20:44 PM PDT
You might ask yourself why I'm writing a diary about Ronald Reagan. Looking back on 2004, the election, Iraq, I actually thought about how his death came and went. It was a huge moment, with loads of pageantry, but it didn't appear to have too much of an impact on the election.
I'm here to argue that Reagan did have an important impact on the 2004 election, although not for his death. I'm talking specifically about the Reagan years and how they are perceived in the mainstream. This isn't about tearing down a man's legacy. This was about defining our Democratic Principles. And our candidate had a very valuable lesson to teach America.
Yes, I'm talking about John Kerry. Some of you do not think he has a single principal in his dry patrician soul. But while he's not some kind of savior, I will defend him until the end.
More below the fold, including how Senator Kerry stood by principals that the Democratic party has yet to fully and loudly embrace, while everyone throws tough words to the terrorists on CNN.
Secret to Victory "on the 2004 electoral map." - David Sirota
Thu Dec 09, 2004 at 02:44:34 PM PDT
I just finished reading a killer article by David Sirota. It is both optimistic and scorching. It both says that the democrats are not far off, and yet that that path to victory is being threatened. But most importantly, it has the evidence and logic to back up our greatest hopes.
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8917
I'll quote some of my favorite parts.
Where, for instance, does a Democrat get off using a progressive message to become governor of Montana? How does an economic populist Democrat keep winning a congressional seat in what is arguably America's most Republican district? Why do culturally conservative rural Wisconsin voters keep sending a Vietnam-era anti-war Democrat back to Congress? What does a self-described socialist do to win support from conservative working-class voters in northern New England?
Only 4.7% of voters swung between Bush/Kerry -- Marketing Study
Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 03:58:07 PM PDT
elevated from the diaries by DemFromCT. This takes a different look at the same issue of who the undecideds were and where/how efforts might be focused differently next time. See also The Irrational Voter.
This got passed onto me and was quite interesting. You can find the original article here, although I can't find the actual Draft Inc. study itself.
There are two interesting things about the study. The first is the data itself:
The study reveals that only 4.7 percent of voters nationwide switched their choice of candidate during the course of the election. And while a slight majority (59 percent) of those that did switch did so relatively late in the game (from October through Election Day)
Dean for DNC Chair: Perception vs. Reality
Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 12:54:23 PM PDT
I did not want Dean to be our Presidential nominee. When "the scream" happened, I knew Dean was done and "my man" Kerry would come out on top. But I did not cheer, because I knew of the unfair attacks Dean would have to endure.
"Unfair." Yet, I foresaw these attacks.
Perception wins elections. If you don't know that by now, you need to grow up. Still, in an ideal world, reality would unconditionally trump perception. A true visionary would have a back-door entrance to a leadership position such as the Presidency, circumventing the superficial masses blocking the front door.
Becoming the Chair of the DNC is back-door only. There is no public campaign, no Leno or Letterman to push any label that the GOP hopes will stick, no overwhelming media interest. The chair is elected by a couple hundred people. Compared to the Presidency, choosing the DNC Chair is subject to fewer external forces. Thus, there is enough hope to believe that the DNC chair can be decided more on reality, not perception.
This analysis is dedicated to separating perception from reality, and in turn making the case for why Dean would be an ideal DNC Chair.
Why Every Democrat must learn about Barry Goldwater
Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 02:27:52 PM PDT
Democrats: Remember Barry Goldwater!
This topic has touched upon a few times, but give me a chance to go deeper. You might be intrigued.
A number of people know a little bit about Barry Goldwater. He's the Republican who was crushed by Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Some are even familiar with the terminology "Goldwater Moment" and have heard the comparisons to 2004, comparing activists, the political undercurrent, and the need to "find the soul" of our party.
If you have no idea what I'm talking about, I implore you to please read on. Skim it if you must. But PLEASE, continue. Consider it a personal favor to me.
Most of these thoughts are not my own, and many of you know more than I do. But every democrat needs to understand what I will tell you here. The future of our party depends on it.
Pew does a "Moral Values" Poll -- was it a factor?
Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 10:22:40 AM PDT
The People-Press / Pew organization (a very reliable non-partisan polling organization) did a poll about the election, and particularly devoted a lot of time to moral values.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=233
Moral values didn't play the biggest or only part in this election, but it was unfortunately (for democrats) still a factor. But what this factor means is very much subjective to a republican perspective.
Sick and tired of 2008 nominee discussions?
Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 03:13:37 PM PDT
(Polite warning: This is a rant and is meant to be self depricating -- it's not a troll-attack. It's more to poke fun at the number of discussions on the topic, and not a real call to cease and desist.)
This is my first Diary post. Thanks to everyone who's shown me the ropes. It's been fun so far.
But if there's one thing I've learned in the past week, it's that EVERYONE has a favorite candidate for 2008. And that they are willing to blindly ride them for four years, all the way into what they hope will be the White House.
Inevitably, this erupts into huge debates, mostly attacking anyone who isn't the two or three candidates we've pegged as the solution to all our party's ills.
After even one week, I'm pretty sick of it. Maybe some of you feel the same way. There's been a million discussions on a dozen candidates, by now, I've heard enough objections to every nominee to give Karl Rove a hard-on.
- I KNOW that you think John Edwards "had his chance", and didn't even help us carry North Carolina in 2004.
- I KNOW Hilary Clinton is too North-Eastern to win, and I know she doesn't exactly get you fired up.
