Gay Marriage and a Moral Minority

Dear Readers:

Following is something I recently seeded to my Newsvine Column:

Seeded Article: “Gay Marriage and a Moral Minority“
Article Source: The New York Times

News Type: Event — Seeded on Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:45 PM PST
Seeded by Noetical
Interesting analysis of why a majority of Black Voters voted for California’s Prop. 8 and against Gay Marriage. It also discusses ways in which proponents for the rights of Gay Men and Women to Marry might effectively sway the opinion of these voters.

Originally published to Noetical’s Newsvine Column.

Why Lieberman Is So Annoying…

Dear Readers:

Following is something I recently posted to my Newsvine Column:

Lieberman May Be the Most Annoying Person on the Planet.

News Type: Opinion — Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:54 PM PST

Is it just me, or is Lieberman excessively annoying?

Yes, like most Democrats, I think he’s a traitor and a jerk…but I guess we have to get over that now and “get along.” …at least until he gets voted out of office.

I can try, but seriously…I can’t stand his frickin’ voice!

Rather than fume, I decided to get my aggression out by making fun of him in Photoshop:

Really, it helped!

I’m ready to move on now %^}

Originally published to Noetical’s Newsvine Column.

Following is a link to the comments from this column: *Lieberman Is Annoying Comments*

Why It’s “Un-American” to Call Your Opponents “Un-American” …

Dear Readers:

The following video is an interview from Chris Matthew’s Hardball on Friday. Some on the Left criticize Matthews because he is more centrist than some of the other pundits on MSNBC. I actually like him. He has a good heart, good mind and gets mad at some of the same craziness that I do. As I started watching this interview, I started to get agitated, as he wasn’t calling this woman on some of the misinformation she was spewing. However, as the interview progressed, I realized he was too focused on giving her rope to bother with contradicting her. By the end of the interview, she had plenty of rope with which to hang herself. It’s an interesting, albeit troubling look at what happens when you leave the echo-chamber and forget where you are:

Labeling people “un-American” because they disagree with you runs against everything that our constitution and that we as Americans stand for. Furthermore, it is divisive and not worthy of a member of the US Congress to do so. This nation is based on principles that include the freedom to express your beliefs without being attacked.

On March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry began his famous speech, which inspired Virginia to join in the American Revolution with words reflecting this tradition:

“No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.”

It is the very act of engaging in such a dialogue that distinguishes us from many other societies…not just because we are “free” to (there are many over the course of the years since 1776 who could attest to the fact that “freely expressed” ideas led to their persecution, and sometimes even death)…but rather because we are a people who consider it a responsibility to stand up for our ideas and ideals.

Representative Bachmann seems to desire a resurrection of the HUAC. Didn’t we learn many years ago that there are few things as “un-American” as the notion that someone should be investigated as “un-American” because they have differing political views?

Those are just my thoughts. I’m a registered voter and proud American.

Why “Trickle-Down” Economics Has Lost Favor Since Katrina…

ENOUGH!

Last Thursday night, along with about 38 million other Americans, I tuned in to watch Barack Obama give his historic acceptance speech for the nomination of his party. I have to admit that I was already a strong supporter, but I was happy to be so powerfully reminded why. I’m proud to support a candidate who will stand up to the powers that be and say, “ENOUGH!”

As he began to lay out the case for his economic plan, over John McCain’s, he obliquely referred to “trickle-down” economics:

“For over two decades, he’s subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy—give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is—you’re on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps—even if you don’t have boots. You’re on your own.

Well it’s time for them to own their failure. It’s time for us to change America.”

As most people know, this weekend is the three year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina causing 53 different breaches in the levees surrounding greater New Orleans, which led to eighty percent of the city being submerged in water. When I hear the term “trickle-down economics,” I can’t help but think of those poor souls crowded into that stadium, rain dripping from above, to weather the storm. After spending most of the Labor Day weekend that year, transfixed by the Katrina coverage, I posted a brief response, which listed four words, which had started running through my mind that weekend, and corresponding quotes:

“AMERICA,” as in: “Is this really happening in AMERICA?”

“POVERTY,” as in: “If you live in POVERTY, you don’t have an SUV to drive out of town before the hurricane arrives.”

“LEADERSHIP,” as in: “People aren’t frustrated by the lack of LEADERSHIP, they’re dying because of it.”

“WATER,” as in: “The streets are filled with WATER!” and “Where the fuck is the food and WATER?”

The aforementioned words inspired the following QUOTES OF THE WEEK:

AMERICA:
“I love AMERICA more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.”
—James Arthur Baldwin
“If we ever pass out as a great nation we ought to put on our tombstone ‘AMERICA died from a delusion that she had moral leadership.’”
—Will Rogers
“I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If AMERICA shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch.” (…unless you’re poor.)
—George W. Bush

POVERTY:
“It is a tragic mix-up when the United States spends $500,000 for every enemy soldier killed, and only $53 annually on the victims of POVERTY.”
—Martin Luther King, Jr.
“The mother of revolution and crime is POVERTY.”
—Aristotle
“POVERTY may be the mother of crime, but lack of good sense is the father.”
—Jean de la Bruyere
“POVERTY is the worst form of violence.”
— Mahatma Gandhi

LEADERSHIP:
“One of the true tests of LEADERSHIP is the ability to recognize a problem before it becomes an emergency.”
— Arnold H. Glasgow
“The only safe ship in a storm is LEADERSHIP.”
—Faye Wattleton

WATER:
“You don’t drown by falling in the WATER; you drown by staying there.”
—Edwin Louis Cole
“WATER, WATER, every where, Nor any drop to drink.”
—Samuel Taylor Coleridge

I can’t help but notice that the quotes I posted that day resonate even more today than they did three years ago.

In Thursday’s speech, Barack Obama had it right when he spoke of his and and the Democratic party’s promise to America. He said:

“Ours is a promise that says that government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools, and new roads, and science, and technology.”

Yes, we all hate paying taxes. That said, we do pay taxes as part of our compact with the government that it will use that money to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

The quote from Glasgow about leadership reminds us that:

“One of the true tests of LEADERSHIP is the ability to recognize a problem before it becomes an emergency.”

Last week, both Obama and Biden made the case that John McCain “doesn’t get it.” In Joe Biden’s Aug. 27, 2008, convention speech he said of McCain:

“He voted 19 times against the minimum wage for people who are struggling just to make it to the next day.”

Obama made this point:

“John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush was right more than ninety percent of the time? I don’t know about you, but I’m not ready to take a 10 percent chance on change.”

Obama and Biden have met that test many times in their statements and speeches both last week and throughout Bush’s presidency.

McCain has failed it miserably many times:
January 10, 2008:
John McCain says, “I don’t believe we’re headed into a recession. I believe the fundamentals of this economy are strong, and I believe they will remain strong. This is a rough patch, but I think America’s greatness lies ahead of us.”

March 16, 2007:
McCain said “he was ’stumped’ when asked whether contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV.”

October 31, 2005:
Three years ago, John McCain said, “Afghanistan—we don’t read about it anymore in papers because it succeeded.”

Septeptember 12, 2001:
Senator McCain was already turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, and he became a leading supporter of an invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Finally, I want to speak briefly to the issue of whether or not Barack Obama is ready to lead:

There are those who argue that he lacks the experience to lead this nation. However, that claim falls flat with me, as I have watched him lead an inspired and inspiring national campaign for the nomination of his party, of my party.

Under his leadership, the Obama campaign both strategically and tactically outmaneuvered the most powerful and experienced political organization in modern times. Strategically, he understood from the beginning that “change” was what voters were looking for. Clinton could easily have claimed the ”change” mantel, but she chose a different strategy. Additionally, his team investigated the intricacies of the primary process, like how many delegates were up for grabs in which state and; used this information to formulate the tactics that would result in the most delegates. Clinton’s strategy was to focus her resources on winning the majority of delegates in the states with the largest number of delegates. This meant that tactically, they lacked the field operations to do as well in the caucuses as the Obama campaign did.

While some argue that the process was somehow “unfair,” I must admit that I’m puzzled by that argument. Every decision our next president makes will involve thoughtful and intelligent navigation around and through unfair obstacles created by eight years of poor leadership. The Commander-in-chief will be left with a military that has been stretched to its limits, while still facing war on two fronts and threats on many more. Our next leader will face a deficit of good-will in the rest of the world, at a time when we most need their cooperation. The dollar has become weaker, gas and oil prices have risen, economic inequity is at an all-time high. These are but a few of the unfair circumstances that will challenge any efforts our next president makes to improve our daily lives. From day one, I’ve seen Barack Obama exhibit the judgment and character to devise and refine a winning strategy. Going forward, we will see if he and his
supporters manage to take back the White House, but from my vantage point, he is the only leader who has proven he can win.

As the Republican Convention and Hurricane Gustave loom, and the memories of Katrina linger, I’m comforted by the knowledge that Barack Obama is at the helm of the ship that promises change. As Faye Wattleton reminds us, “The only safe ship in a storm is LEADERSHIP.”

That’s something I try to remember when the leaders of this country tell us to eat cake:

Why PUMA People Piss Me Off…

As my closest friends know, I am an avid consumer of political commentary. My television has the MSNBC logo burned into it. I get and read the New York Times everyday and; I actually think it’s “fun” to watch CSPAN. I love to talk politics more than anyone I know, so my friends and family often encourage me to post my own political commentary here. In part they do so because they believe I am fairly well-informed, given my new consumption. They tell me my thoughts would be a valuable contribution to the public political discussion going on in the world today. Mostly I suspect they would just like me to shut up about it and hope to channel this energy toward my blog and away from them =-)

Unfortunately, while I’ve written many a post in my head about whatever is pissing me off at the time, I’m often too distracted, busy and/or lazy to actually type out my thoughts. Well, not so today. Last night, while watching Hardball on MSNBC, there was a segment on “Hillary Clinton Democrats for McCain.” The guests really annoyed me so; I went online to find more information about their group, PUMA. What I found agitated me enough to actually post something about it, so here I GO:

There were two people included in the Hardball segment, Darragh Murphy, founder of PUMA PAC, and Will Bower, who started a PUMA website called “Just Say No Deal.” Both insisted that they were planning to vote for John McCain, despite being Hillary Clinton supporters in the primary. Bower and Murphy described PUMA as a “movement” driven by frustrated Hillary Clinton Democrats, like themselves, who are devoted to “righting the wrongs” perpetrated on Clinton and her supporters. They accused the DNC and the Democratic Establishment of “silencing” their voices.

It doesn’t take an Obama supporter to notice the absurdity of the sentiment that the voices of Clinton and her supporters have been “silenced,” given that the first two days of the Democratic Convention will feature speeches by both Hillary and Bill Clinton, not to mention the fact that Hillary’s name is even scheduled to be put into nomination for the first roll call. By the way, the last time a primary loser insisted on such a display, it was Jerry Brown in 1992, when he lost to Bill Clinton. Reportedly, it really pissed Clinton off. The reason going into this is moot is that Clinton’s candidacy really has nothing to do with the PUMA cause, at least as far as I can tell. Will Bower’s Just Say No Deal Website tells it all when it opens with the following statement:

“We are a coalition of millions with one thing in common: NObama”

Presumably, the site would at least say “we are a coalition of millions with one thing in common: electing Hillary Clinton.” That is, if there were any truth to what they’ve been claiming their motives to be in their media interviews.

In the Hardball interview, Darragh Murphy explains that P.U.M.A. stands for “People United Means Action.” However, in researching PUMA, I found that the original derivation of this acronym, is “Party Unity My Ass,” which is appropriate since it’s much more akin to a bowel movement than a political movement. The thing that most offends me about these people and their media coverage is that they are claiming to be “Democrats.” Democrats My Ass…

If you look up most of the people representing PUMA in the media on the campaign contribution tracking Website, NEWSMEAT, they’ve only given money to Republicans in the past, or not at all. Darragh Murphy, for example, gave John McCain $500 in his 2000 primary run. Kim Mann, a PUMA supporter recently quoted in a CNN article about PUMA, has only contributed once to any candidate since the 1980s. According to NEWSMEAT, that was $250 to Republican Jim Ramstad from Minnesota in 1991.

My favorite “Democrat” has to be Will Bower, who recently quit his job to spend all his time administering JustSayNoDeal.com. One of the main areas of this site is the “Oppo-research” area. If you have any doubt about the motives of this site, go there and you’ll find a list of links to right-wing blogs on topics that range from Obama’s “Muslim Heritage” to his “Terrorist Ties.” It’s hard to imagine any reason to foster false rumors and innuendos, meant to smear and “swift-boat” Obama, other than a desire to keep Republicans in the White House for another term. Pointing visitors to lies about Obama will hardly change the outcome of the primaries and make Hillary the Democratic Nominee. It might improve McCain’s chances of being elected. It’s certainly an effort to make people more afraid of things that aren’t true about Obama than they are about things that are true about McCain…like the fact that McCain has promised to continue numerous policies that have been unpopular under Bush if he, McCain, is elected.

I’m not saying that all the PUMA people are closet Republicans. What I am saying is that many of the founders of the group are. Furthermore, those who aren’t might as well be. They are more dedicated to destroying Obama than they ever were for the things Clinton stands for. If that weren’t the case, they’d be supporting Obama now, whose policy positions are close to hers, while McCain’s are MILES away from those of either.

Did I mention these people piss me off?

Maybe We CAN Just Get Along…But We Still Can’t Date.

Hello everyone!

Welcome again to the annals of my adventures in the world of eDating. Before I begin, I would like to say that those of you who read these entries should feel free to enjoy my amusing anecdotes without feeling sorry for me in the least. Not all of my experiences have been bad…the bad ones are just funnier to write about. Besides, as I’ve mentioned before, I don’t consider the good guys fair game. Speaking of which, while this guy is not someone I would date, as it turns out, he’s not such a bad guy. For that reason, I actually asked his blessing to post this exchange with the caveat that I would remove any personal information that might identify him in any way. I really wanted to post this correspondence because it evolved in a way that I found interesting. In order to provide you with some background, I will begin with my online profile for Yahoo Personals, where he approached me. (Note: most of the initial details, like “Sense of Humor” and “Social Setting” are canned responses from which I chose as many as applied.)

About Me:
Gender: Woman seeking a Man
Age: 39
Marital Status: Single – never married
Body Type: Fit
Height: 5′ 7″
Eyes: Hazel
Hair: Auburn
Ethnicity: Caucasian (white)
Sense of Humor: Friendly, Clever / Quick Witted, Dry / Sarcastic, Obscure
Social Setting: Shy at first, but warm up quickly, Home Body, Better in small groups, Comic Relief
TV Watching: News Junkie, Movies, Documentaries, Channel Hopper, TiVo is my best friend
Living Situation: Alone, With pets, Family and friends visit often
Have Kids: No
Want (more) kids: Yes
Education: College Grad
Employment Status: Full-time
Occupation: Entertainment / Media
Income: No Answer
Religion: Not Religious
Attend Services: Never
Political Views: Very liberal
Astrology: Libra
Languages: English
Interests: Arts, Dancing, Family, Movies, Listening to Music, Outdoor Activities, Reading, Travel, Cooking, Computers / Internet, Television, Gardening, Crafts, Health/Fitness

My Headline:
I don’t care what car U drive…

In My Own Words:
…but, I *do* care if you’re cute, smart, funny, treat me with respect & get my jokes (CLUE: if you’re thinking right now “tell me one,” you most likely won’t get them =-)

WHAT I LOVE: Music that makes my body move; all-out, heart-pounding, lung-burning workouts that flood me with endorphins; books that make me forget where I am; movies that make me cry, laugh and/or think; people who make the world a better place; my mind & its perpetual motion; meaning & the search for it; laughing out loud; talking to bright people; learning something new; finding money in an old pair of jeans; being madly in love with someone whose very essence is intrinsically magnificent to me, just as mine is to him; savoring a root-beer float once every six & a half years (keeps ‘em fresh!)

ABOUT ME: I believe in the beauty & complexity of the universe & cherish my time here, but if you consider creationism or “intelligent design” a science, I’m sorry but we are not a match. I am a drama-free (though not passion-free) zone, as I’ve always felt fortunate and prefer to laugh at life’s absurdities than cry of misfortune and play the victim. The full expression of my attention, energy & thoughts is a lovely force that can transform & enrich the lives of those around me. However, since I find myself & the world highly entertaining, getting my attention can be difficult…keeping it can be even harder…that is, unless you possess wit, are curious, intelligent and have a “good heart.” Beyond that, I’m looking for someone with whom I feel safe to be my whole, magnificently flawed self. He needn’t be without flaws, fears, doubts or weakness himself, but he must be willing to risk the discomfort of that journey…wherever it may lead. Come on…it’ll be fun! =-)

ABOUT YOU WITH ME: We’ll make each other laugh…even in difficult moments. We won’t keep our opinions to ourselves, but we’ll *never* have to wonder whose side the other is on. We’ll be comfortable letting each other “do our own thing”…even when we’re occupying the same space. We’ll have each other’s backs, even when we’re facing each other. We’ll inspire each other to be better people. When we look at each other, we’ll know how lucky we are to be together, making it difficult to keep our hands off each other…and mostly we won’t

PLACES I’VE BEEN: Italy—Venice, Rome, Milan, Florence, Pompeii, Naples; Belgium—Brussels, Bruges; England—London, Bath, Bristol; France—Cannes, Nice, Paris; Germany—Munich, Hamburg, Berlin, Frankfurt; Austria—Vienna, Salzburg; Canada—Toronto, Winnipeg, Montreal; Switzerland—Zürich, Genèva; various cities—Bangkok, Sydney, Warsaw, Dublin, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taipei, Budapest, Amsterdam, Tijuana …& all over the US.

FINAL FACTOIDS ABOUT ME: Jane Austen is my 13th cousin, 6 times removed (whatever that means;-); Princes William & Henry are my 8th cousins (sadly, I never get invited over =-); Pres. Bush is my 10th cousin, once removed (NOTE: sorry, but if you like or voted for him or his father, we’re NOT a match); I get most of my news from the NY Times & “the Daily Show;” I put myself through Columbia University in NYC; my middle name is Renée, after René Descartes. (My dad’s a philosophy professor, so my brother & I were named after famous philosophers. I lucked out though…my brother’s middle name is Erasmus.)

And here is our exchange. As usual, I’ve quoted exactly, including all spelling errors and typos. To be fair, I should mention that the only reason my responses aren’t riddled with similar errors is that I’m a bit of an anal control freak when it comes to writing. I obsessively check anything I send out to ensure that as many errors as possible are removed before I hit “send.”

On 11/18/2005 06:14 pm PST, “AnotherConservativeGuy” wrote:
Bummer! I thought WHAT A HOT BABE but then I read your profile…. I am not the true love you seak but you do seem like a nice woman and you are pretty. Just wanted you to know…
—AnotherConservativeGuy

At this point, I had no way of knowing that he was another conservative guy rejecting me for my politics, but I thought it was worth finding out why someone who found me attractive would be put off by my profile. So, I responded with this:

On 11/19/2005 10:03 am PST, I wrote:
Dear: “AnotherConservativeGuy”:

Thank you for the compliment; I’m sorry we’re not a match. Out of curiosity, what specifically in my profile “bummed you out?” I’m always interested in how others perceive my profile. If you wouldn’t mind, I’d love to know. Thanks!

Best, Noetical.

On 11/19/2005 05:07 pm PST, “AnotherConservativeGuy” wrote:
Ok so your photos are good except for the 1/2 naked one. Get rid of it. It seems a little desperate and sleezy. Your face is really nice and your profile is great. I am conservative and I know most liberals are angry and super opinoinated. I wouldn’t fit. My last girl friend was super liberal but it was well thought out and we got along great. You are not open to other ideas so i am sure you will find some flamming liberal who dosn’t belive in god. Its just not me. Every thing else seems good.. I realllllly like your eyes…… I could look into them all night …… Your ideas make me want to puke,….
—AnotherConservativeGuy

Well, as you might imagine, upon receiving this response, I was simply giddy with anticipation, as I contemplated how savagely I was going to expose his idiocy here when I got
this reply from him. This exchange was turning out to be even better than the first ConservativeGuy! Not only was he being intolerant and judgmental but, in addition, this one was being overtly rude. At this point, I should also show you the pictures to which he refers, so that you can see what he’s talking about.

My main picture is here on the left: 

And the one here to the right of the other is the “1/2 naked one”:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Admittedly, the picture of me on the right is a bit silly and cheesy. I like to think of it as my “Varga Girl” shot. I haven’t taken his advice and deleted it from my profile. To be honest, I don’t know if my unwillingness to do so is because I disagree with his characterization of the picture, or because I was born the kind of stubborn person who is inspired to contrary action when someone tells me what to do. Either way, it’s up to stay for the time being.

Anyway, before I could post the exchange here, I had to respond to him in my most measured and reasonable tone…which is my way of being a condescending bitch while feigning civility. I did try to vary it a bit from what I said to the other ConservativeGuy, but there were some pretty good lines from that. Please excuse any repetition…I mean, why re-invent the wheel? So here is what I sent him:

On 11/21/2005 01:08 pm PST, I wrote:
Dear: “AnotherConservativeGuy”,

Thank you so much for writing me back, as I found your reasons for thinking we wouldn’t be a good match to be quite interesting…although, I have to say that your statement that my ideas make you “want to puke,” seems quite angry and judgmental.

In reviewing my profile, the only two statements I could find that might be considered biased were, “if you consider creationism or “intelligent design” a science, I’m sorry but we are not a match”; and “Pres. Bush is my 10th cousin, once removed (NOTE: sorry, but if you like or voted for him or his father, we’re NOT a match.)” Admittedly, the Bush quote quite clearly indicates that the man I seek is not a Republican, but it was meant to be funny rather than hostile in the context of admitting my distant and obscure relationship with the Bush family. As for the first statement about science, I assure you that many people who believe in God also believe in evolution; even more agree that the Earth was created in more than six days and that dinosaurs became extinct long before humans began roaming the planet.

Since these two statements and my self-identification as being “very liberal” are the only indications in my profile of my political ideas, I find it curious that you find all of my ideas so repulsive. Nonetheless, I thank you for your astute feedback. Without it, I never would have guessed that in my profile, I come off as a desperate, sleazy, angry, super-opinionated and closed-minded woman with a really nice face and attractive eyes, in search of a flaming liberal who doesn’t believe in God.

I realize you responded to my question out of courtesy, and it is not my intention to pick a fight with you, however, since you have attacked my ideas based on presumptions about what “liberal” means to you, I want to leave you with a couple of specifics for the record. In general, I consider myself a “liberal,” but my politics are not “liberal” down the line, as I take each issue as its own question, which you probably do as well. I find labels to be ambiguous at best and misleading at worst, especially considering the ways in which the meaning of these words continually evolves. I’m “conservative” when it comes to many economic issues, “liberal” on many social issues and “centrist” on various other issues. For instance, I strongly believe in a person’s right to believe that the first woman was made from a man’s rib, but I don’t want my tax dollars to be spent on teaching that to children in our public science classrooms. I think it is more appropriate to teach the Bible in church sermons, Sunday school classes and in the home…which by the way are the places I learned about God growing up.

As for Republicans being “conservative,” I’m not sure what that means anymore because the current administration and predominantly Republican congress doesn’t seem fiscally conservative or responsible to me at all. In fact, one might say that they spend money like drunken sailors.

Well, if you’ve read this far, thank you for taking the time to read my response, and I hope you haven’t puked =-) While I may be deluding myself, I hope that you are wrong that I am not open to ideas that are different from mine. Whenever I engage in public discourse, whether it’s in someone’s living room or here on this little slice of cyberspace, I think of myself as being a part of this giant forge in which we all heat, hammer and shape our thoughts. I believe in this process, even though most of the dents we each make in the communal metal are imperceptible.

I actively consume a variety of opinions each day from talk radio, friends & family, various blogs, newspapers, magazines and cable news shows. We live in an age where there are so many voices contributing to the public dialogue that it can sometimes seem like a meaningless cacophony, but, I consider this superfluity of opinion to be a quality problem that I’m happy to have. Furthermore, I am proud to live in a society that encourages such discourse. I don’t agree with every opinion I read or hear, but each helps me to see an issue from a new perspective and helps me to test or temper my own.

Good luck in your search for a “match”!

Best, Noetical.

Now all I had to do is sit back and wait for the reactionary response that I was sure he’d send. But, much to my surprise, he sent me this in reply instead:

On 11/21/2005 05:05 pm PST, “AnotherConservativeGuy” wrote:
<>That is the problem with e-mail sometimes what I meant isn’t how it is taken. I assure you I am not in the least angry. I just was giving you a little ribbing. Your profile comments may come across as angry to others  also, I assume you just don’t want to have a relationship with some one who has a different world view. I can understand that. Except, I guess in reality I would say it isn’t important what one believes just that they have thought it out and understand why they believe it.

<>I didn’t say you came off as sleazy. It is that damn photo. It gives the wrong message. If I thought you were a sleaze I wouldn’t have paused to write. Actually I find the other photos of you very attractive. You have deep eyes and what you wrote is very good.

<> I don’t know you. I feel some honesty, (my opinion), should be taken as advice from someone who doesn’t know ANYTHING about you and shouldn’t be a reflection on your self image. You asked my perception was, not what the truth was.

<> It was a perception based on a very limited view. To be honest, now that I have been so rude and blunt, you have come back with a clarifying response that shows you are a well thought out woman with great depth of character. I feel terrible for being so rude. I just went back and read my e-mail…..Ouch that is an asshole e mail. Not the way I meant it.

<> You must understand cyber dating sites are not a good place to meet someone. One becomes grouped in with the rest of the people. I like to think this isn’t true, but it has not been my experience. I think a better place to find companionship is doing what one loves to do. I personally have been trying to cancel my account but It seems difficult to do.

<> You know what, I just need to apologize. I jumped to several assumptions based on wrong perceptions. Thanks for writing me back.

<>—AnotherConservativeGuy

Wow…maybe my expectations are low, but I was impressed that he acknowledged fault and apologized. Maybe we can just get along. Well, the apology was nice, but at this point, I faced a dilemma. I really wanted to write about this exchange, but ethically I was conflicted about exposing him to ridicule after he turned out to be a stand up guy. After spending some time over the Thanksgiving holiday thinking about it, I decided to just let him know I was going to write about it and give him the chance to ask me not to. Following is the note I sent to him:

On 12/03/2005 05:46 pm PST, I wrote:
Dear: “AnotherConservativeGuy”:

Sorry it took me so long to write you back, but I got tied up with family responsibilities over the holiday week. I just wanted to say thank you for your last note to me. Most men wouldn’t have taken the time to admit they had been less than chivalrous, as you have. I recently posted on my blog (noetical.blogs.com/noet_all/2005/09/why_i_dont_date.html) a similar exchange with another Republican I met online. I was less than charitable to him in my commentary regarding the exchange, as he lacked the manners that you clearly have shown in your most recent response. While it would have been highly entertaining to make fun of you on my blog, I’m happy to know that liberals and conservatives can be civil to each other. With your blessing, I would like to post this exchange from beginning to end in order to show the contrast with the other…proving to all my flaming liberal friends that not all conservatives are dolts =-) Of course I would take out your name and all of the personal details that identify you. Let me know.

In the meantime, good luck in your search…as you can see from my profile, I don’t live in your city anyway. I originally changed my settings for your city, as I was on the verge of moving there for a new job, but things have changed and I’ve taken a new job here instead. I’m sure you will find a great conservative girl with beautiful eyes someday soon.

Best, Noetical.

On 12/03/2005 06:23 pm PST, “AnotherConservativeGuy” wrote:
As I said at the begining of this exchange somewhere. My last girl friend was a very liberal american policy hateing, packistani. After talking to her I found we were closer in our ideas than we thought We just had different ideas on how to get there. Liberals think about conseritivesthe same as   we think of them. Most Republicans are just a little bit less talkitive about It. I hear liberal say discusting things about George Bush all the time in public. Why is that? I understand there is a lot of hate toward him and his policies…. But why do they have to voice their opinion in public all the time? Maybe people could focus less on politics and more on being good people.

I also have to admit, although it is no excuse, I was pretty drunk when I wrote that ass hole letter to you. I am verry sorry again. I am sure you are a great woman. I am sure it is my loss you are not moving here.

As far as meeting a nice woman with pretty eyes….. Who knows… I won’t hold my breath……
—AnotherConservativeGuy

At the end of the day, I think this was a more interesting exchange than the other, because I gave this guy the opportunity to redeem himself. We’re all human and, he’s right, the inability to hear inflection in an email can make it an imperfect means of communication. While I still wouldn’t date him, I’m glad not to hate him either. In the meantime, I should say I had a great time last night with a new guy I’ve been seeing. He’s a flaming liberal who doesn’t believe in God. Love that!

Why I Don’t Date Republicans…

Hi Everyone!

Once again, it’s time for me to write about the absurdities of my eDating adventures. This time, I’ve changed my charming suitor’s name, in case he finds this post. I would like to avoid his wrath. By the way, this post includes some things written by him, which I’ve quoted exactly…spelling errors and all. I will call him “ConservativeGuy.”

So this is a guy I first met at one of those “speed dating” things, so I actually have met him in the real world. A few days before meeting him, he also sent me a note at match.com, expressing interest in me. He was okay-looking, so after meeting him, I replied to his match.com email and sent him my contact info, but after a couple of short emails back and forth, nothing really happened. Our last exchange was on August 30th. Then on September 17th, we were matched up on eHarmony.com. (If you’re thinking right now that I’m on too many of these stupid eDating sites…you’re right…but that’s another story =-)

Anyway, following is some of the information from his profile at eHarmony:

Match Name:  ConservativeGuy (name changed to protect the obnoxious)

Location:  Encino, California, United States

Occupation:  Investment Management

Height:  5′ 10”

Age: 41

Ethnicity:  White, non-Hispanic

Match Created:  September 17, 2005

Last Communication:  September 18, 2005

The things ConservativeGuy can’t live without are:

• Close relationships – family & friends
• A need to be a productive member of society
• Great sense of humor
• Helping others through volunteer work
• Having goals and ambitions

The most important thing ConservativeGuy is looking for in a person is:
Honest and open with a great sense of humor and a zest for life. She should have her own opinions (even if they differ from my own) and should be knowledgable and willing to discuss current events and the world around her.

---

Well, he doesn’t sound so bad, right? …And I knew he wasn’t ugly, so I was glad that almost immediately he sent me the following email from the eHarmony site:

From:  ConservativeGuy

To:  Noetical

Subject:  Hi Again

Date:  17 September 2005 01:04 PM Pacific

In looking at your profile, I do believe we have communicated on another site.  If you want to chat just let me know….

—ConservativeGuy

---

So, I wrote him back…figured I’d give it one more shot:

From:  Noetical

To:  ConservativeGuy

Subject:  Re: Hi Again

Date:  17 September 2005 08:09 PM Pacific

Hi again ConservativeGuy =-)

Yes, I’d love to chat. Feel free to write me or call me. My number is:  310-xxx-xxxx
My actual email address is: me@xxxxxxxxxx.com

Best, Noetical.

---

Now before I go on, let me explain that eHarmony has everyone pick ten “Must Haves” and ten “Can’t Stands” to share with their matches and I’m going to share mine here with you:

MY MUST HAVES:

Shared Politics…
      I must have someone who has political beliefs which are the same or similar to my own.
Autonomy…
      I must have a partner who will give me space to be my own person.
Intellect…
      I must have a partner who is bright and can share my understanding of the world as well as enjoy discussing important issues.
Sense of Humor…
      I must have someone who is sharp and can enjoy the humorous side of life.
Loyal…
      I must have someone I can count on to always support me.
Communicator…
      I must have someone who is good at talking and listening.
Emotionally Generous…
      I must have a partner who enjoys people and is generous with his or her compassion, attention, sympathies and love.
Curiosity…
      I must have a partner who is hungry for new information and knowledge and who strives to learn as much as possible.
Strong Character…
      I must have a partner who is honest and strong enough to do the right thing.
Chemistry…
      I must feel deeply in love with and attracted to my partner.

MY CAN’T STANDS:

Anger…
      I can’t stand someone who can’t manage their anger, who yells, or bottles it up inside.
Lying…
      I can’t stand someone who lies to anyone-especially to me.
Rude…
      I can’t stand someone who is belittling, impatient or hateful to people in any situation.
Petty…
      I can’t stand someone who focuses on imperfection.
Judgmental…
      I can’t stand someone who finds fault with everyone and everything.
Racist…
      I can’t stand someone who believes that any particular ethnic group to which they belong is superior to the rest of humanity.
Infidelity…
      I can’t stand someone who engages in sex outside a committed relationship.
Pessimism…
      I can’t stand someone who always sees the glass as half empty.
Mean Spirited…
      I can’t stand someone who has a devious nature and is mean to others.
Intolerance…
      While I understand that religious conviction is a positive trait, I can’t stand someone who is self-righteous and feels that their particular faith is the only one that matters.

---

All of the choices are pretty basic, and his didn’t vary from mine that much, but here are the ones he chose:

HIS MUST HAVES:

Intellect...
      I must have a partner who is bright and can share my understanding of the world as well as enjoy discussing important issues.
Sense of Humor…
      I must have someone who is sharp and can enjoy the humorous side of life.
Family…
      I must have someone who shares my desire to have or adopt children.
Responsible…
      My partner must be financially responsible.
Emotionally Generous…
      I must have a partner who enjoys people and is generous with his or her compassion, attention, sympathies and love.
Attractiveness…
      I must have a partner who is considered “very attractive” by most current standards.
Affectionate…
      I must have someone who is comfortable giving and receiving affection.
Sexually Knowledgeable…
      I must have someone who is mature and experienced as a potential sexual partner and is able to express himself/herself freely.
Strong Character…
      I must have a partner who is honest and strong enough to do the right thing.
Chemistry…
      I must feel deeply in love with and attracted to my partner.

HIS CAN’T STANDS:

Lying…
      I can’t stand someone who lies to anyone-especially to me.
Rude…
      I can’t stand someone who is belittling, impatient or hateful to people in any situation.
Racist…
      I can’t stand someone who believes that any particular ethnic group to which they belong is superior to the rest of humanity.
Cheating…
      I can’t stand someone who takes advantage of people.
Undependable…
      I can’t stand someone who fails to come through and is unreliable.
Infidelity…
      I can’t stand someone who engages in sex outside a committed relationship.
Mean Spirited…
      I can’t stand someone who has a devious nature and is mean to others.
Intolerance…
      While I understand that religious conviction is a positive trait, I can’t stand someone who is self-righteous and feels that their particular faith is the only one that matters.
Flirts…
      I can’t stand someone who constantly flirts with the opposite sex.
Victim Mentality…
      While everyone has times of self-pity, I can’t stand someone who continually sees himself/herself as a victim.

---

Okay, so he didn’t write me at my email address and he didn’t call me, but he sent me the following reply to me at eHarmony:

From:  ConservativeGuy

To:  Noetical

Subject:  Re: Hi Again

Date:  18 September 2005 07:55 AM Pacific

Small world!  So I see shared politics is a “must have.” Can you elaborate?

---

So I wrote back to him and elaborated:

From:  Noetical

To:  ConservativeGuy

Subject:  Politics
Date:  18 September 2005 09:54 AM Pacific

Hi ConservativeGuy. Yes, it is a small world…at least the LA dating scene is small =-)

This is a new “must have” for me. It’s not that I’m intolerant of other people’s beliefs…and I don’t need my partner and me to agree on EVERYTHING…but at least we should be coming at the issues with common assumptions. I find that it’s much more interesting to discuss issues with someone who has a similar foundation…otherwise, the conversation never really progresses to the more complex and stagnates at the base of the argument. It’s one thing to disagree on the solution, but if you disagree on the very nature of the problem, or even what that problem is, that can be a very frustrating wall to smash your head against.

I hope that makes sense. I think I’m better at answering this question verbally, so feel free to ask me again sometime on the phone.

If you’re really interested in where I’m coming from politically and how I interact with those with whom I disagree, you can check out the following link:
http://noetical.blogs.friendster.com/noet_all/2005/07/are_we_still_in.html

So you mention that you like to volunteer. What are the local causes that you support? What do you care about, believe in?

Best, Noetical.

---

Still not quite sure of me, he sent the following message in response:

From:  ConservativeGuy

To:  Noetical

Subject:  Re: Politics
Date:  18 September 2005 10:40 AM Pacific

Hi,

Scanned your website and your political statements.  While I am extremely conservative politically and more liberal socially, I certainly don’t have an issue if someone has a different viewpoint than my own.  However, it is important to me that they have an opinion one way or another and also that they can back it up.

—ConservativeGuy

---

Not sure what that meant, I mean, what the fuck?! So you wanna talk or not? And here’s the thing…for some reason, I wasn’t thinking “actually, I think you’re a dick and I don’t want to talk to you…please lose my number.” Instead, I sent the following message in response:

From:  Noetical

To:  ConservativeGuy

Subject:  Re: Politics

Date:  18 September 2005 03:29 PM Pacific

Dear ConservativeGuy:

Well, since you scanned my statements, you know that I *do* have opinions; and I hope you’ve concluded that I can at least argue their merits. So when you say that you’re “extremely conservative politically,” what do you mean by that? In general, I consider myself a “liberal,” but my politics are not “liberal” down the line, as I take each issue as its own question, which you probably do as well.

I’m conservative when it comes to many economic issues, but I’m not sure what that means anymore because the current “conservative” administration doesn’t seem fiscally conservative or responsible to me at all. In fact, I think they spend money like drunken sailors.

I admit that being “extremely conservative politically” has come to mean a few things to me that it might not mean to you, as being “more liberal socially” is incompatible with my understanding of extremely conservative political beliefs. The public conservative agenda has evolved dramatically in recent years in a way that I have found disturbing. Most of my issues with the current state of conservative politics are tied to the extent to which the Christian Right has become more powerful and influential in issues of public policy. For instance, I don’t have an issue with someone who believes that dinosaurs and people co-existed and that the first woman was made from a man’s rib, but I don’t want my tax dollars to be spent on teaching that to children in our public science classrooms.

I’ve never considered myself a libertarian, although I know many of my views are consistent with classically liberal principles. I took this online survey called “World’s Smallest Political Quiz.” According to that, my answers say that the best way to describe my political views is libertarian. I scored 90% on personal issues and 70% on economic issues. (It’s a funny little quiz; you should check it out at http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html)

I guess what I’m trying to say is that for me it’s more about sharing fundamental values rather than ideology. Hope that all makes sense and isn’t too much information. =-)

Best, Noetical.

---

Okay, now first of all, someone show me where in ANY of these emails I’ve identified as a “Democrat.” Then explain to me which part of my responses were hostile and aggressive. If you can do that, then maybe I will understand why this guy felt justified to send me this response:

From:  ConservativeGuy

To:  Noetical

Subject:  Hi Again

Date:  18 September 2005 05:09 PM Pacific

Hi,

I have been a Republican as long as I can remember because I suscribe to their fundamental belielf that putting the power and capital in the hands of people is much preferable to the government running affairs (which without exception are far more costly and less effective). Also, the recent election proved that Democrats are out of touch with the core values of the American public (religion, faith, etc which do matter to most Americans).  The fact of the matter is that the Democratic party has not been viable in the last 30 years with the exception of Clinton who lied to the American people, performed criminal acts (pardoning Rich), yet still had the christma to get away with it.  The Democrats do not stand for anything except for opposing those things that the Reblicans believe in (see comments of recent congressional hearings). And, if the best candidate they can come up with in 2004 is John Kerry (and Edwards who could not even win his home state) then they are in serious trouble. This is not a viable party in its current state and there is not a single candidate currently that could prevail in 2008 today.

—ConservativeGuy

---

While I wrote several responses to him in my head, after a few daze of not writing back to him, I got the following message about him from eHarmony:

Match Closed: One of the hardest things about any new relationship is deciding when or if you should continue forward in a relationship. ConservativeGuy has decided to permanently close communication with you at this point for the following reason or reasons:

• I don’t feel that the chemistry is there.
• I think the difference in our values is too great.

---

Okay, where to start? First of all, no shit the difference in our values is too great. …but what an idiotic way to respond to my considered explanation of my beliefs. He might as well have said, “yeah, well you’re a poopie head.” Whatever.

I hate it when Republicans talk about things that the last election “proved” about “most Americans.” The truth is, “most Americans” did not vote for Bush, even if you don’t take into account the fact that there were many “irregularities” reported (as detailed here in Wikipedia.) The number of votes that were officially counted for Bush was somewhere around 62,040,606. According to the census reports from July 2004, there were about 220,377,406 Americans over the age of 18 at the time. That means that only 28% of adult Americans voted for him. In what world is that MOST? At best, the election proved that MOST adult Americans don’t vote…which is another thing that bothers me, but don’t get me started.

As for the Bush administration “putting the power and capital in the hands of people,” that may be true…if you mean the “People’s Republic of China,” who make an obscene amount of money from the interest on their stake in our government. As of this summer, that stake had grown to $242 billion and that’s before the Katrina pots of gold have been factored in (which are going in part to pay for no-bid contracts that have gone to some of the same companies that have been getting rich from the war in Iraq.) According to an article in the Washington Post last week, “Foreign holdings of U.S. government debt exceeded $2.03 trillion in July, meaning that every man, woman and child in the United States owes foreign investors $6,846.”

Well, in re-reading this before posting it, I realize that it sounds much more angry than I intended. The truth is that I found this exchange to be highly amusing because this guy so clearly lacked the ability or will to do what he said he wants others to do, i.e. “back up” his opinion. While it was fun to watch him become aggressive and obnoxious so quickly, this exchange has confirmed my suspicion that I just can’t date someone with substantially divergent political beliefs.

And that my friends, is why I don’t date Republicans. =-)