Is Politics Your Only Criteria?  Really?

AristotleEntertainingTht 

Someone I follow on Facebook posted a very cool image of Prez Obama responding in sign language to a deaf person’s sign-speak.  One of his followers/friends spoke out in astonishment that Tom and he were definitely on opposite sides of the fence, politically.  This should matter?  …It shouldn’t.  Not at all.  It was a post showing a wonderful very human moment that sets a great example of what should be.

(And, btw, I’m not an Obama fan. To me, he’s just yet another politician’s politician, unwilling to lay it on the line and stand up for what he believes when push comes to shove.  I don’t like wimps.  Not in my country’s leadership.  Neither do I like the fact that, the day he took office, he simply continued Bush’s policies.  Gone were the campaign pledges.  And then there’s the problem that the only people and lives he really cares about are city-folk, especially Black city folk.  That really galls.  As soon as he took office, wolves got the shaft.  So did the environment, in general.  Instead, what did we get?)

Lately on FB, I’ve been attacked and harassed for posting pro-Bernie stuff, pro All-Life stuff (as in that not just all human lives matter, but animal and plant life, too, along with the living biosphere).  Startlingly and viciously attacked to the point I blocked the worst offenders that started stalking me.  And it amazes me.

A lot of you who know me know that I’ve got a foot in two canoes, one heading right, the other heading left.  I’m not a moderate, by any definition, but rather have strong opinions on Constitutional issues like separation of church and state, the right to bear arms (and, yes, I mean civilians owning guns without being put on somebody’s watch list), capital punishment, anti-Affirmative Action (make everything based on merit, please), and the like.  On the other hand, social Darwinism and unfettered capitalism lead to a meaner, more vicious predatory existence for everyone.  I’m pro-choice, an environmental preservationist, anti-discrimination of any kind, and so on.  So you can’t call me a Lib or a Rightie, either one, because I’m both–legitimately both–with strong, solid rationales behind my positions.

Here’s the thing that bothers me about the U.S. and all the divisiveness going on–all of it sponsored by the power-brokers,with the specific and very effective intent to divide and conquer so they can finalize their enslavement of us:

Politics and differences of opinion, whether religious or social, should never terminate friendships.  Debate is good; differences of opinion and perspective are good;  Listen more; find alternatives that satisfy, as much as possible, everyone’s needs, and, even if you can’t, keep the lines of communication open and hands extended in empathy and good will.  Lose the us versus them attitudes. It will ultimately lead to everyone’s downfall, including yours.

JMO (just my opinion)

Joy Enters My World Thanks to Dustin and Zach

2011-12-29 15.28.26I just got word a few minutes ago.  My beloved husband is coming home, and he’ll be home through New Year’s and Friday, too!  Why?  Dustin (leader of the pack) and Zach, Forrest’s driver manager, have arranged it so that he’s taking a load up to Alberta that delivers Monday.  Joy, joy, joy. He’ll be home for dinner tonight, and I’ll get to wrap my arms around him for a whole couple of days!!!  Life has given me something to smile about.  Thank you, Dustin and Zach of the Northwest Regional Fleet of System Transport!

The Problem with Social Media

Here’s a problem: Citing articles that you know nobody will read through, then attributing some quote to someone that isn’t in the article. Anyone can attribute a quote to anyone, grabbing a picture of them somewhere and then laying some outrageous text in quotes on it. And maybe they didn’t say it, at all. Then, again, maybe they did. There is a social responsibility to be honest and to verify sources. I know that sounds like it’s only for “real journalists,” but, today, we are all “journalists,” so we all own a responsibility not to falsify our content and to provide valid citations.

Morning rant due to this: https://www.facebook.com/MintpressNewsMPN/photos/a.427073724002835.96035.277613075615568/782852705091600/?type=1

While I have no doubt that  corporate mentality holds this view, I still want to see proof–legitimate proof–before accepting something as fact.

ADD/EDIT:

David Revad Riley, a premier artist friend of mine found this: And I quote.  (The post is on FB.)

David Riley Such an old story too. here is a better quote…

“The fact is they [activists] are talking first of all only about the smallest part of the water usage,” he says. “I am the first one to say water is a human right. This human right is the five litres of water we need for our daily hydration and the 25 litres we need for minimum hygiene.
“This amount of water is the primary responsibility of every government to make available to every citizen of this world, but this amount of water accounts for 1.5% of the total water which is for all human usage.
“Where I have an issue is that the 98.5% of the water we are using, which is for everything else, is not a human right and because we treat it as one, we are using it in an irresponsible manner, although it is the most precious resource we have. Why? Because we don’t want to give any value to this water. And we know very well that if something doesn’t have a value, it’s human behaviour that we use it in an irresponsible manner.

And the source article in the Guardian newspaper back in 2013.
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/nestle-peter-brabeck-attitude-water-change-stewardship