Tag Archives: politics

Regarding the issue surrounding the Wendy Davis debacle (AKA abortion and women’s rights)

I am very hesitant to post this as I’m not fond of entering into Internet debates about any topic, particularly political ones.  However, I think it’s time to discuss this issue frankly.  I’m quite certain most of the feedback I receive for this will be negative, but that’s okay.

Since 2010, I have been a part of a growing Internet subculture called the Nerdfighters. Nerdfighter groups are made up of loyal viewers of the vlogbrothers channel on YouTube. (For those who don’t know, Nerdfighters don’t fight nerds; they fight for nerds and for awesome.)  I watch the vlogbrothers and several other YouTube channels run by Nerdfighters because I find most of them funny and insightful.

I will admit that Nerdfighters are, generally speaking, liberal in their political leanings.  There are a few of us who are conservative, but we are vastly outnumbered.  As a result of this slant toward the left, I have been exposed to far more positive commentary on this whole Wendy Davis filibuster thing than I would have been exposed to prior to joining this group.  I am glad to have been privy to the thoughts of those whose view is different than mine.  But, it’s time to address some things.

When it comes to women’s rights and abortion, particularly regarding the Wendy Davis debacle, the attitude that I have seen displayed by those who lean to the left is that there are Those For Women’s Rights (which includes, but is not limited to, being pro-abortion to some extent) and Scumbags Who Want to Oppress Women and that’s it; you fit into one of those groups.

As you can imagine, this makes life quite awkward for those of us Texan women (and non-Texan women) who are anti-abortion.  Personally, it feels as if I’m opposed to my own gender, even though I know there are millions of women who hold similar values across the nation.  When one divides the abortion issue into Women’s Rights and The Opposition, it makes it sound as if The Opposition hates women and just wants to oppress them for all eternity.

Let me first say this: while I’m sure a few hold that idea, by-and-large, this is not true.

When this topic is broken down into Pro-Women and Anti-Women camps, it is skirting the actual issue at hand and insulting a large portion of the population in the process.  There is no reason not to address what is actually going on rather than sweeping it all under the broad title of Women’s Rights and washing our hands of it.  This debate is far more complex than that.

It’s time to call a spade a spade.  The fact is, most anti-abortion advocates don’t want government regulation concerning what women do with their own bodies.  This is not, in fact, an issue of women’s rights but of semantics.  The main area in which we differ with those who want access to abortion is on the definition of where the woman’s body ends and a child’s begins.  We don’t differ on how women should be treated or what rights they should have…just on where their bodies stop and another person’s starts.

I’m for women being treated equally as men.  I’m for women’s rights.  But I am opposed to abortion, and I’m incredibly irritated by those who act as if those of us who are anti-abortion are also anti-women. It’s not true and it’s an uneducated, dangerous, and offensive misconception.

I look forward to reading insightful comments, but please know I personally will not be engaging in debates beyond the scope of this very limited post.  

Advertisements

In which I actually side with Hillary Clinton

First, I would like to be very clear about where I stand on certain issues.

I do not like discussing politics.  This is not because I find political theory boring, but because I become incredibly frustrated with politicians and voters who seem to think their only job in life is to beat the Other Side, whoever that happens to be.  That being said, I am not prepared nor would I be willing even if I were prepared to engage in any sort of political debate.  There are places for such discussions.  This blog is not one of them.

I am, for all intents and purposes, a conservative in most areas.  I do not subscribe to or align myself with any one political group because I find it pointless.  I will vote for who I think will be the best leader in light of my personally held values no matter what ticket they are running on.  As a conservative, I am quite tired of fellow conservatives being unfair, rude and libelous to liberal candidates and political officials.

I am not completely familiar with the Benghazi case, though I do know the basic facts.  Recently, I noticed an increasing number of posts on various social media outlets referencing Hillary Clinton’s now-infamous statement of “What difference does it make…?” regarding the Benghazi assault. I am fairly used to hyper conservatives blowing things way out of proportion (to the point of sounding like paranoid schizophrenics at times…but that’s a discussion for another day), so I decided to research a bit for the context of this statement.

The results of my (approximately) thirty seconds of Internet research didn’t surprise me, but they did irritate me.

Okay, let’s get this straight: Clinton was questioned about why information regarding the nature of the attacks was withheld from and/or misrepresented to the public for a few days.  Her stance was that the entire situation was complicated, they had four people dead and others injured, her department could not interfere with the FBI investigation, and  the information being received about this attack was fluid because it was an ongoing investigation.  I have no idea if any of that is true, but it is my understanding of her stance on the matter at the time of this interview.  At one point in the interrogation (because, let’s face it, whoever that senator was who asked her questions needed to calm himself down) of Clinton, she slipped into present tense when explaining a past-tense situation.  She was explaining the complexities of the situations relating to the case that had to be dealt with immediately following the assault and at that point uttered the aforementioned phrase.

And she has been slammed for it repeatedly ever since with no context given to the statement whatsoever.

What this senator did was essentially like someone demanding to know why Americans weren’t informed of the Boston Marathon bombers’ exact motives in the middle of the manhunt.  People are dead and injured.  There are bombers on the loose. At that point, what difference does it make what their motives were or are or will be? Help the injured, catch the guilty, and deal with motives at the appropriate time.

Clinton’s response was understandable considering the situation.

Now, I have no idea if Clinton or her staff acted in the right during the attack and the aftermath.  But, the statement she made has been ripped out of context and manipulated by hyper conservatives to make it sound as if Clinton didn’t care about the people who died or about the situation overall.  That is not what she was expressing, and anyone who would actually take six minutes to watch the C-SPAN clip I linked to above can see that.

I’m just so sick of people on either side of the aisle blowing political statements out of proportion and taking things out of context.  If someone does something truly scandalous or heartless, fine, shine some light on it if it’s relevant to American politics; but taking statements like this one, which in context is perfectly legitimate, and using them to paint a horrible picture of a political candidate only makes the accusing party look as if they are unable to determine intention based on context.

I may be wrong about something, and if I am, I’ll take the corrections.  But, from what I can tell, the only mistake Clinton made in this exchange was using a present-tense sentence when she was referring to a past incident.  The backlash surrounding a grammatical error is absurd and, quite frankly, is the type of thing that embarrasses me as a conservative voter.


Dear People in the Entertainment News Business

Dear People in the Entertainment News Business,

A few days ago, I switched the radio from its normal spot on NPR/public radio to some Top 40 station. I don’t really remember why.  I probably wanted to hear that new P!nk song (and I’m ashamed that I don’t feel more shame about loving that song).  Anyway, the whys and wherefors and whoseits don’t really matter.  What matters is that, upon turning to this station, I heard a DJ say roughly the following:

Female DJ: We have a debate going on this morning. I think Kim Kardashian’s maternity wear is getting better and better.  [Male DJ] doesn’t agree.  More on that in a few minutes.

Seriously?! This is a conversation you chose to have not just once off the air, but a second time on the air? I just…my brain..melted a little there.

Okay, I’ll stop writing about the banality of entertainment news or whatever.  I actually have a sincere question for those of you in this business:

How do you have opinions on these things?

I am a great purveyor opinions.  I’m fairly certain I have opinions on far more things than the average person.  I have expressed opinions on topics ranging from the pronounceability of the dollar sign in Ke$ha’s name to people’s choices to be buried with their earthly belongings to the incorrect punctuation on a sign for a certain hotel chain.  And that’s just on this blog.  Other opinions  that I have recently expressed to friends and family members range from the way in which people use Instagram to the existence of konapun videos to the names of companies which produce cloth diapers to whether caring about politics is really beneficial on an individual level.

I have opinions on many, many things.  But I still don’t understand how you can form opinions on whether or not a pregnant woman who is literally famous for either a sex tape, her father/step-father being famous or for simply being rich is buying more fashionable maternity clothing this month.  Is this really a thing to care about?

I realize this may come across as the pot calling the kettle black.  But, I really am curious about this.  Every time I listen to or watch any sort of entertainment news program I am hit with how absurdly obsessed with minutia everyone seems to be.  How do you have opinions on these things?  Is it drudgery having to act like you care about the state of a celebrity’s hair?  Or do you really find these topics interesting?

Please respond. Inquiring minds and all.

Sincerely,

Chelsea


Dear American Christians Who Are Upset About This Year’s Election Results

Dear American Christians Who Are Upset About This Year’s Election Results,

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

(Romans 13:1-7, ESV)

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. 19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21 Forto this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

(1 Peter 2:13-25, ESV)

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.

(1 Timothy 2:1-2, ESV)

Sincerely,

Chelsea


Dear Christians Who Are Planning on Eating Chick-fil-A Tomorrow in an Effort to Accomplish Something Spectacular

Dear Christians Who Are Planning on Eating Chick-fil-A Tomorrow in an Effort to Accomplish Something Spectacular,

I will not be joining you.

This is not because I don’t hold to a biblical definition of marriage.  This is not because I think that homosexuality exempt from being classified as sinful.  This is not because of the month I spent wiping down tables at Chick-fil-A when I was eighteen and someone left their purple acrylic nails all over one of the tables and it scarred me for life a little.

No, this is very, very different.

It seems that most people who are participating in this anti-boycott-whatever-it-is are those who feel very strongly that the United States should enforce Christian values and beliefs among its citizens.  While I am in full support of Christian values and beliefs (as I, being a Christian, hold them myself), I do not think that the U.S. should be the prime enforcer of them.

Why?

Because the Bible is pretty explicit with its own teachings, and I don’t think the Lord needs help from the government.

No, really.

The conservative branch of American politics seems to have it in their heads that the government needs to get back to upholding and enforcing biblical principles.  This is kind of ridiculous for two reasons:

1. People who haven’t been transformed by the working of God on their hearts are not going to act in accordance with biblical teachings.  It is absurd to assume that people who are not Christian will accept the standards of the Lord with open arms. And, an attempt to enforce them doesn’t make the nation Christian; it only spreads about shallow moralism that saves no one and misleads many.

2. The last time I checked, the Lord is the one who enforces His standards, He is the one Who defines sin, and I’m pretty sure He doesn’t need us to eat chicken to accomplish this.

This goes beyond American politics.  The fact of the matter is, the American government doesn’t define a godly marriage; God defines a godly marriage.  Politicians don’t get to decide what’s morally right or wrong; the Lord does.  And while I don’t think we should applaud or support things that we know are wrong biblically, looking to the government to create biblical laws is frustrating and pointless.  God can and will enforce His own standards, whether the President of the U.S. or the president of a fast-food chain agrees with Him or not.

Oh, and this support-showing anti-boycott-thing doesn’t accomplish what should be our true goal as Christians, which is preaching the Gospel.

This is a disgusting distraction from what Christians should be doing.  Even if every activist stride you take is rewarded with biblical principles being set into place in our laws and across our country, even if every homosexual person gives up their lifestyle because they suddenly find it to be wrong, even if every person that’s ever lied or stolen or cheated on their spouse or let their anger get out of control or been lazy reforms their ways and becomes a productive, moral member of society, they will still all be productive, moral members of society on their way to eternal damnation if Christ has not transformed their hearts.

This whole thing has gotten out of control, and it’s blurring the already hazy lines between genuine Christian behavior stemming from a heart changed by God and putrid, meaningless moralism enforced by a national government.  What good is it if people know that you hate the idea of homosexual marriage if they never hear the Gospel?

So, though I will undoubtedly crave Chick-fil-A tomorrow (it is Wednesday, after all…I always want Chick-fil-A on Wednesdays), I will not be joining any of you there.  I cannot support the propagation of Cross-less moralism.

Sincerely,

Chelsea


Dear #OccupyDallas

Dear #OccupyDallas

To adapt a worn-out Internet meme: Protesting: you’re doing it wrong.

I absolutely agree that the outsourcing of jobs and various other practices commonly performed by corporate America are unfortunate and have certainly contributed to our hardships as a country. However, I am concerned with your lack of proposed direction.

A protest generally works in this way: A hates the way B does something, so A lets B know that he isn’t going to take it any more. A tells B that he should change in ways which will make A happy.  B may or may not comply.

For instance, people protesting the current war might do something like this:

A protest village in London, June 2010

You’ll notice that their signs plainly state what makes them unhappy and what changes would make them happy.  This is where you have failed miserably.

There are hardships.  The American economy has been poor for years. Companies are sending jobs overseas because they can’t seem to see beyond their shareholders.  This is all very true, and it might even be something to get worked up about.  However, declaring yourself the 99% and marching with no demands helps no one, including your own cause.

The problem here is that no one knows what you want.  We all recognize that you hate that the 1% controls things.  We know that many of you haven’t been able to find jobs or have had to suffer without cable for two years.  We understand that corporate greed seems to run our country.  However, you have come to the table with a thousand complaints and not one solution.

How in the world do you expect to get what you want when even you don’t know what that is?

There is no way to make your current movement happy.  Every movement should have an objective of sorts and the only one yours seems to have come up with is, “The majority of us does not agree with the minority, but the minority has more money!” which is less of an objective and more of a rambling T-shirt slogan.

The fact of the matter is that you will never succeed if you continue on in this manner.  The success of a movement is determined by the reaching of certain goals.  You lack discernible goals and will therefore find it difficult to ever feel that this movement was successful.  As of right now, it just sounds like you’re a group of people whining about first-world problems while you secretly hope for government-mandated wealth redistribution (which, by the way, never works out quite the way people think it will).

Please stop protesting until you can intelligently define your terms.  After that, you may proceed in your demonstrations.  This is, after all, the land of the free, where people can speak, write, act, protest, run their businesses and make money in just about any way they please.

Sincerely,

Chelsea


Dear @BarackObama

Dear @BarackObama,

I’m going to ignore the fact that much of what has caused this deficit has been the government’s poor choices over the last century and just address the most immediate issue: the ridiculous amount of tweets you sent out today.

I understand that you are passionate on the issue of government deficit. I am also passionate about this issue, so I feel we have something in common. However, I can’t help but notice that you are a little one-sided in finding a solution to this looming problem. In your speech on Sunday night, you repeatedly stressed that the problem that we all face isn’t so much the deficit as it is the Republicans’ refusal to admit that the Democrats’ plan is the best one. This attitude has continued on Twitter.

In your tweets, you continuously call for compromise. You use that exact word: compromise. Your first tweet on the issue said:

The time for putting party first is over. If you want to see a bipartisan#compromise, let Congress know. Call. Email. Tweet. —BO [sic]

You then tell your followers to tweet their Republican Congressmen to encourage compromise on this issue. What I find interesting is the fact that this is not compromise. This is actually encouraging one opinion to change to the opposing opinion.

I’m not the only one who feels this way. As it turns out, a certain Mr. Webster sees things the same way. In his dictionary, the word “compromise” is defined as:

a : settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions

b : something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things

See, what you are describing isn’t compromise; it’s bullying. If you truly wanted compromise, you would also be encouraging people to write to their Democratic Congressmen as well.

The fact is, you seem to just want things the Democrats’ way. That is understandable, but everyone must realize at this point that no one really has a good answer to this problem. The solutions that each party have come up with are not perfect and will likely not actually end our debt crisis. It’s fine that you like your party’s plan, but if you are actually interested in compromise, you might consider hashing out a solution that each party can somewhat agree with rather than letting pride for Democratic ideals dictate your every move.

I ask you to please cease and desist the bullying of the Republican party. I don’t necessarily agree with them either, but their representatives have as much of a right to vote for a plan as the Democratic representatives. You need to think first about the people of your country rather than your personal affiliations. The time for putting party first is over. I heard that somewhere.

Thank you for your time. I trust that you will understand the severity of this situation.

Sincerely,

Chelsea