the two-party problem

I’m studying for my BIO 213 exam tomorrow while watching the Democratic National Convention on PBS. I saw on the news segments of a speech given by former Governor Ann Richards (D-TX). In short, she went on, in her usual attacking manner, about how we can not stand to let Bush appoint a Supreme Court Justice, a justice that would probably vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Now, I’m watching Ron Reagan giving a so-far pro-stem cell research speech at the DNC.
He just mentioned that “fetuses are not created and it is all done in the lab” and that some people would oppose this because they claim that life at all stages, even if this “form that would never become a person, never be implanted into a mother’s womb, should be protected.
As far as stem-cell research, I do not know enough about it. I’ve heard there are methods that do not create embryonic stem cells. I simply need to know more before I say, with any foundation, where I stand on it. The creation of embryonic stem-cells, being the creation of an embryo for the exclusive use of stem-cells, is something that I believe is wrong.
As far as Ann Richards speech soundbite about abortion, it is simply disgusting. Not nearly as disgusted as when I read this article from the NY Times Magazine. It is not a women’s right to choose. It’s simply not a right. It does not exist. A women’s right to choose exists on whether she should or should not have sex. Sexual intercourse is procreative.. This is true according to thelogy. This is true according to nature. This is true according to evolution. In the context of being human, sexual intercourse is regarded as more because it is supposed to be an expression between husband and wife, an expression of love that has the potential to be fully manifested by the creation of new life. Our society does not, as a whole, hold that to be the philosophy of sex; however, that does not change the nature of sex. The point: the women’s right to choose exists in the bedroom. Have sex or don’t. That’s your choice.
Something that Ron Reagan did say that I can not refute: The theology of a few can not dictate [something] to us all. That statement gets in the way of what I would like to see change in our society, but it is a valid point. That’s why it is our duty to find other ways, not just theology, to prove our points. I digress.
So yes, the democrats disappoint me.
Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act has left children behind. My largest complaint with the law is that it gives no incentives to teachers and schools to push further. If you don’t reach the benchmark, well you’re screwed. If you meet the standard, good for you. If you reach for the stars, well um, good for you but we’re not going to pat you on the back or anything for it.
The No Child Left Behind Act pushes districts, schools and teachers to teach what the law prescribes and not anything further or not anything in more detail. In the end, it will give teachers more requirements that they must follow and take away the ability for genuine education.
Since Bush took office, public universities in 49 states have increased tuition. The cost of education is increasing. Yet, Pell Grant limits remain frozen. No Child Left Behind until they try to break out and go to college.
The economy is still floating. Nothing positive I can say there. On the large scale, cutting taxes (reducing income) while spending more and more on homeland security and war (increased spending) just doesn’t seem like a sound policy. If someone can honestly explain to me how spending more than you’re taking in is a good idea, please do. Then tell me what I did wrong last year when I tried that. All I ended up with was high credit card bills that will cost me more in the end.
The Bush campaign- so far- has been terrorism. I haven’t heard anything else besides Bush claiming that he would be the strong leader we need to get us through this so-called war on terrorism.
So yes, the republicans disappoint me.
What am I to do? With the direction I believe this country should take, my hands are tied. Both parties would take this country in different directions. I know many argue that certain issues are trump-issues, that being I would have to vote one way because of this one issue. I’m simply not ready to reduce my concerns and conflicts down to a simple single issue decision.
And, again I ask, what am I to do?






2 responses to “the two-party problem

  1. Shellie Avatar

    You could always vote for Nader…hehe. Oh wait! Didn’t Texas decide not to include him on the presidential ballot?

  2. Kraft Avatar

    Nader didn’t submit the number of signatures required by the deadline for independent candidates. He is suing citing that it is unconstitutional for Texas to have a different requirement for independent candidates compared to third-party candidates.
    Last I heard, the judge hasn’t ruled in the case.

Leave a Reply