Camping and heartbreak and cooking and Tories

[ciroccoj]

Boys went camping this weekend. All the boys - Daniel with the Cubs pack, for two nights, Justin with the Beavers for one night, and Chris with Justin, as Beavers were required to have a parent with them. And apparently, despite the unseasonable cold, they all had a great time and came home smoky and grimy. And found a very clean house, and a very relaxed Mama :)

***
Unfortunately they also came home to post-frost plants, and I swear the worst part of being a parent is how deeply your children's pain slices you up. Chris and Justin have been nursing a bunch of plants for weeks - planting, watering, lighting, re-planting, etc etc etc, and Justin has done an amazing job, taking his gardening duties very seriously. I'll just very quickly skip over his heartbreak upon realizing that most of his plants had died, because if I write about it, I'll want to cry.

Anyway. He's (mostly) OK now, and he and Chris will be planting again next weekend. I hope.

***
I got caught up on some e-mail, cleaned the house, and planned some veggie food for us, courtesy of the Green Door cookbook. Awesome stuff, although the kids didn't like any of it except the vaguely gingered carrots. And I'm quite curious to see what some of these things taste like with umeboshi vinegar, which is in about half the recipes but appears to be in short supply in Ottawa. The Bulk Barn told me to try Asian grocery stores, the stores on Somerset St. told me to try health food stores, and the Korean grocery store said they were going to order some in because apparently nobody carries it. I'm trying different substitutions for it, but as I have almost no sense of taste, it's totally hit and miss.

***
I also got caught up in terms of politics, which is hardly ever a good thing, unless you enjoy watching your country go to pot. Or rather, not go to pot; pot would make us more mellow. Instead we've got Graham attacks 'mean-spirited' Tory agenda in speech to Ontario Liberals. And yeah, it really is. Mean-spirited, that is. And stupid, too. Yeah, let's please do what feels good no matter how short-sighted and destructive. Eg, by all means, gut Kyoto & screw those damn Natives! And bring in mandatory sentencing and get rid of house arrest and conditional sentencing and a whole bunch of "soft" solutions to crime. That'll show 'em!! And let's please completely disregard, among other things, decades of correctional research from around the world that show that "get tough on crime" measures do nothing to decrease recidivism or combat crime, but sure cost a hell of a lot of tax money.

And the astonishing thing is, people swallow this garbage. The Tories say "American experience has shown that these methods work!" and nobody bothers to look it up and see that almost every study ever done says American crime rates are going down because the population is getting older. It's the same reason crime rates around the world have gone down, whether they have ridiculously high rates of incarceration/runaway spending on corrections or not.

OK, so not going there.

***
Which brings up something. I may be totally asking the wrong people for help here, since I don't think most of my f-list would self-identify as conservative. But some of you do. And some of you identify with conservative ideology in some areas, whether you call yourselves generally conservative or not.

Can any of you help me out here? Can you please explain what you believe "conservative" means? Because from watching our Federal Tories right now, "conservative" seems synonymous with "selfish, shortsighted, & greedy," and I'm pretty sure that's not what it's supposed to be all about.

...

OK, I've tried to re-word the above about eight times now, trying to make it get across my genuine desire to understand and my lack of desire to insult those of you who identify as conservative. I'm frustrated and angry with the people currently running my country, not conservatives in general. But I don't think that's coming across terribly well, and I don't know how to make it clearer, so if you're feeling offended, please accept my apologies; it's not my intention to insult you.

Perhaps I should just go to bed.

Comments

[lherelenfeline.livejournal.com]

If your Tories are following in the US Conservatives' foosteps, the only part of conservative they'll be is 'con' , as in conning the voters. The Republican party, as it stands now is an embrarrsament to itself, with runaway spending , pork barrel politics , corruption up the wazoo, historically high deficits and unstable markets, with the independent entrepeneur getting screwed because the bigger corporations have the White House in their collective pocket.

Thats everything the conservative ideology stands against. Locke is rolling in his grave.

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

If your Tories are following in the US Conservatives' foosteps, the only part of conservative they'll be is 'con', as in conning the voters.'
And how.

Thats everything the conservative ideology stands against. Locke is rolling in his grave.
See, that's the problem, though. That whether they are being a mockery of what they are supposed to be or not, citizens are still voting for them, claiming that they are conservatives voting for a conservative agenda. So... what's the agenda?

[lherelenfeline.livejournal.com]

The agenda is 'othering'.

the easiest way to make yourself feel abetter about your own fucked up situation is to put somepne else down and blame your problems on them. This way the problems dont have to be addressed and the public is smokescreened behind uniting aginst a common enemy, which is the 'other'.

[mynuet.livejournal.com]

Well, for every time liberals describe conservatives as "selfish, shortsighted, and greedy", a conservative describes a liberal as "unrealistic, hysterical, and selfish". It's easy to get frustrated when someone has an opinion that differs from yours (global you, not you you or people who share your opinions you) on so fundamental a level, because you feel like anyone who was intelligent and thought things over would arrive at the same conclusions that you did, so if they don't, then what's wrong with them?

It really does come down to a different way of looking at things, though. A lot of people support things like national health care because they see it as the responsibility of the state to provide for the basic necessities for its citizens, and good health is a necessity. I (and I mention me specifically because I don't presume to speak for all conservatives everywhere, since others have other motivations, and anyway it bothers me when someone arguing is all "and lots of people agree with me!) oppose national health care because I don't think it's the government's role to play big daddy, and also because I don't want the idiot bureaucracies that form governments to be the only option in terms of geting treatment for medical conditions. A lot of people believe that the US should have signed the Kyoto Accords, because it means making a serious commitment to cleaning up our own mess and preventing untold damage to our environment and by extension, ourselves and our children. I oppose the US signing the Kyoto Accords because it is removing our sovereignty and placing us under the obligation to report to countries that, more often than not, don't like us. It also exempts two of the most actively growing economies on earth, who are our competition in terms of the global marketplace, and it seems to me a bit like saying, "Hey, Coca Cola and Pepsi, both of you are so big and you're doing harm to the environment by being empty calories and rotting teeth. Therefore, you're going to be placed under strict limits as to how much you can manufacture and distribute, and if we don't think you're doing what you should then we can punish you. No, we're not including the Schweppes company in this, because they're not as big as you are." So, Coke and Pepsi see their sales plummet, but Schweppes steps up production and takes over all of the market share that Coke and Pepsi are no longer allowed to have.

In any case, the ideals of the conservative movement are rooted in smaller federal government with limitations to its power, free markets, and fiscal responsibility, not to mention individual independence and responsibility. A social safety net is desirable, but not if it can't be paid for and sustained. The federal government should not be as large as it is, nor as pervasive; the Constitution says that the States have all the rights not specifically given to the federal government, but in practice the feds control everything they want to. Ideally, taxes would be levied to pay for the operating costs of the federal government, period - none of this $600 screwdrivers for the Pentagon and $50,000 for an ugly sculpture that no one outside of the particular office building ever sees.

Of course, "ideal" and "reality" don't go hand in hand. Given human nature is to be greedy bastards, I'd prefer the federal government keeps control of things like anti-trust measures and ensuring a minimum standard for education, and other stuff like that. Balance is necessary, and a certain amount of voting the complacent buggers out of office on a regular basis, which is likely to happen to the Republicans down here, who somehow think that we've all forgotten that we voted for them in the first place so that they'd stop stuff like building bridges to nowhere and increasing the amount of money the government pours into wasteful, mismanaged programs. *glares at welfare system*

Anyway, I'm not sure how much sense this all made, but it's a start for conversation, at any rate.

You thought I'd forgotten, didn't you?

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

So, yeah, first off thanks, very very much, for not getting offended by the question. I really tried, but it was tough to ask without being insulting.

Well, for every time liberals describe conservatives as "selfish, shortsighted, and greedy", a conservative describes a liberal as "unrealistic, hysterical, and selfish".

Touche ;)

Although I'm not sure where the 'selfish' comes in. I'm not saying it's not there, I'm just unclear on what type of selfishness you're referring to that can be attributed specifically to liberals.

It's easy to get frustrated when someone has an opinion that differs from yours ... on so fundamental a level, because you feel like anyone who was intelligent and thought things over would arrive at the same conclusions that you did, so if they don't, then what's wrong with them?

The hysterical bit I can see - though, like you said, it's tough when you talk to people who are intelligent but see the same information you do and make different conclusions. For me, when it comes to the environment, I can't help but think that the folks who chide me & mine for being "hysterical" are Neros fiddling while Rome burns. Ice caps are melting, Pacific islands are disappearing, species are going extinct, hurricane seasons are getting longer and stronger and temperatures around the planet are skyrocketing, with attendant spikes in famine and drought... and we're called "hysterical". It really makes me wonder what, exactly, needs to happen before we're called "realistic."

It really seems like nothing will be good enough. In the 90s, people said "Look, if you could show a spike in temperature, then maybe we'd take this seriously, but this is all theory..."

So the spike in temperatures happened. "Well, sure, but that's an anomaly... I mean, OK, if this went on for ten years, then maybe..."

And it has. "So it gets a little hot - I mean, if there were huge droughts or something..."

So there are. "Droughts are one thing, but this whole 'the ice caps are going to melt' business - talk to us when they're actually melting."

They have. "Ice caps – who cares, nobody lives up there. It's not like this is causing major hurricanes or anything..."

I've concluded that there is nothing that will ever be deemed adequate cause for concern. Especially since those who suffer the most are not the people in charge of the decisions. Inuit and Eskimo are suffering, as are Pacific Islanders whose lands are being drowned, as are the poor in places where hurricanes are sweeping through more and more frequently and violently. But they don't vote or buy the biggest gas guzzling cars, so they don't count.

Pt 2 - reply got too big for one comment

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

I ... oppose national health care because I don't think it's the government's role to play big daddy, and also because I don't want the idiot bureaucracies that form governments to be the only option in terms of geting treatment for medical conditions.

Yeah, you've mentioned this before. I hate to admit it but I think you may be right when it comes to socialized medicine in the States. It works here – more or less – and Canadian doctors are often appalled at just how much red tape and restrictions are placed on American doctors by HMOs, but I'm not sure our system, with all its flaws, would be portable to the US. Which, to my mind, kind of really sucks.

A lot of people believe that the US should have signed the Kyoto Accords, because it means making a serious commitment to cleaning up our own mess and preventing untold damage to our environment and by extension, ourselves and our children. I oppose the US signing the Kyoto Accords because it is removing our sovereignty and placing us under the obligation to report to countries that, more often than not, don't like us. It also exempts two of the most actively growing economies on earth, who are our competition in terms of the global marketplace, and it seems to me a bit like saying, "Hey, Coca Cola and Pepsi, both of you are so big and you're doing harm to the environment by being empty calories and rotting teeth. Therefore, you're going to be placed under strict limits as to how much you can manufacture and distribute, and if we don't think you're doing what you should then we can punish you. No, we're not including the Schweppes company in this, because they're not as big as you are." So, Coke and Pepsi see their sales plummet, but Schweppes steps up production and takes over all of the market share that Coke and Pepsi are no longer allowed to have.

I see your point. But where your analogy leaves me a bit off is that this isn't just people who are choosing to consume Pepsi products getting tooth rot. It's all of us, whether we drink Pepsi or not. And in most cases (see above re. who suffers from global warming) it's actually those who are too poor to buy Pepsi who are suffering the most.

And the question that comes to mind first is: what if we weren't talking about tooth decay? What if Coke & Pepsi had carcinogens leaking from their factories and creeping into the water supply? Would it still be OK for them to say, "Hey, Schweppes does it too, why should we have to clean up our act just because our carcinogens affect entire states and theirs affect only one small county"?

To de-analogize it... what would you think if China, which is currently at 0.76 tons per person for carbon emissions, was currently at the same level as the US (5.27 tons per person)? What if they were polluting just as much as the US (not 2/3 as much, as they are right now)? What if they made up 1/4 of world emissions, as the US does currently? Would it be OK for them to refuse to stop polluting by citing their sovereignty?

What if instead of carbon emissions, we found that some weird new MSG that's used in China's food was leaching into the waters of the world? And what if (somehow) it did very little harm in China, but affected our freshwater supply and made our children sick? Would we think it acceptable for them to say "No thanks, we'll just police ourselves - you guys hate us and if we give you any power over us, you'll be unfair. No, we're not going to stop using MSG. No, we're not wiling to change our lifestyle. Why should we?"

Would any of that be acceptable to you?

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

I understand that the US feels like they shouldn't have to be told what to do by anybody, because they're so universally hated. But to me, that's just too bad. Coke and Pepsi aren't too happy to submit to others' controls over how much they pay their employees and how much they pollute. They have to anyway, for the good of the rest of society. And the US (and Canada) should do the same, for the same reason, IMHO.

Not to mention that this is one of the biggest reasons why the US is hated. Sometime in the last five-ten years I've seen a change in attitude towards America from Yeah, they're a bunch of loud braggarts, we admire them but are a bit jealous, to What a bunch of dangerous selfish idiots, doing whatever they please no matter who it hurts. From ally we don't always see eye to eye with, to the Enemy. The anti-American jokes aren't so funny any more. Not in Canada, not in Germany, not in England. It's not just envy and some resentment - it's fear and actual hatred. And it's really quite frightening to witness – for me, anyway. Maybe others are happy that world opinion has unified against the Big Baddie, I don't know.

In any case, the ideals of the conservative movement are rooted in smaller federal government with limitations to its power, free markets, and fiscal responsibility, not to mention individual independence and responsibility. A social safety net is desirable, but not if it can't be paid for and sustained.

Yeah... I guess where I differ here is that I can't see a social safety net being unsustainable. Not in countries where rich folks regularly drop $500 for a pair of shoes, or $1000 on just the right prom dress.

Of course, that presupposes that our tax money goes directly to that social safety net and other necessities, instead of to politicians' golf memberships.

The federal government should not be as large as it is, nor as pervasive; the Constitution says that the States have all the rights not specifically given to the federal government, but in practice the feds control everything they want to. Ideally, taxes would be levied to pay for the operating costs of the federal government, period - none of this $600 screwdrivers for the Pentagon and $50,000 for an ugly sculpture that no one outside of the particular office building ever sees.

See above re. golf memberships ;)

Of course, "ideal" and "reality" don't go hand in hand. Given human nature is to be greedy bastards, I'd prefer the federal government keeps control of things like anti-trust measures and ensuring a minimum standard for education, and other stuff like that.

See, to me, that also goes for such things as environmental protection. You need anti-trust laws, because people are selfish. I think you also need environmental laws for the same reason. Activities that do not directly hurt the persons doing them will almost never be stopped voluntarily.

Balance is necessary, and a certain amount of voting the complacent buggers out of office on a regular basis, which is likely to happen to the Republicans down here, who somehow think that we've all forgotten that we voted for them in the first place so that they'd stop stuff like building bridges to nowhere and increasing the amount of money the government pours into wasteful, mismanaged programs. *glares at welfare system*

Yeah, it just happened to the Liberals up here too. And it's so bloody frustrating when you see citizens voting in governments that are set to do the exact opposite of what the voters actually want them to do, just because the alternative is a bunch of greedy bastards who may have the 'correct' political beliefs, but are so corrupt they're the envy of even the greediest third world dictator.

Anyway, I'm not sure how much sense this all made, but it's a start for conversation, at any rate.

It made a lot of sense. Thanks for taking the time to answer.