Party of Tea

Food For Thought....

Who... Are... You?

The caterpillar had it right when he asked his question. We never really know who we are because it keeps on changing.

My dad once told me that when we are young and not a democrat, we are heartless; yet when we are old and not republican, we are stupid. Well as far as I can say, I am only young and I do associate myself more with the democratic party so I won't know about the latter portion of his statement until I get there.

As for the present day, I find myself continuously agreeing with the Democratic party on issues concerning the controversial subjects of gay marriage and abortion while still supporting their views concerning the protection of the environment (we desperately need to increase our efforts in this area). Even when it comes to our involvement in Africa, the 2004 Democratic platform stated:

"US engagement in Africa should reflect its vital significance to US interests. The HIV/AIDS pandemic in southern and eastern Africa is a massive human tragedy and a security risk of the highest order that threatens to plunge nations into chaos. Chronic and debilitating hunger also threatens the very survival of communities where investment in agriculture has suffered for over a decade. We are committed to bringing the full weight of American leadership to bear against this crisis"

showing that they care about more than just finances and instead would rather focus on moral issues that trap people into poverty, be it in the US or not. That is the kind of person that I would want to run my country.

The Situation with Democrats

So the thing about democrats that I like would be their acknowledgment that governments are meant to help their people. For example, their statement on gay marriage reads:

"We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there."

showing that instead of creating a federal definition of marriage, they would rather states create their own laws as each region of our country has different opinions.
Similarly, I strongly agree with the Democratic views on abortion. These words were spoken on their 2004 platform:

"Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare." Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.36 Jul 10, 2004

Democrats believe that it is a constitutional liberty for a woman to choose to do what she wants with her own body--a freedom which separates us from developing countries in which women are inferior.

Now despite my agreement with theirs on certain controversial issues, I do understand the frustration that the upper class feels when the democrats tell them to surrender hard-earned money (after all, who loves paying taxes?). Yet then again, how can a government run smoothly and efficiently without enough capitol? It is a sticky situation. However, I would not mind giving a portion of my income if I knew it was to go to universal health care for all of my fellow citizens.

The Lowdown on Republicans

So here is my deal with republicans: some of their policies are well thought out and can be effective, but as a whole, the republican party is plummeting.
Starting with their weaknesses, being conservative means being heartless about certain issues--in California, this means no gay marriage. If you look at the progression of marriage, interracial weddings were banned for many years until sensible reform came. This is the next step towards equality, but republicans are so traditional that they refuse to think of homosexuality as anything but "unnatural" and even "sinful". That leads to my next point: many republicans (not all, mind you) let their religion come into play with politics. In this country, we have a secular government--meaning that there is a separation of church and state. Even at the platform, republicans refuse to acknowledge homosexuals as compatible human beings:

"We affirm traditional military culture, and we affirm that homosexuality is incompatible with military service."

Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 18 Sep 7, 2004

Along with this goes the very complex and controversial subject of abortion (which I personally am in favor of), republicans seem to let their good Christianity be a deciding factor over what a woman does with her body. I stand under the fact that if men could get pregnant, abortion would not only be legal, but probably federally funded as well. I know that these aren't words spoken aloud, but there is something about the tradition of the republican party that makes me feel inferior as a woman who has no right over whether or not I would like to harvest a child in my uterus. These words were spoken on the platform regarding abortion:

"...we endorse legislation that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children."

So basically, it is better for a child to be born in poverty with plenty of suffering rather than simply abort it when it still has not developed a central nervous system and therefore can not feel any pain. (I mean, is the fetus even human at this point? When does a clump of cells become a life that can actually be protected by the constitution?)

John McCain on Arizona's New Law

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Arizona's New "Reform"

Would you call the subject of immigration "reformed" if the idea has already been used before? I would not. It's more of a backwards step. Arizona's new law incorporates methods used by oppressive governments when they needed to round up a certain ethnic group for safety purposes. A prime example is the obligation of Jews during World War 2 to wear arm bands identifying their religion. Now immigrants must carry identification of their citizenship on them at all times while being subject to a law that no whites have to comply with. Of course, we aren't sticking our immigrants in ovens and rooms of poison gas, but the requirement is the same: if you can not prove that you are who you say you are, you will be taken into our custody.
So now the question is, is this really a reform? Or just citizens making an angry statement at the expense of darker skin and the constitutionality of our country.