IQ of 131

1 10 2004

Music: Saucy Sailor by the Wailin’ Jennys …… (shy face) yes I’m listening to it again

I took an IQ test online today and it told me I have an IQ of 131, now I have no idea what that means, but they made it sound good and said I was smart (big huge grin) I visited with Barb (Jesse’s mom) for a while today, Jesse got his hair cut and it looks cute, I made supper and it felt good to cook, watched the debate….. sigh…. I don’t see a great deal of hope that the US will conduct its self in a manner that I approve of anytime soon. Sigh…. Imbecilic is a good word 😉 I didn’t know it existed until I used it in an IM conversation with Sol when I was describing how I felt about the debate just now. It’s a real word and I just thought I was being stupid and making it up. I like it when that happens 🙂

excerpt from the conversation~ Lady in Green: I thought….. well I think the same thing I did before watching it…. Bush is dangerous (and slightly imbecilic) but Kerry isn’t exactly my idea leader either.

Couple questions for my readers:

What is your stance on issues in politics~ abortion, gay marriage, tax cuts, foreign policy, environmental policy? What issues carry the most weight for you? What do you like/dislike about each candidate. If you were talking to someone who was undecided, what would you say? And this one for our overseas contingency, what are people in other countries saying?

It’s been a good day 🙂 Oh, and Abby and Hannah hung out in my room and discussed politics/ the debate for a little while 🙂 that was fun. Night’!




5 responses

1 10 2004

Hi Steph! Issues…that’s always a tricky one. I’m not going to go into all that right now, but I just wanted to point out that an election is ALWAYS the choice of the lesser of two evils. I think it’s going to be pretty difficult to find a leader who is A.) Morale and B.) supportive of all the causes you support

So what do we do? Not participate? Or try to change things? What’s a more effective protest? I don’t know – I suppose it depends on your personal ideas.

1 10 2004
Sol(omon) - Dragon Slayer

Paul Keim and John Roth both believe it’s morally right to not participate. Interesting, eh?

1 10 2004
Sol(omon) - Dragon Slayer

Personally, I believe that I should vote for the candidate whose values most reflect my own. (No matter if she/he will win or not). Here’s a quote from Gandhi: “…no sincere and dedicated effort is ever wasted…we should not do things with the result in mind, but do them because they are right. The fruits of one’s actions will come in time.” It’s from a book I’m reading by his grandson Arun Gandhi.

Compromising on Kerry to stop Bush is like supporting the just war theory. Pacifism asks us to hold true to the good even if we can’t predict the fruits of our actions. (That sounds harsh. If you believe Kerry is the best candidate you should vote for him. =D )

2 10 2004

While I can understand the arguement behind not participating, it really rubs me the wrong way. I mean we as American citizens (unfortuneatly) have a huge influence on the rest of the world, through our countires actions. To not try to use our voices to make a difference, just seems wrong. In my perspective Kerry is worth electing almost soley because of the improved relations that would bring with the rest of the world. I greatly fear the idea of another four years with Bush and how much more damage he would afflict not only in areas such as Iraq, but in our relationships with other countries.

3 10 2004

Abby, I have to agree with you about taking action. Personally, I just want people to vote. I’m not frustrated so much by people who chose not to vote because of ethical issues, but by people who don’t vote because they can’t be bothered to take all the trouble to register. That gets me every time. We have the right to vote, to make decisions about the direction for our country, and that is an amazing thing. There are millions of people in this world who don’t have that freedom.
So I guess the big question is: do you act by your moral standards with no view to the result or do you act by the end result with no view to the means?
I think I’d have to go with a middle path, because I don’t find either course palatable. The end obviously doesn’t justify the means, so that doesn’t work, but at the same time, how can you ignore the end for the means?

Incidentally, in my earlier post, I meant “moral” not “morale.” Sorry.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: