Today, I’m posting something a little different than usual. A 12-year-old Xanga user asked me to post on his site why I hate Bush, and so I did. Then I felt the need to post it on my site as well. I welcome any comments/arguments you may have. After all, what is democracy if it does not allow for effective discourse?
When you’re done reading, don’t forget to check out yesterday’s post to see Tina Turner’s Hairdo Boots.
1) The “values voters” are wrong—what could possibly be morally right about killing innocent people? Isn’t that what the values voters are all about? How can someone find it morally repugnant to terminate the pregnancy of an unborn fetus, and yet support an unnecessary war that has killed tens of thousands Iraqis? And for what purpose—to find weapons of mass destruction? That lie has been clearly proven to be untrue. If ever there were WMDs, they were gone by the time the United States decided to “shock and awe” the city of Baghdad.2) If President Bush thinks that this sort of behavior is going to help with the war on terror, then he is sadly mistaken—and totally confused. Bombing a country into oblivion does not help eradicate terrorism. If anything, he has helped to produce a bastion of angry young terrorists. Terrorism is a new kind of ‘evil,’ to borrow his terminology. It is nationless and invisible—it has no conceivable locality. And since it is so different, we cannot use traditional methods to fight it. Bombing countries, for instance, does not help. It is not that kind of war anymore.
3) The whole “ownership society” is the most frightening thing I have ever heard. Sure, it’s easy for President Bush to say that he would like to privatize social security, but he’s so friggin’ wealthy that he doesn’t have to worry about his retirement. He probably could have retired at age 30 if he had wanted. Didn’t we learn anything from the Great Depression? To repeal the programs of the New Deal and the Great Society and institute a market-based social safety network is absurd. In theory, supply-side market economics work, but the problem is this: it isn’t profitable to run welfare systems. Not only that, but it is the government’s responsibility to provide an insurance network for its citizens, so that they can work, live, engage in the society to their fullest ability. In the long run, the costs go down: if you provide for your constituents, they are in turn more able to participate in the economy.
4) There is a reason why we have a separation of church and state. It is to protect the citizens of this country—in this case, gays and lesbians—from the tyranny of the beliefs of any one religious group. Everyone should have the right to practice their own religion—but to create an amendment to the Constitution that limits the rights on any one group is fundamentally (and morally, for those of you values voters) wrong. The Constitution should be about protecting rights, not limiting them, and to amend it to include an irrational fear that certain “[im]moral voters” can’t get over—to make homophobia not only legal, but encouraged—is very much overstepping the boundary between church and state. Not only that, but what does an evangelical Protestant from Minnesota care if two gay men get married in Massachussetts? This most certainly has no effect on the evangelist’s life, nor his or her ability to practice the religion. The evangelist would be better suited to be outraged about the real indecency: the growing inequality in this country, and the fact that our government isn’t doing anything about it.