I severely dislike Bush. I think he's a disaster economically, a disaster militarily, and a disaster diplomatically. I also hate how he enjoys sparking "culture wars" to fire up his base. "A uniter, not a divider?" He's successfully led over the most divided nation in a long time. I ask myself the question that Reagan asked voters in the 1980 election. "Are you better off over the past four years?" I can answer that with a resounding "no."
All these other "cultural issues" are ridiculous. Abortions? We need to foster a culture that would choose not to have an abortion, regardless of its legality. As it stands, I went to a Catholic high school and I knew of eight women who had abortions. EIGHT. However, the local public school gets snickered at for their rates of teen pregnancies. So, really, who blames these girls for getting abortions? The biggest chuckle I get is the fact that Jesus was conceived by a unwed teen mother (women 2000 years ago got married around the age of 13), so, obviously, there is room for understanding. As a culture, though, we choose to be judgmental....
...which brings me to the issue of "gay marriage." Talk about an issue that affects so little people, and, yet, so many people stick their nose in it! In Belgium, where gay marriage is legal, only 2% of all marriages performed are same-sex. Yes, a big whopping 2%. So if that 2% is happy, why must everyone rain on their parade? I know that in Roman Catholicism, they refuse to recognize all marriages except ones performed by Catholic priests; so, by their standards, I guess that all Protestants and other non-Christians are living in sin. In other words, legal marriage is one thing, but religions have always had full and unfettered discretion to recognize which marriages they want to, irrespective of the law. This will be nothing more than an embarrassing footnote in American history, right next to old laws banning interracial marriages or religious outcries against women's suffrage. As always, religion is contented in being backwards; if they are really interested in "defending marriage" (rather than just using it as a thinly-veiled excuse to be overtly homophobic), then why don't we pass a constitutional amendment to ban divorce?
Religion in public? In southeast Michigan, we have a substantial Arab population (the largest outside the Middle East). In some areas, there are far more Muslims than other religions, and there are even some neighborhoods that go so far as to have all their signs in Arabic. What if the public schools in these regions chose to force everyone to pray to Allah? Or what about primarily Catholic regions? What if they forced everyone to pray the rosary, with its ten "Hail Mary" prayers per decade? Again, though, this is not about "religious freedom"; this is about pandering to evangelical fundamentalist Christians, who believe it is their duty to convert "non-believers" at every opportunity, including preying on public school children, whose parents may believe differently. While everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs, evangelical fundamentalist Christians included, a clear line must be drawn. School is eight hours out of the day, and there is plenty of time left after school to allow for religious expression outside the school. It is that simple.
Taxes? We are waging an expensive war on terrorism, and we are told to make sacrifices...except, of course, the wealthy. Federal taxes primarily affect upper-income earners. How many of you were getting most or all of your federal taxes back in refunds before Bush's tax cuts? Because what people forget is that if the federal government cuts taxes, it must cut services. Thus, they pass the buck to the states, where we, instead, pay more in state taxes. If the states decide it is politically popular to cut taxes, then it is passed onto the local communities. Take a good long look at your local community, folks. For the most part, they are cash strapped and our schools are suffering. We're constantly being bombarded with "property tax" millages, which disproportionately affect the working class. As property values rise, people who have lived 30 years in a home are sometimes forced to sell, because their "potential value" is so high that the taxes become too burdensome. In short, federal tax cuts, by their sheer design, benefit the wealthy. If we're told to sacrifice for the sake of the war on terrorism, then so should the wealthy by paying more taxes to help fund our war effort. For the most part, Kerry has been correct: Bush's tax cuts have been nothing more than a giveaway to the rich, who only get richer.
Guns? Al Qaeda cited America as an excellent place to find dangerous assault weapons, due to our lax weapons laws. Now that the assault weapons ban has expired, an Al Qaeda operative can buy an AK-47 at a gun show without a background check. Common sense gun laws should prevail. Who needs an AK-47, unless you want to kill lots and lots of people? Or body armor piercing exploding bullets? Hunting rifles and handguns have always been available and law abiding citizens have always had access to these legal weapons, regardless of a Democratic or Republican presidency. The NRA just engages in needless fearmongering, and, BTW, if people think that they can amass a "people's army" to overthrow the government, they'll get a rude awakening just like how the U.S. obliterated the Iraqi Republican Guard in Gulf War II here.
Stem cell research? Bush must stop hugging the fence and choose sides. His "middle of the road" stance on keeping research with existing stem cell lines is a failure, and all scientists agree on that. Much of this debate is window dressing, though. Bush's stance only affects federal funding for stem cell research, and many companies and universities have continued with unabated embryonic stem cell research with whole new lines of stem cells. A big question out there, though, is what to do with all these extra in-vitro embryos? We've got thousands of them sitting in cryogenic freezers, and, for the most part, there's zero chance of them ever being brought to term. So should they be fully incinerated or used for stem cell research? It's a question I'll leave up to you, as, in either instance, they will be killed.
Iraq? Iraq is a mess. Despite the absolute best advice and warnings, Bush has ignored what the experts have said and gone on his own "faith-based" approach to war. He uses the memory of 9/11 to finish off a war that was planned well-before 9/11 (PNAC -
http://www.newamericancentury.org/ ; a neo-conservative organization that much of the Bush Administration belongs to, including Dick Cheney) and openly lies to convince people that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. Under pressure, Bush demanded that UN weapons inspectors reenter Iraq, and then spent the rest of the time undermining the inspectors. It's clear that Bush wasn't interested in diplomacy and our strongest European allies knew this. With all the rotten and unstable autocracies out there, why was Saddam more pressing? It's been a diversion on the war on terror, and I believe that John Kerry would regain the focus necessary to defeat terrorism.
The UN? The UN does have its issues, and Bush was correct in trying to push them further. However, this is a matter of diplomacy. Neither Bush nor Kerry want to give the UN "complete control"; and, unless we want to stretch our own security too thin, we are going to have to start gathering goodwill to create stronger alliances to fight this war on terrorism more effectively. We need a president that can work with and foster confidence within the UN, because, otherwise, we tempt bringing back the draft--or, more realistically, a half-assed exit from Iraq, but spun to look "positive." If Bush is elected, I do expect this to happen following Iraqi elections in early 2005.
Melon
