Sunday, October 26, 2003

I came to the realization long ago that i am not a leftist. It happened at one of the anti-IMF/World Bank protests, the big one in Wash. D.C. in 2000 to be exact. It wasnt as nearly as rowdy as Seattle, but it was certainly an experience. I was 18, and feeling the rush of being an "activist" for "social justice"...fighting, marching, cheering.....what a load of shit.

I came to realize quickly that the vast majority of people were out there for all sorts of causes. They were promoting communism, socialism, stalinism (for christ sakes, stalinism), leninism....ism ism ism (to paraphrase john lennon)...there were the always prominent anti-israel, "death to zionazis" activists (i wont call them pro-palestinian, because they're as much pro-palestinian as the KKK is pro-american). Many were there just to protest the GOP, a lot of old burnout hippies that just never stopped going to these things. doe-eyed college students, fresh from their well mannered ivy league campuses, enjoying the day mixing with the riff-raff of society they so long to be a part of. the true proletariate, if you will.

what a load of shit. the proletariate couldnt take the day off of work, and is trying to make it home on time for start dinner.

dont get me wrong, i'm not an avid fan of the right either, i just see it as being less hypocritical. if you're ready to sit down and actually listen to what Bush says, and watch what he does, you know what his plan is regarding, say, the environment. Gore, for example, much more tricky. The majority of mainstream media is also willing to play along quite nicely, as most people will be surprised to know that Gore had quite a stake in Occidental Oil, half a million to be precise. Occidental was also a large contributor to the Clinton campaign in the early ninties (50K, to be precise). Not that i'm agast at such discoveries. These things are only natural. It's just the conservatives are more upfront about it. Or perhaps the media is just more vigilant of their investments. After all, there's a good reason why Democrats will go along with the critcism of Haliburton, but wont go so far as to recommend that all public officials investments and contacts be invested. Senators make a LOT of money, but from all sorts of places.

But that doesnt bother me. Most people who get to high levels of government get there by being smart. Smart people know the value of money, and they know how to make money. Money is just money, a way of getting from point a to point b. the more money you have, the nicer the trip. that's it.

But my money is my money, and i want to make sure that i get to keep as much of it as possible. Fiscally conservative, that's me. greedy? sure, but only because i dont necessarily like the way the government wants to spend my money. Take the possibility that civil unions will become legal throughout the country. i'm totally opposed to civil unions. they're going to be a beaurocratic money-sucking nightmare, and worse, it truly is a deterioration of the institute of marriage. Civil unions, for those who dont know, is the only option for homosexuals to get "married." It exists in New Hampshire, Hawaii, and several European countries. (not surprising, liberal yet staunchly stupid as always)

If homosexuals want to get married, let them get married! marriage is a specific union between two people, who plan to live together for the rest of their lives, intertwined physically, emotionally, financially, politically, and socially. It is the most common building block of families and to expropriation of morals, values, history, politics, social structure, and emotional support for the next generation.

In other words, two people are so connected, they have decided to promulgate this connection, have kids, and pass everything on to them.

Doesnt matter to me if these two people are opposite sex, same sex, or something else, so long as the values espoused are in line with the values of a democratic liberal society. i.e. not raising little fascists.

Civil Unions create a heavily blurred line, distorting marriage entirely. It is like a proto-marriage. You dont actually have to want to be married, you have to want the tax benefits.

Now on the Democratic side, the only ones supportive of gay marriage are Jessie Jackson, Carol Mosely Braun, and that nutty little guy from Ohio, who is like a walking fruitcake. Dean is from New Hampshire. Lieberman is against it.....the rest are either for or against civil unions.

Well, i'm just not ready to side with the far left fringe. These are people who support gay marriage not because they see nothing wrong with it, but because they like to promote "minority rights" if you will. These are folks that feel there are different sets of rights for different people, rather then accept that everyone has the same rights. Also, quite frankly, they're well aware they have nothing to lose.

Civil unions are a nice arrangement for the Dems. They cover their bases pretty well. The average american is opposed to gay marriage (take a look here, so i dont have to repeat facts). But they're also opposed to not allowing gay marriage at all. So civil unions are nice and cushy. No real stance is made. The liberal image is maintaned. The Dems march on.

The Republicans arent much better. Let's face it, the religious right has been a significant constituancy for the GOP for over a quarter century. These are not my favorite people. Nice folks, but not the sorts of people i'd want to live with, since, well, i'm just not interested in talking to/about/for/with jesus.
Also, i'm very very much for seperation of church and state. the Dems tend to waffle on this issue, while with the Republicans are pretty easy to see where they lean.

Bush will probably try and keep as quiet on this issue as he was on abortion during the first election. That of course depends on the outcome of the trial up in Mass. So we'll see.

But there are your fiscally conservatice, socially liberal Republicans. Your Governor Arnolds if you will. Your Pataki's. Those conservatives living in fairly liberal minded states, where they can get elected without relying on the far right, and shut out the far left. In other words, politicians who understand that people just want to live their lives quietly, and not worry about where their money is going so they can get from point a to point b as nicely as possible.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home