Watch out, George!
I generally avoid political topics here, but, well, this time I'll make an exception. I'm getting increasingly disgusted with Bush and his continual pandering to the religious right - from over at different strings comes this fine commentary on General Boykin and his "war on terrorism = crusade against satanism (Islam)".
You know, I really don't give a rat's ass about the good generals religious opinions: until he puts on his uniform and mounts a stage as a representative of my military. Suddenly, I care a great deal ... and would suggest that if his lifelong dream is to become a televangelist that he (and we) would be better served by his permanent removal of that uniform.
By continually appearing at these "rallies" (which are really religious events, run by the folks who want to bring you Armageddon) in uniform, and apparently in an offical capacity, Gen. Boykin presents a completely false front to the world, and indeed, reinforces some of our enemies claims that we're naught but the crusaders come again.
It's just embarassing.
I didn't vote in the last presidential election: frankly, in Indiana, there's not much of a reason to do it - the last time this state went for a Democrat Grover Cleveland was running. And I vaguely supported some of Bush's policy objectives. Hel, I even supported (and still do, to some extent) the war on Saddam.
But his tax cuts pissed me off. No, I'm no liberal in the least - I'm a decided fiscal conservative. I don't think Bush's tax cuts favor the well off, and I believe that it would be perfectly fair if everybody, from Bill Gates down, paid a flat tax on a fixed percentage babsis - no floating rates at all. I concur with Mr. Bush that we are all "overtaxed" - but I disagree about his approach to fixing it.
What pissed me off about the tax cuts is my core value of integrity: I believe that when one has bills one pays them off as rapidly and as efficiently as possible. This the tax cuts (and spending increases, from the military to education to healthcare) are making nearly impossible.
We still have a national debt - the tax cuts should have been postponed and the money used to retire the debt. Spending cuts should have been made and the money used to retire the debt. Bush's philosophy seems to be: "Take in less, spend more, and let out grandchildren worry about it!" Irresponsibility hath a name, and it is Bush....
Maybe I'll try my own version of a "Bush tax cut" - just call all my creditors and announce I'm extending my repayment by a couple of decades. Wonder how that'd work?
Pay your bills off, reduce your spending, and your payments will be eliminated. That's the way to get a tax cut.
Then there's his social agenda: the
Sanctity of Marriage Week is the latest in a series of overt pandering to what his political advisors consider a core voting block:
the religious right. Declaring, under the aegis of the Government of the United States, that "marriage is a sacrement only between and man and a woman" does two things: first it violates the rights of what are still (last time I read the Constitution) the fifty soverign states to set their own laws, and secondly, it destablizes social arrangements and exacerbates the very problem they so decry.
Their main complaint about gays (aparet from religious objections) seems to be that gay relationships are unstable. To fix this, they do their level best to insure that gays can not acheive any degree of legal stability in their relationships!
That strikes me as a completely bass-ackwards approach. Marriage is a social contract instituted to insure stability in interpersonal relationships for economic and social (child bearing) reasons. As long as gays are forbidden to legally marry, of course they'll tend to be statistically more promiscuous! Duh!
And while I generally supported (and still do) the war in Iraq, I think the way the administration is treating the troops involved is appalling. My son in law returned from his tour of duty to a paycheck totalling exactly $0. Why? Because under the new Bush administration rules, he had to pay for his own rations! My daughter got ration pay while he was overseas as part of their housing allowance - when Peter came home, that was deducted. I guess they expected Hilary to send him a TV dinner every day while he was deployed! Outrageous!
According to Peter (who was there) the Iraqi situation isn't nearly like it's description on the nightly news: the problem isn't angry Iraqi's, it's military confusion and inept bureaucracy that's really bogging things down. Our warriors delivered to their commander exactly what he requested: Iraq on a platter in a matter of days. Now the bonehead apparently doesn't know what to do with it....
Finally we have General Boykin - who seems to be contradicting stated Administration policy that we're not the "new crusaders". He still has his job as of this writing - what gives?
Bush better watch out: he may get all the votes of the evangelical fanatics, but he's slowly but surely losing ground with the true conservatives that actually put him over the top: people like me. Even in conservative, Republican Indiana, the grumbles have started. What does this guy think he's doing?
Take notice, George: the last time we had a "free spending liberal Democrat" as Prez we had a balanced budget, the troops didn't have their pay dynamically rearranged and I wasn't continually bombarded by Christian propaganda from government officals. Kinda makes me want to reconsider my voting habits ... I'm starting to believe that the headline in The Onion celebrating Bush's election was more accurate than funny: Finally! An End to the Horror of Eight Years of Peace and Prosperity!
|