more ramblings
Ugh, insomnia.
Back when LJ was still the in thing, you know, before twitter and facebook, there was a time when I was known for disjointed political ranting. Here's some throwback LJ-ing.
In response to the following Missed Connection post:
"What the fuck is wrong with you people? liberals and democrats have been in control of this state for the last 20 years and look what it has done to our state? don't you people ever learn? why do we keep voting liberals? when are we going to throw boxer? FUCK!!!!!"
Simply put, the republicans have no plan for governance. "The Pledge to America" has no foreign policy. It has no viable economic plan. It's fluff.
I'm not a member of the Democratic party, thus I have no incentive in "defending" them. They are not blameless for the mess that California is in. But we shouldn't pretend that the blame is equal, or that all the blame falls on the shoulders of politicians. The proposition system is a failed experiment in direct democracy. The fact that we had people's civil rights put to a vote should be proof enough of that.
The fact of the matter is, conservative ideology, as espoused by a majority of Americans today, is neither conservative, nor effective. Consider, for example, the Christian-conservative emphasis on abstinence only sex-ed. Study after study has shown that it is not effective in reducing teen pregnancy or STD rates and other studies have shown that it can actually increase other risky behavior such as oral and anal sex among teenagers. Comprehensive sex ed is backed by the American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, National Association of School Psychologists, The American Academy of Pediatrics, and a whole host of other organizations. But you don't have to take my word for it, read the research yourself: http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf
Why should we continue to fund a program that doesn't work? Just to make you feel better about your "conservative values?" If you want to reduce the teen pregnancy rate, then the answer is clear: teach comprehensive sex ed. The goal is the same on both sides, but it's the conservatives who don't want to see the truth.
The same can be said for any number of issues. We don't want North Korea to have nuclear weapons. When Clinton engaged North Korea with diplomacy, we got them to sign the so called "Agreed Framework," in which they agreed to suspend their nuclear program and submit their facilities to IAEA inspection. Then the Republicans took control of congress, and undermined the agreement by not living up to the obligations we had signed on for. When George W. came into office, he basically threw it out the window and took a hard line stance. That's when they started their nuclear facilities and on Bush's watch, they built a nuclear weapon and conducted two nuclear tests. The hard line policy did not work. The diplomatic approach did.
Liberals were right on Iraq. We believed the UN inspectors who said Iraq had no WMDs. We said that we shouldn't go into a war with no exit strategy. It was the republicans who told the American public that oil money would pay for reconstruction. That we would be greeted as liberators, that "I doubt six months from now" the war will still be going on. All those ideas of so called "conservatism" were wrong then, and they're still wrong today.
On top of that, American "conservatism" isn't really all that conservative. Do you know what the British did when they needed to make spending cuts? They cut the defense budget. The Conservative party in Britain has openly gay members and has backed civil partnerships and LGBT adoption rights. Under the "conservative" watch of George W. Bush, federal spending went sky high. The size of the federal government increased, and the "conservatives" decided the Constitution no longer applied to certain citizens of the United States. What's conservative about that? Nothing. What's conservative about cynically putting the Terry Schiavo case in the national spotlight? Don't conservatives not want the federal government in people's homes? What's conservative about continuing the failed war on drugs? Aren't conservatives about personal freedom? Marijuana has demonstrably been proven to be less dangerous than alcohol or nicotine both to the individual and society. What's conservative about continuing its legalization? It was Eisenhower who warned the country about the Military Industrial Complex, but it was the "conservatives" who hired the private firms in Iraq. The same ones that killed innocent civilians, have been accused of rape, and other human rights abuses. What's "conservative" about backing waterboarding? A practice which has been used by the Khmer Rouge, and a war crime that the US punished people for during the Nuremberg trials. What's "conservative" about ignoring international law?
Back when LJ was still the in thing, you know, before twitter and facebook, there was a time when I was known for disjointed political ranting. Here's some throwback LJ-ing.
In response to the following Missed Connection post:
"What the fuck is wrong with you people? liberals and democrats have been in control of this state for the last 20 years and look what it has done to our state? don't you people ever learn? why do we keep voting liberals? when are we going to throw boxer? FUCK!!!!!"
Simply put, the republicans have no plan for governance. "The Pledge to America" has no foreign policy. It has no viable economic plan. It's fluff.
I'm not a member of the Democratic party, thus I have no incentive in "defending" them. They are not blameless for the mess that California is in. But we shouldn't pretend that the blame is equal, or that all the blame falls on the shoulders of politicians. The proposition system is a failed experiment in direct democracy. The fact that we had people's civil rights put to a vote should be proof enough of that.
The fact of the matter is, conservative ideology, as espoused by a majority of Americans today, is neither conservative, nor effective. Consider, for example, the Christian-conservative emphasis on abstinence only sex-ed. Study after study has shown that it is not effective in reducing teen pregnancy or STD rates and other studies have shown that it can actually increase other risky behavior such as oral and anal sex among teenagers. Comprehensive sex ed is backed by the American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, National Association of School Psychologists, The American Academy of Pediatrics, and a whole host of other organizations. But you don't have to take my word for it, read the research yourself: http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf
Why should we continue to fund a program that doesn't work? Just to make you feel better about your "conservative values?" If you want to reduce the teen pregnancy rate, then the answer is clear: teach comprehensive sex ed. The goal is the same on both sides, but it's the conservatives who don't want to see the truth.
The same can be said for any number of issues. We don't want North Korea to have nuclear weapons. When Clinton engaged North Korea with diplomacy, we got them to sign the so called "Agreed Framework," in which they agreed to suspend their nuclear program and submit their facilities to IAEA inspection. Then the Republicans took control of congress, and undermined the agreement by not living up to the obligations we had signed on for. When George W. came into office, he basically threw it out the window and took a hard line stance. That's when they started their nuclear facilities and on Bush's watch, they built a nuclear weapon and conducted two nuclear tests. The hard line policy did not work. The diplomatic approach did.
Liberals were right on Iraq. We believed the UN inspectors who said Iraq had no WMDs. We said that we shouldn't go into a war with no exit strategy. It was the republicans who told the American public that oil money would pay for reconstruction. That we would be greeted as liberators, that "I doubt six months from now" the war will still be going on. All those ideas of so called "conservatism" were wrong then, and they're still wrong today.
On top of that, American "conservatism" isn't really all that conservative. Do you know what the British did when they needed to make spending cuts? They cut the defense budget. The Conservative party in Britain has openly gay members and has backed civil partnerships and LGBT adoption rights. Under the "conservative" watch of George W. Bush, federal spending went sky high. The size of the federal government increased, and the "conservatives" decided the Constitution no longer applied to certain citizens of the United States. What's conservative about that? Nothing. What's conservative about cynically putting the Terry Schiavo case in the national spotlight? Don't conservatives not want the federal government in people's homes? What's conservative about continuing the failed war on drugs? Aren't conservatives about personal freedom? Marijuana has demonstrably been proven to be less dangerous than alcohol or nicotine both to the individual and society. What's conservative about continuing its legalization? It was Eisenhower who warned the country about the Military Industrial Complex, but it was the "conservatives" who hired the private firms in Iraq. The same ones that killed innocent civilians, have been accused of rape, and other human rights abuses. What's "conservative" about backing waterboarding? A practice which has been used by the Khmer Rouge, and a war crime that the US punished people for during the Nuremberg trials. What's "conservative" about ignoring international law?