I think I'm about due for another political rant...

[wavyarms]

This is a really excellent article that my brother forwarded me on why Bush is not incompetent. It also points out that focusing on Bush's perceived incompetence is very dangerous, because it deflects attention away from the fact that it's conservative policies, not Bush in particular, that are doing damage. Quote:

"Bush’s disasters — Katrina, the Iraq War, the budget deficit — are not so much a testament to his incompetence or a failure of execution. Rather, they are the natural, even inevitable result of his conservative governing philosophy. It is conservatism itself, carried out according to plan, that is at fault."

The essay also brought to my mind the fact that the more educated a US citizen is, the less likely they are to be conservative, and brought up some reasons why. Another quote in the article speaks well to this issue:

"Many of the miscalculations are the result of a conservative analytic focus on narrow causes and effects, rather than mere incompetence. Evidence for this focus can be seen in conservative domestic policies: Crime policy is based on punishing the criminals, independent of any effort to remedy the larger social issues that cause crime; immigration policy focuses on border issues and the immigrants, and ignores the effects of international and domestic economic policy on population migration; environmental policy is based on what profits there are to be gained or lost today, without attention paid to what the immeasurable long-term costs will be to the shared resource of our environment; education policy, in the form of vouchers, ignores the devastating effects that dismantling the public school system will have on our whole society."

The more you learn, the more you discover how complex and interconnected the world around you really is. A lot of conservative policies are fixated on coming up with direct, simple, powerful solutions...that really don't work, because the world isn't that simple, and if you want life to be easy, and easily analyzed, then you're kind of shit out of luck.

I realize that saying "people who support Bush and his administration's policies are stupid" is considered a fairly extreme statement, but as time passes, I have less and less respect for anyone who supports the current administration, or their ideology. I really believe you have to be stupid, immoral, too lazy to figure out what's going on, or willfully blind. I have tried to find things that I supported, and I have failed.

Not convinced? Here's another link to throw on the pile - federal guidelines have been released asking women to regard themselves as "pre-pregnant," and act accordingly. That's all women, not pregnant women, and not hoping-to-be-pregnant women. Someone at the DailyKos has a nice rant, and a disturbing link to a woman who can't get proper medical treatment because although she never plans on having another child, the medication she needs might cause an increased risk of birth defects. Apparently the government now supports this sort of thinking.

Comments

[magdalene1.livejournal.com]

HULK'S HEAD GO SPLODEY.

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

Hulk must remember to always consider self big green incubator before all else.

Re: splodey

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

Oh, geez. Couldn't we just include a link? Not a picture? Come on. That's disgusting, and there are people around here with weaker stomachs than I.

Re: splodey

[ex-a517dogg70.livejournal.com]

Splat!

Re: splodey

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

All right, I leave this up to the other gentle readers. If anyone wants those gross pictures to come down, they will be summarily screened.

ahem

[ex-a517dogg70.livejournal.com]

also, note the icon.

Re: ahem

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

Oh, don't worry, I did. Very ironical.

[heatmhub.livejournal.com]

OK. I'll be typical me (putting a target on my forehead in the process, no doubt). Who the bleep is a contender for president in 2008 that sees the connections? I'm iffy on the whole Hillary Clinton thing. Too much spin on that woman and I don't think she'll appeal to most of the country -- i.e. the majority who are not highly educated.

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

Well, I think the point of the article is that we have to stop attacking individual conservatives, and start attacking that philosophy-of-government as a whole. So what's important about Hilary is that she's not following an inherently damaging set of political beliefs. Or for all I know she is, but it's not the ones discussed in this essay. :) The important thing is to demonstrate that the way of thinking is what's damaging us, not any individual person in office (like Bush.)

Also, I feel like I never know anything about who the contenders are until the election year comes...so I'm not worrying about it yet. :)

what babies?

[moerikite.livejournal.com]

Well, since I don't plan on having children, I guess I'll just ignore whatever the heck and have my chocolate, occasional glass of vino, and just enjoy what I can! Did you ever read Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale"? (she's a Canuck writer, yo!) That novel touches on this creepy futuristic state in which women are basically baby machines (incubators?). Scary novel and was required reading in my first year (freshmen for you Americans!) English course.

This country is a little weird. :P

Re: what babies?

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

Yeah. It is a weird country. Don't blame me.

I haven't read "The Handmaid's Tale" yet, but it's definitely been on my to-read list for a while!

[mixedborder.livejournal.com]

Time for escapism!

I escaped from the Dungeon of Wavyarms!

I killed Wildelven the leprechaun, Rishikanta the goblin, Sexybadpnomamma the leprechaun, Qarylla the leprechaun and Flannelcat the kobold.

I looted a Figurine of Phineasjones, the Sceptre of Democrats, the Sword of Eeblet, the Amulet of Bike Trips and 132 gold pieces.

Score: 232

Explore the Dungeon of Wavyarms and try to beat this score,
or enter your username to generate and explore your own dungeon...

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

NOOoooooo! Not the Sceptre of Democrats!

Also, Flannelcat totally is a kobold. You got that right.

[(Anonymous)]

anonymous because I am a conservative (well I hate that moniker, but I don't fit in with the liberals either, so its probably the closest to what I am - and to what I will come off as with this message)... but I still had to respond to the last bit about the federal guidelines...

WHAT IN THE WORLD!!! Now I know the jerk of a doctor I saw a couple of months ago was just following federal guidelines, but... OH MY GOODNESS!!! This doctor told me that he treated all women between the ages of 12 and 50-some as if they could be pregnant tomorrow (this after I told him I was a virgin, did not believe in sex before marriage, was not dating anyone, and if I did start dating anyone it would be a good year before I'd marry anyone - I don't believe in short engagements unless you already knew the guy - the point is - I AM NOT GOING TO BECOME PREGNANT! And I'm 24 - I don't think I'd be lying to you at this point because I was afraid you'd tell my mommy on me!

(so now the government doesn't believe that anyone believes in abstinence either?)

Not to mention the fact that I agree with the other points about how stupid that is (people who aren't planning on having kids, etc) Its not the government's job to tell us not to do and take certain things just because we MIGHT have kids...

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

Sooo...you don't agree with what conservatives do, and you hate the term, but you identify yourself as one? There's a very useful term called "independent" if you don't think that anybody's doing a good job. You certainly don't come off as a conservative if you agree that the last link in my post was frightening. Trying to bring other people's social behavior under control and in line with a very narrow idea of "what's right" is a core conservative value, in my opinion.

[thomascantor.livejournal.com]

Trying to bring other people's social behavior under control and in line with a very narrow idea of "what's right" is a core conservative value, in my opinion.

I think that liberals are typically accused of this trait as well, particularly in the flavors of pcness and government regulation; and in fact I believe ideologues in both directions do engage in such behavior (that is, controlling) towards other people's beliefs and behavior. I tend to see a lot of hypocracy, though, in the case of right wing voices that won't acknowledge the issues mentioned above and in our conversation yesterday.

Also, I listened briefly the other day to an NPR show with a guest who, though self-described as conservative, opposed the Iraq war and a number of Bush's other policies. In fact, his new book is apparently about what he perceives as the imminent decline of "conservatism" in terms of political power, one of the main causes being its current hegemony and the hubris that tends to accrue.

Thanks for the links.