Mike Huckabee in a CNN interview
Let's see here...
Human Life amendment : strike one
Less Gun Control: strike two
Fair Tax: ball one
Illegal Immigration: ball two (but probably a bad call)
Federal Marriage Amendment: Steeeeeeee-rike three!
Apparently Johan Santana was pitching in this metaphorical game of baseball.
Now, for a disclaimer: I keep focusing on Huckabee not because I feel he has a real chance of being elected, rather for what he is saying the neo-conservative base has aligned itself with. It is a Jean-Marie Le Pen type of nationalistic fervor that worries me.
And who is really being ignored? Conservatives? You're telling me people who won't get an abortion, aren't (usually) gay, and probably don't have illegal immigrants threatening them in any way shape or form are being ignored because they can't force their beliefs on others? If that is where the conservative base is headed, let them keep their guns and just shoot me now. Lord knows it wouldn't be a hate crime. Being ignored. Seriously. C'mon. More like undereducated underprivileged youth at risk for pregnancy, gays and lesbians, and Hispanic minorities (legal and not) are being ignored, and actively discriminated against within a government that is supposed to be protecting them.
On another note, his first date with his wife, Janet, was at a bowling alley. How charming. Perhaps they ate refried beans afterwards and watched three's company. Who would marry such a man?:
Look, I know its not right to attack his wife on here, but she is downright creepy. I didn't even photoshop. The kicker? the picture was found on a blog titled 'housewives 4 huck'. I'm so glad he is going to protect your marriages, and defend your rights to make sandwiches for your husbands and cry secretly in the pantry because you wish you never had children.
So. All of this neo-conservative moving and shaking, which will subsequently be changed to standing and not-ever-shutting-the-hell-up, because shaking is immoral, has gotten me wondering lately. It is an interesting question, and it has a disclaimer to follow:
Where would this nation be today if 9-11 had never happened?
I am not trying in any way to insult the memory of those lost that day, or suggest we shouldn't have responded in one way or another. I am just concerned that suddenly the multinational, multi-ethnic group of people that passed away that day have been transformed into pureblooded anglo-protestant families out of Norman Rockwell paintings. Not only do I hate those paintings, but I hate that idea.
When something shocking happens, it is easy to get clouded up in fear, and your judgment can certainly be impaired. But what if it hadn't happened? Would we be restricting civil liberties as much? Would there be a logic of 'national security' behind everything, from marriage to abortion to diplomacy?
It is clearly difficult to put ourselves back into the impossibly happy realm of pre-9/11 politics. But even then the term post-9/11 politics makes me worry about the necessity to explain our actions to our own people, and to the world. Dismissing explanation in favor of a quick, gut wrenching remembrance is lazy and ignorant.
I think it is an impossibly question, but I believe looking to our past, and the direction our society was headed before a horrific alteration of our path can give us a lot of answers of where we are headed now.
I hope that made any sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment