willclarke.net

The party of no has a vision problem. It seems like every issue with them is a rung on the ladder to hell. Gay marriage will lead to reckless hedonism. Increased government spending of any kind leads to socialism. Marijuana decriminalization will turn every street into a shooting gallery. Government regulation of industry will make our government a inflexible nanny state.

Alliteration doesn’t make it true - some slopes aren’t slippery. We have far too many people in prison for nonviolent, victimless drug offenses for non-harmful drugs like marijuana. Releasing them (or not arresting them in the first place) doesn’t turn the country into a drug-addled cesspool. Increasing regulation after years of free market abuses is just part of how we find balance in the necessary relationship between business and government.

Some “slippery slopes” aren’t even slopes at all. Gay marriage adds order and stability to same sex relationships that are completely legal regardless of the definition of marriage. Gay couples already engage in all the practices of married couples - cohabitation, sexual intimacy, raising children, buying property. Giving them the same legal status as opposite sex couples would, if anything, be a conservative force in their lives, not a recklessly liberal one.

If you’re going to make an argument not against a policy itself but against where a policy may lead, you need to make sure the policy actually leads there. In many cases, these potential threats are imaginary and reactionary.

Teen suicide has fallen by 25% over the last decade. Fewer teens are having sex, more of those that do are using contraception, and fewer are getting pregnant. Fewer people are smoking. Alcohol related deaths are declining. Yet you’d hardly know it from the way those issues are handled by conservative politicians. Every report is a startling revelation about a supposed decline in morality and it’s always linked to liberal policy. But the numbers say something else.

Every study on sex education shows that the so called “explicit” sex education in schools leads to better, more responsible behavior by teenagers, while abstinence education leads to more Tripp Palins. Marijuana decriminalization leads to decreased recidivism with no increase in violent crime. Greater government spending on infrastructure has been a boon to many industries, in some cases making commerce possible where it once was not. And increased regulation in those industries allow them to compete fairly without having to exploit workers and the planet in order to get a leg up on the competition.

Public policy is a complex, intricate, delicate thing, and making policy based on guttural reactions to social outcries without regard to established policy research is childish (or in the GOP’s case, senile). Leave it to the adults.

Since the issue of same-sex unions has centered around whether or not gay people should be able to use the word “marriage” to describe their union, with most states overwhelmingly saying no, I propose we let married people see what it feels like to be denied that word.

From now on, refer to married people as “joined” or “civilly united” or other such awkward phrasing. Refer to their husband or wife as their “partner” (”life partner” to make it more obvious). Let them get used to the non-traditional phrasing and see how much they like being treated as second class citizens.

Also, if you want to take it to the extreme, don’t attend weddings, and if you’re going to get hitched, only do whatever is legal for same-sex couples (i.e. Civil Unions, and a wedding in a church or secular organization that allows same-sex marriage). Don’t willingly take part in a discriminatory ceremony.

(I posted this on Facebook a while ago, but wanted to repost it here on my blog. In the months since I’ve come up with the idea, I admit it’s hard to get used to the weird nomenclature. But I still try to adhere to this policy anyway.)

Republican rhetoric about the stimulus plan has been particularly frustrating to me because they are attacking programs that are obviously beneficial. Spending on contraception for low income mothers, for example, where every dollar spent means three dollars saved. Spending on Pell Grants which pay for themselves through increased tax revenue by the resulting better-trained workforce. These are no-brainers!

Arlen Specter wrote a piece for the Washington Post today explaining moderate Republicans’ evolved position. They support many of the programs in the stimulus package, but want to leave most of the programs with more long term stimulative effects to the appropriations process.

I think this is a reasonable view. In my opinion, during a recession all federal spending is stimulative - but if Republicans want to relegate certain programs that aren’t immediately beneficial to other bills, I suppose that is okay. All the programs in the original stimulus bill are going to work their way through the Democratic-controlled congress anyway.

Obama is on the attack today:

In the last few days, we’ve seen proposals arise from some in Congress that you may not have read, but you’d be very familiar with, because you’ve been hearing them for the last 10 years, maybe longer. They’re rooted in the idea that tax cuts alone can solve all our problems, that government doesn’t have a role to play, that half- measures and tinkering are somehow enough, that we can afford to ignore our most fundamental economic challenges: the crushing cost of health care, the inadequate state of so many of our schools, our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.

So let me be clear: Those ideas have been tested, and they have failed. They’ve taken us from surpluses to an annual deficit of over $1 trillion. And they’ve brought our economy to a halt. And that’s precisely what the election we just had was all about. The American people have rendered their judgment, and now’s the time to move forward, not back. Now’s the time for action.

Beautifully stated! Let’s get some shit done now!

Dick Cheney did yet another unapologetic interview today, using the same fear-mongering tactics that lost John McCain the election. Once again displaying his inability to grasp simple concepts he supposedly espouses like freedom and liberty, he sat down with Politico, who reported:

Cheney unyieldingly defended the Bush administration’s support for the Guantanamo Bay prison and coercive interrogation of terrorism suspects.

And he asserted that President Obama will either backtrack on his stated intentions to end those policies or put the country at risk in ways more severe than most Americans — and, he charged, many members of Obama’s own team — understand.

He may be right that we are at more risk than most Americans understand, as most Americans have the intelligence of a raisin. However, I hope Obama’s team is smarter.

The Bush administration achieved a level of security by taking away our freedoms. In a free society you must accept the fact that you are at risk of violence. If you’re not willing to accept that risk, you can’t simultaneously claim to be a force for spreading freedom around the world. You are a coward and should admit it.

We will probably be attacked again in the next four years. When it happens, we need to respond this time like adults instead of terrified children (children who happen to have access to the world’s largest military stockpile). We need to send the message that they can attack us, but they can’t shake our commitment to the freedom laid out in our founding documents.

Don’t act like these thugs are too scary for our prisons and our court system. Our prisons are full of some pretty bad ass criminals who would love to make some Islamic extremist his bitch.

Here’s a hidden gem from the interview:

“These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.”

They believe in freedom, but won’t give it to their people. They believe in Christ, just not his teachings. They believe in capitalism, but abandon free-market principles when times are rough. Are there any principles these people will stick to?