Politics Cover Up (Essay)

After what I said yesterday about pro/anti-Bush websites, and how the pros aren't as sensationalist as the antis, I have to retract that statement; having a closer read through Blogsforbush.com, I can see that they do make some unfair attacks on Democrats and the 'Left Wing' as they call them. In fact, I now feel equally concerned for them as their opposition!

I find many posts and comments which contain remarks which tend towards suggesting that the Democrats are completely incompetent and that John Kerry is as useless as Bush is claimed to be from the other side (considering how the responsibility falls on pro-Bushes to defend the accusations of Bush being an idiot, this mud-slinging is really quite uncalled for).

Furthermore, I'm more than a bit surprised at the apparent fanaticism of Blogsforbush; they seem to regard Bush as completely inerrant - every one of his policies and propositions are incontestably the best ones, and anyone who disagrees is a left-wing anarchist who prefers Saddam's government to Bush's (I have seen that stated). It rather horrifies me to see them vehemently backing his position on marriage and abortion; it makes me feel as if they're just agreeing because Bush said it, without actually considering the effects on those affected.

This is probably due to the religious dimension of Bush's rule that I mentioned earlier; I've heard Christianity in America referred to as a cult, and when I read some of the opinions and statements of some of them, I can see this disturbingly well - everything in the Bible is inherently true, and they'll follow it before their own conscience or morals. Not to undermine those that believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but Bush is being backed about the same-gender marriage ban simply because it's in the Bible. This isn't a moral or rational decision; it's a close-minded one, made by people who obviously don't appreciate that such a proposal surely makes those affected feel more isolated and despised than they already are. No-one should be blamed for something over which they have no control. (On the subject, I note that Jesus himself never actually did appear to say anything on the subject; followers did, but not him as far as I'm aware. I might be wrong about that though.)

I refer to the religious aspect of the Bush war because I feel both sides of the argument are much too heavily rooted in destroying their opponent and glorifying their own - both sides seem to raise good arguments which should be discussed while acknowledging those of the other. I've said it before and I'll say it again, too many aspects of life involve two massive opposing factions who have their own completely opposite views on certain things and wouldn't touch their opposition with a barge pole (unless they wanted to injure them); the arbitrator who takes both sides into account and adds their own points is usually the more accurate and reliable point on the subject. I'm going to keep searching the internet, because I want to find the person who has done this already; it makes me uncomfortable seeing the pro-Bushes messing up their otherwise respectable stance with Democrat assaults and lack of acknowledgement of Bush's failings (because everyone has them; he's not God).

I'd encourage you to check out the pro/anti-Bush blogs and see if you agree with me. If you support one side or the other, please don't take offence at anything I've said that isn't true; I'm not God either.

I swear, I start 8/10 of these posts just to write a few sentences and leave. I get too roped up in what I say (I'm a touch-typist, so it only takes minutes to write what you see here). I don't plan these essays, they just flow as I go along; don't take me as a reliable source for what I say, as I'm not. Still, opinions are fun.

Time I stopped writing so much, I'm going to come across as arrogant, which I'm not, don't worry. You're better than me, just to clarify that.

UPDATE: Here's a quote posted by 'Scaramonga' on Blogsforbush:

"...But you would have a vote as a stockholder. Homosexuals are trying to impose acceptance of their deviant behavior on the American public by judicial fiat, since they cannot win the battle in the arena of ideas."

The term 'deviant behaviour' is uncalled for, as is 'impose acceptance'. To me this implies that we shouldn't even accept people who are born with different sexual tastes from the majority along with their 'deviant' behaviour. Are they second-class citizens who should exist but be bottled up for decency? Anyone remember Martin Luther King? No? Didn't think so.  ¶ 9:42 am