has a particularly satisfying post regarding the latest idea from the Bushies to spend millions of dollars convincing people that heterosexual marriage solves the worlds ills. I saw this headline in the Times this morning but was too aghast and depressed to say much of anything coherent about it. I like Amelia's post because it points out the hypocrisy of supporting marriage as a way to improve the lives of children (an admirable goal) yet simultaneously undermining programs that might actually improve the lives of children
- it's difficult for a low-income parent to spend quality time with their children if they're on a welfare-to-work program that requires them to work full time, regardless of if they have someone reliable to care for said children. It's difficult for a parent to care for their children without adequate healthcare or overtime pay or a job at all or after school programs or any number of things for which the Bushies continue to slash budgets. It's this sort of hypocrisy which has been rattling around in my brain lately. I was all ready to post about it a few months ago when I saw (surprise surprise) a West Wing episode that slashed a lot of what I was thinking of saying. Ainsley and Sam are going at it, and Sam is accusing the Republican party of hypocrisy (though I forget the specific example he used) and Ainsley shoots back that the Democrats are guilty of the exact same thing - they trot out the Bill of Rights everytime there's a hint of infringement on the First Amendment, yet they want to do away with the Second (or whichever one ensures the right to bear arms). Which isn't precisely true, but the point is accurate. But then I got to thinking, it isn't so much the hypocrisy in idealogy that bothers me. It's understandable that people will be inconsistent in their beliefs - one might be in favor of small government for some things, and larger government for others; privacy rights under certain circumstances and security under others, etc. But it's the hypocrisy between word and action that I find so vile and unbearable. How can one truly claim to support "the American family" and "family values" yet stand in the way of orphaned children gaining two loving parents? If a child is loved and cared for, should we really care what sort of arrangement is providing that care? How on earth did Bush ever manage to run on the "morality ticket"? How can he enforce stricter penalties for the very drugs that he got away with doing in college? How can a political party that contains several dead-beat dads blather on and on about improving the lives of children? How can a president claim to be supporting our troops, then send them into war without vital supplies (like bullet-proof vests), cut funding for military family housing, and then ask troops to stay beyond their contractual tour of duty? If you're going to be an asshole, at least admit that you're an asshole.