Ebony & Ivory Politics

I am not fooled by Ron Paul, and neither should you

Watching  the Thunderdome like GOP primary has been a sight to see.  “Two men enter, one man leave.” In this case ten politicians enter, one leaves victorious. We have seen the rise and fall of some characters this year. From Tim “no one thinks I am interesting, and they are right” Pawlenty to Herman “Can’t keep my hands to myself” Cain the GOP race has been a rollercoaster. As we get down to the last few days before the Iowa caucus a new front-runner is emerging and he, in my opinion, is the most interesting.

The new comer to the spotlight is Ron Paul. Known as firebrand libertarian who is known for his consistent views since becoming a congressman, Paul has established himself well for this moment in the sun. If you agree with Paul’s views you will most likely love him as a candidate who is the anti-Romney, flipping back and forth when politically convenient. On the surface Ron Paul seems like an easy choice for Conservatives and a real option for Liberals. However, lets peel back the layers of this political onion and see what’s what.

I read a lot of understandably disappointed liberals who are saying that Paul is their guy in the 2012 race, not just in the primary season. Being disenfranchised with the Democrats and the president has made some liberals feel that shaking hands with the other side is a real possibility. I think that these liberals aren’t quite informed as to whom they are getting in bed with here. While Paul is fantastic when it comes to some foreign and domestic issues, he would ultimately play to the exact opposite views of modern liberals in America. So that begs the question, what does it mean to be a liberal?

Modern liberals, such as myself, believe in government intervention in medical care, women’s rights, and a whole host of other views that I won’t go into here. However, Ron Paul believes in the exact opposite views on these issues. I think that the liberal movement has so many people who are from other side of the spectrum (i.e. – Conservative) that have defected over the last few years. Is this a good thing? Well on the surface it seems like a splendid development. More people who have the same beliefs, as you should make your political fight simpler. However, I don’t think the playing field is so easily laid out as people think. I can’t go a week without watching pundits who were once conservative get angry that liberals and Democrats (they aren’t the same) aren’t using Republican tactics to win the day. Have you ever noticed this? Watch someone like Dylan Ratigan complain that the Democrats aren’t forceful enough, didn’t hold their breath and stop their feet long enough. Who are those tactics common with? I think you already know. Now compare Ratigan and Rachel Maddow’s coverage. Maddow tends to look at how both parties work and calls it down the line. She never gets pissed that Dems aren’t being like Republicans to get their way. The history of both parties is entirely different, for better or for worst.

So that’s brings us back to Ron Paul. Watching some liberals and Democrats talk about going with Paul because he is good on some issues and yet horrendous on others is maddening to say the least. The Paul factor, is one that will burn liberals and Dems alike if we don’t pull out collective heads out of our asses. While Paul says he will end the war in Afghanistan he also wants to drive the women’s rights movement back 100 years. The destruction of the EPA, Dept. of Ed, and other major cabinet level departments are not small potatoes when it comes to his views as president. Some folks are willing to look past these and go with a guy who says he will legalize marijuana and end the Drug War. I love Paul’s views on the war on drugs, but at what cost. Do we trade the end of the drug war for a domestic hellscape that would be Paul’s America if he got his way? Do we say goodbye to a chance to improve this country or turn it into 50 states going into 50 completely directions. I will not pretend that Paul is pure evil nor will I pretend that he doesn’t have some disgusting views in the 21^st century. So, I would pay attention to who the folks are that are pushing Paul up from the left. Are they liberals, or new liberals who just want the same things ultimately but are willing to burn some liberal sacred cows to get there? I am not sure about you but I am not willing to destroy what our movement has accomplished to get a win, and hope we get those cows back later. This is not about the short term. We are in it for the long haul.

Plan B debate

I have read a lot of views on the newly dropped bombshell that is the FDA ruling on Plan B as an over the counter drug. I think maybe I am in the minority here, and I am willing to take the fire that comes with that status.

For the record, I am a man so I don’t have a direct investment into what happens to my body with the Plan B pill. However, I do realize that if I were in a situation where my partner needed to use Plan B pill that I would support it. So what the hell makes me in the minority camp?

When the news dropped that the FDA would not allow females (I use females here to distinguish the difference between women and girls) who are 16 years or younger to gain access to the Plan B pill over the counter I was not shocked in the least. Seemed pretty damn reasonable to me. Apparently, I was wrong. Dead wrong. I immediately felt like my viewpoint was clearly wrong since all, or most, of the ideological brethren were on the opposite side of the issue. Then I begin to really examine my points on why I felt the law was just and understand their arguments. I came to realize that its not such a black and white issue and we both wanted the same goals but the path to them were very different.

Hearing things like “there’s no science showing that Plan B is harmful to underage girls. It’s just birth control & teens need access” seemed solid in logic. However, I don’t agree. My main argument against this reason is look at the history of women’s birth control, i.e. - the pill. As it ushered in an unprecedented force in the woman’s movement and the sexual revolution; it had its problems too. The cheers of the pill’s ability to make decisions about child birth a true women’s issue (i.e. - they controlled their fertility) was nothing short of amazing. Science, making things happen!!! However, there is a dark cloud to that story. Even now, there are tons of testimonials from women who suffer from non functional libidos due to the pills hormones. Non-hormonal IUDs are now very popular for that reason. The pill, originally designed to help regulate a woman’s fertility, was now causing women serious side effects, some of which were irreversible. So lets fast forward and get back to Plan B.

As I said before, I am all for Plan B for women. I think its a great option for those moments (hopefully rare) that traditional birth control or clear heads fail. Also, the sentiment that it can prevent the possibility of a child being conceived from rape is one I 100% agree with. The issue for me is we don’t really know what would happen to young girls who may take this pill numerous times while they are still developing. Just like the birth control pill now, we are still battling back and forth about its LONG TERM EFFECTS. This is what matters to me. If we find that sterility, for example, happens what do we tell a generation of women then? As Condi Rice was famously said, “who could have seen that one coming?” So the cautious approach of 16 or younger girls have to get someone else to get it for them is in my opinion reasonable. The law says nothing about parents permission. Maybe I am crazy.

In the pursuit of progress we are to busy wondering if we could do it that we never stopped to think if we should do it.

I don’t have the world view that kids aren’t going to have sex, that’s silly and short sighted. However, I do live in a world where long term effects take time and maybe, just maybe we should slow down to make sure things are OK for kids. We didn’t do this for psychotropic drugs either and look where we are. The idea that science has never had to go back and update its findings is ludicrous.

Obvious Note of the Day: Adults and children react very differently to drugs over time! Just saying.

What do you think? Am I way off base here?