The axed editorial from my other thread....

[WritingIsMyReligion]

Link to thread giving context: My editorial for the election issue of my school newspaper was just axed

Few things in this world blow my mind as frequently and as disturbingly as conservatism does. Besides a general lack of empathy for life, conservatism—specifically the “neoconservatism” of the vast majority of the Republican party--seems to run on illogic, propaganda, and fear (of Muslims, of gays, even of women.)

Bill Clinton is an obvious example of conservative illogic. He is an adulterer, yes, with questionable sexual mores, whatever that means. He had sex with an intern--the sex was between two consenting adults. It seems to me like Bill Clinton needs to have a talk with his wife about those marriage vows, not be pulled up in front of the entire country at the enormous expenditure of taxpayer dollars. (Isn’t conservatism about saving tax money? What’re all these pork-barrel expenditures, then?) In contrast, George W. Bush has plunged our country into an enormous deficit (see pork-barrel expenditures) and gotten us into a war with Iraq, even though we were attacked on September 11th by Osama bin Laden, who has had nothing to do whatsoever with Saddam Hussein.

About that whole war thing: Does it not disturb people that the White House cannot be bothered to give us a straight answer on anything out of that mess in the Middle East? First we were in Iraq because they (whoever “they” are) were the ones who attacked us. When people realized that Saddam Hussein would never have had anything to do with Osama bin Laden because of basic ideological differences (Saddam is a Shiite Muslim, while Osama bin Laden is a radical Sunni), we were at war because Iraq was going to wipe us off the face of the planet with Weapons of Mass Destruction. Until a thorough scouring of the country by the United Nations proved that to be false, as well.
So now we’re “spreaders of liberty.” Here, Iraq. Have some liberty. Oh, by the way, we’re going to stay here and enforce your liberty through more violence, until you can “stand up” on your own. Even though you’ve been an unstable country since your creation—-thank you, Great Britain, for throwing ethnic groups together with no concerns whatsoever for their inability to get along. Okay, no, we don’t have an exit plan. Why not? Well, that wasn’t important when going to war, even though our children know better than to just rush into anything.

Adult consensual sex = impeachable offense! A shady war with no exit plan = completely justifiable. They are Muslims!

While we’re killing people in Iraq for no reason, and creating terrorism rather than eradicating it, we’ve got issues going on at home, very serious ones indeed that completely overshadow that quagmire. (Conservatives: They’re just Muslims, remember. Subhuman cretins.) Yes, folks--homosexuality, flag-burning, and abortion! Remember, Bob and Steve down the street are out to get you, as are those rampant flag-burning parties (all two of them in the last year). Bob and Steve want to get married. That’s not good, because Bob and Steve are breaking the sanctity of marriage, while Rush Limbaugh, with his three divorces, is clearly upholding the institution so effectively. Meanwhile, flag-burning is a very serious issue indeed. The First Amendment protects free speech, but not that much free speech! Never mind that the occurrence of flag-burning is so small. It’s an issue that deserves Congress’s attention! (Far more than the killing in Iraq does. Remember, exercising Constitutional rights and two men loving each other are far worse than the deaths of a couple of goatherds in Iraq.)

I don’t get the issue of abortion, either, as conservatism sees it. “Pro-life,” they apparently are. Let me tell you something—-if you’re pro-life, you advocate the preservation of everything and everyone, not just zygotes of questionable consciousness. As we can see, conservatism isn’t big on gays, or on flag-burners, or on Iraqis, or on any criminals whatsoever, or on pretty much anyone who isn’t a white straight Christian male with an American flag painted on his lawn. So “pro-life” is a bit of a misleading term. I hereby call for conservatism to consider picking up the term “pro-birth” instead. It’s far more accurate, since when women are forced to carry their children to full-term it keeps them occupied with being pregnant and away from the men, who are doing all the important work. Gender roles are some of conservatism’s closest allies. They provide a sketchy basis for hating gays (flouting convention!) and for opposing abortion (women making decisions about their own bodies?!?!).

Clearly conservatives miss the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, before all that pesky Enlightenment and democracy and feminist and gay rights stuff. The world was a much simpler place when you could stone adulterers, keep your wife barefoot and pregnant, and force your religion on the population at large. The world made sense then. The world worked then (unless you weren’t a white straight Christian male, and then it wasn’t so hot). When the “rabble” rebelled, over and over again around the world, it was bad for the privileged minority. That “rabble,” of course, founded America, or at least we like to think so.

We’ve moved on, everyone. We’ve moved on. Let’s not continue to support the mindset of fear, hate, and illogic that was appropriate seven hundred years ago.

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. I like it.

If I were the editor, I'd let it run - I'd likely ask you to make a few syntactical and editorial changes, and would offer some stylistic suggestions in a couple parts, but content-wise I think you are right fucking on and hitting the truth where it needs to be hit - well done!

:applause:

[WritingIsMyReligion]

2. Yeah, its structure is a little shaky.

I just tore into it, though. :D