Ok I am offically excited!
Monday, June 30, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Apparently the World didn't end after all...
>
Well it happened. Two by two, same sex couples trouped up the steps of San Francisco City Hall, went inside and got married.
Shockingly enough, we all appear to be still here...
Last Monday, while on my way home, I walked past City Hall. The scene out in front literally looked like something from a TV movie. On one side of the street you had hundreds of people cheering, singing, crying and celebrating as couple after couple came out of city hall waving their marriage licenses and certificates. The first were a couple that has been together for 55 years. Now finally able to "tie the knot" because of the recent CA Supreme Court decision on same- sex marriage.
Meanwhile on the other side of the street...
Members of the Fred Phelps family from Kansas were there holding up signs and posters to tell you just who God hates and why. My favorite was a sign held up by one member of this delightful little clan that simply proclaimed that "America is Doomed".
Two friends of mine, Felix and Freddie have been together for many years. In fact they have been together for longer than half of the average heterosexual marriages in the United States. They have a home, they work hard, they pay taxes, they volunteer in the community, they vote, they recycle, and they are faithful Christians who worship regularly at their church. They are everything you would think of when you hear the phrase "model citizens".
Yet according to this angry person shaking their sad hateful sign in rage, the fact that my two friends are going to get married this August, has doomed all of America.
Wow, these folks drove all the way from Kansas to San Francisco just to tell us that their angry vengeful God hates us all and the rest of America with us. Just because CA decided to allow two legal adults of no family relation who had the gall to fall in love, to actaually get married.
Yet again, shockingly enough, San Francisco and the rest of the Country appear to be still here.
How disappointed the Phelps family must be today to wake up and discover that God prefers our California love to their Kansas hate.
Well it happened. Two by two, same sex couples trouped up the steps of San Francisco City Hall, went inside and got married.
Shockingly enough, we all appear to be still here...
Last Monday, while on my way home, I walked past City Hall. The scene out in front literally looked like something from a TV movie. On one side of the street you had hundreds of people cheering, singing, crying and celebrating as couple after couple came out of city hall waving their marriage licenses and certificates. The first were a couple that has been together for 55 years. Now finally able to "tie the knot" because of the recent CA Supreme Court decision on same- sex marriage.
Meanwhile on the other side of the street...
Members of the Fred Phelps family from Kansas were there holding up signs and posters to tell you just who God hates and why. My favorite was a sign held up by one member of this delightful little clan that simply proclaimed that "America is Doomed".
Two friends of mine, Felix and Freddie have been together for many years. In fact they have been together for longer than half of the average heterosexual marriages in the United States. They have a home, they work hard, they pay taxes, they volunteer in the community, they vote, they recycle, and they are faithful Christians who worship regularly at their church. They are everything you would think of when you hear the phrase "model citizens".
Yet according to this angry person shaking their sad hateful sign in rage, the fact that my two friends are going to get married this August, has doomed all of America.
Wow, these folks drove all the way from Kansas to San Francisco just to tell us that their angry vengeful God hates us all and the rest of America with us. Just because CA decided to allow two legal adults of no family relation who had the gall to fall in love, to actaually get married.
Yet again, shockingly enough, San Francisco and the rest of the Country appear to be still here.
How disappointed the Phelps family must be today to wake up and discover that God prefers our California love to their Kansas hate.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
The True GOP Legacy...
It was a warm and muggy day twenty one years ago today. June 12th, 1987.
I was an exchange student in (what was then, West) Germany. I remember standing there at the Berlin Wall watching the President of the United States, state in words so clear, so commanding that they seemed to reverberate through the crowd like an electric current.
"Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
An elderly man standing near me the crowd saw I was an American and tapped me on the arm, and asked if I spoke German, I said yes. He then pointed towards the podium and said "only the American President could say that and mean it."
It wasn't until days later back in Munich I asked the grandfather in my German host family what did he think the man meant by that. He explained to me at the end of World War II German soldiers were fleeing westward with one goal in mind: Escape the advancing Soviet troops and surrender to the Americans. It was a known fact that the Americans would treat captured enemy combatants in accordance with the Geneva Convention and if you were caught by anyone else you were taking your chances.
It gave America a moral authority in the post war world that the Soviets didn't have. It was "moral capital" that gave successive American Presidents from Truman to Clinton the ability to stand before the world, demand justice, speak for freedom lead the world and mean it.
It was moral authority that allowed Truman to fight communist aggression on the Korean Peninsula, Eisenhower to deliver his Atoms For Peace speech at the United Nations proposing an international atomic energy agency and peaceful development of nuclear energy. It was moral capital that gave Kennedy the ability pull the world back from the very brink of nuclear war and face down Soviet military ambitions in Cuba. It gave Richard Nixon the chance to move détente' from being a nice idea, to real dialogue in China, and over a kitchen counter in Moscow.
It was a moral authority that Americans and the world would find reassuring in hands of Gerald Ford, and it enabled Jimmy Carter to take two nations that had been at war since the time of Moses, and into the woods of Camp David and lead their two leaders to peace.
The moral authority that came from America doing the right thing, the fair thing and the just thing in war , forty years later would empower Ronald Reagan to call an evil empire by its name, and demand the wall it built through a city be torn down. The trust that America does the right thing, would enable George Herbert Walker Bush to say in his inaugural address "When America says something, America means it. Whether in an agreement, a treaty or a vow made on marble steps!" The faith that America does the right thing would let George H W Bush meet with that same soviet leader and end a cold war that gripped the world for decades. The idea that America does the right thing would lead skeptical Arab nations to follow that same President Bush to free Kuwait from Iraqi aggression.
The faith that America does the right thing, would lead a hesitant and fickle Europe to follow Bill Clinton when he said the world community could not allow the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia to go unchallenged.
That authority, that capital, that faith in America as the nation that does what is right, has been destroyed by the Republican Party of George W. Bush. The pictures from Abu Ghraib prison, the FBI reports on torture and abuse of enemy combatants takes that great American legacy of doing what was right, and tears it to shreds.
Rather than lead with the moral authority stemming from generations of American soldiers and leaders doing what was right. We have a President of the United States who has to attack Amnesty International, ridicule the United Nations and insult traditional allies all to avoid admitting his own massive mistakes . Such as claims in the State of the Union Address, they have to be "re examined " when they turn out to be completely false.
Now we find when the President of the United States needs most to enlist the help and support of the global community the best he can do is "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists". Now we find when America goes to war, it is for reasons that are continually changed as they are proven to be fabricated, cherry picked and far more spin, than truth.
I was never so proud to be an American as I was twenty-one years ago today. The American President, MY President stood before the Berlin Wall and before the world and affirmed that American would demand what was right and mean it. Now I watch the President and cringe. For the last century when the American President spoke, the world stood up to listen.
Now when the President, or more importantly, when Senator John McCain - the man who would replace him, speaks; the best we can hope for is they won't be forced to "clarify" things when reality, facts and the truth continue to prove the President and his would be successor to be either wrong, or deliberately dishonest.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Memo to the Republican Party:
Dear GOP:
PLEASE make gay marriage your signature issue for this Fall's election.
Please work yourselves into a rabid anti gay marriage frenzy! Froth at the mouth about the "threat" to the family and the traditional "institution" of marraige.
Obsess about the "gay agenda". Stomp your feet and threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue unless CA voters write homophobia into our state constitution. Keep that singular focus and WHATEVER you do, DON'T listen to the Voters when they say they really couldn't care less about this issue.
Stick to your guns GOP! Public opinion clearly must be wrong and you know what is best!
That so-called majority of voters may "Say" they would rather hear about energy independence, health care, ending the war in Iraq, improving education and job opportunity. But you know what they REALLY want to hear about, is how you and only you, are all that stands between them and the HORROR of some same sex couple being able to visit each other in the hospital or file joint income taxes!
Oh please oh please oh please oh PRETTY PLEASE!! Make stopping gay marriage your sole mission this November.
That way, while you desperately try to hide from your party's record of dismal, domestic, foreign policy, economic and strategic failures by fixating on all things gay; California Voters as well as the rest of America will give your party the election results you so richly deserve.
Political exile - Enjoy.
PLEASE make gay marriage your signature issue for this Fall's election.
Please work yourselves into a rabid anti gay marriage frenzy! Froth at the mouth about the "threat" to the family and the traditional "institution" of marraige.
Obsess about the "gay agenda". Stomp your feet and threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue unless CA voters write homophobia into our state constitution. Keep that singular focus and WHATEVER you do, DON'T listen to the Voters when they say they really couldn't care less about this issue.
Stick to your guns GOP! Public opinion clearly must be wrong and you know what is best!
That so-called majority of voters may "Say" they would rather hear about energy independence, health care, ending the war in Iraq, improving education and job opportunity. But you know what they REALLY want to hear about, is how you and only you, are all that stands between them and the HORROR of some same sex couple being able to visit each other in the hospital or file joint income taxes!
Oh please oh please oh please oh PRETTY PLEASE!! Make stopping gay marriage your sole mission this November.
That way, while you desperately try to hide from your party's record of dismal, domestic, foreign policy, economic and strategic failures by fixating on all things gay; California Voters as well as the rest of America will give your party the election results you so richly deserve.
Political exile - Enjoy.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Their 'Freudian Slips' are showing over at Fox News
It is hard to know what to be shocked at first. The all too common "slip of the tounge" over at Fox News of calling Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) "Osama", or the directly stated wish for his assassination.
To her credit Liz Trotta did come back on the air to apologize.
It is worth noting, that had this happened on MSNBC, and if Keith Olbermann made a similar "dumb joke" calling for the asassination of John McCain, and then apologized; Fox News would be running it nonstop and calling for the United States Secret Service to arrest him.
Clearly the general election is going to get unbelievably ugly
Hey NASA! Well Done!
The Phoenix Lander arrived safely on Mars on Sunday.
Yeah I know I am a geek but you gotta admit this is really cool!
">
Yeah I know I am a geek but you gotta admit this is really cool!
">
Monday, May 26, 2008
Happy Memorial Day
On this Memorial Day, there is so much that could be said about the valor, courage and sacrifce of all who have worn the Uniform of the United States. Yet I think today's New York Times Editorial does an incredible job exposing the unbelievable hypocricy of the Bush Adminstration and George W. Bush's complete failure as Commander-in-Chief. And how for the Republican Party "Supporting the Troops" is nothing more than an empty campaign slogan.
----------------------------------------------------------
May 26, 2008
New York Times Editorial
Mr. Bush and the G.I. Bill
President Bush opposes a new G.I. Bill of Rights. He worries that if the traditional path to college for service members since World War II is improved and expanded for the post-9/11 generation, too many people will take it.
He is wrong, but at least he is consistent. Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers’ lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform. He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break.
So lavish with other people’s sacrifices, so reckless in pouring the national treasure into the sandy pit of Iraq, Mr. Bush remains as cheap as ever when it comes to helping people at home.
Thankfully, the new G.I. Bill has strong bipartisan support in Congress. The House passed it by a veto-proof margin this month, and last week the Senate followed suit, approving it as part of a military financing bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Senate version was drafted by two Vietnam veterans, Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska. They argue that benefits paid under the existing G.I. Bill have fallen far behind the rising costs of college.
Their bill would pay full tuition and other expenses at a four-year public university for veterans who served in the military for at least three years since 9/11.
At that level, the new G.I. Bill would be as generous as the one enacted for the veterans of World War II, which soon became known as one of the most successful benefits programs — one of the soundest investments in human potential — in the nation’s history.
Mr. Bush — and, to his great discredit, Senator John McCain — have argued against a better G.I. Bill, for the worst reasons. They would prefer that college benefits for service members remain just mediocre enough that people in uniform are more likely to stay put.
They have seized on a prediction by the Congressional Budget Office that new, better benefits would decrease re-enlistments by 16 percent, which sounds ominous if you are trying — as Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain are — to defend a never-ending war at a time when extended tours of duty have sapped morale and strained recruiting to the breaking point.
Their reasoning is flawed since the C.B.O. has also predicted that the bill would offset the re-enlistment decline by increasing new recruits — by 16 percent. The chance of a real shot at a college education turns out to be as strong a lure as ever. This is good news for our punishingly overburdened volunteer army, which needs all the smart, ambitious strivers it can get.
This page strongly supports a larger, sturdier military. It opposes throwing ever more money at the Pentagon for defense programs that are wasteful and poorly conceived. But as a long-term investment in human capital, in education and job training, there is no good argument against an expanded, generous G.I. Bill.
By threatening to veto it, Mr. Bush is showing great consistency of misjudgment. Congress should forcefully show how wrong he is by overriding his opposition and spending the money — an estimated $52 billion over 10 years, a tiniest fraction of the ongoing cost of Mr. Bush’s Iraq misadventure.
As partial repayment for the sacrifice of soldiers in a time of war, a new, improved G.I. Bill is as wise now as it was in 1944.
----------------------------------------------------------
May 26, 2008
New York Times Editorial
Mr. Bush and the G.I. Bill
President Bush opposes a new G.I. Bill of Rights. He worries that if the traditional path to college for service members since World War II is improved and expanded for the post-9/11 generation, too many people will take it.
He is wrong, but at least he is consistent. Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers’ lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform. He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break.
So lavish with other people’s sacrifices, so reckless in pouring the national treasure into the sandy pit of Iraq, Mr. Bush remains as cheap as ever when it comes to helping people at home.
Thankfully, the new G.I. Bill has strong bipartisan support in Congress. The House passed it by a veto-proof margin this month, and last week the Senate followed suit, approving it as part of a military financing bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Senate version was drafted by two Vietnam veterans, Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska. They argue that benefits paid under the existing G.I. Bill have fallen far behind the rising costs of college.
Their bill would pay full tuition and other expenses at a four-year public university for veterans who served in the military for at least three years since 9/11.
At that level, the new G.I. Bill would be as generous as the one enacted for the veterans of World War II, which soon became known as one of the most successful benefits programs — one of the soundest investments in human potential — in the nation’s history.
Mr. Bush — and, to his great discredit, Senator John McCain — have argued against a better G.I. Bill, for the worst reasons. They would prefer that college benefits for service members remain just mediocre enough that people in uniform are more likely to stay put.
They have seized on a prediction by the Congressional Budget Office that new, better benefits would decrease re-enlistments by 16 percent, which sounds ominous if you are trying — as Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain are — to defend a never-ending war at a time when extended tours of duty have sapped morale and strained recruiting to the breaking point.
Their reasoning is flawed since the C.B.O. has also predicted that the bill would offset the re-enlistment decline by increasing new recruits — by 16 percent. The chance of a real shot at a college education turns out to be as strong a lure as ever. This is good news for our punishingly overburdened volunteer army, which needs all the smart, ambitious strivers it can get.
This page strongly supports a larger, sturdier military. It opposes throwing ever more money at the Pentagon for defense programs that are wasteful and poorly conceived. But as a long-term investment in human capital, in education and job training, there is no good argument against an expanded, generous G.I. Bill.
By threatening to veto it, Mr. Bush is showing great consistency of misjudgment. Congress should forcefully show how wrong he is by overriding his opposition and spending the money — an estimated $52 billion over 10 years, a tiniest fraction of the ongoing cost of Mr. Bush’s Iraq misadventure.
As partial repayment for the sacrifice of soldiers in a time of war, a new, improved G.I. Bill is as wise now as it was in 1944.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Senator Clinton - Go Home. You are done.
Your campaign is over. You have lost. Your continued candidacy would be an insult to this nation. Please just leave now.
Friday, May 23, 2008
California Dreamin' vs. Wisconsin's Nightmares
I wasn't going to spend time on this topic. Only because it is one of those subjects where there seems to be far more emotion in the debate than logic. Yet a recent posting on a blog of a conservative friend of mine caught my eye.
(http://wigdersonlibrarypub.blogspot.com)
The headline of course was referring to the recent California Supreme Court ruling overturning the ban on same- sex marriage in our state. In his post he gushed with relief on that Wisconsin had passed a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage in 2006;
“By amending the constitution, Wisconsin voters removed the possibility the courts would be equally activist here in expanding the definition of marriage. We do not have to fear that Wisconsin will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages by other states as well. “
Okay… So apparently the biggest “fear” that was facing the state of Wisconsin prior to 2006 was the looming terror of being “forced” to accept two consenting adults of no direct family relation living together in a committed and legally binding relationship?
Wow.
Now granted, it has been a few years since I lived in Wisconsin, but I was born there, and I did grow up there. Strangely enough, I don’t recall people living in “fear” about that.
As to the claim that "activist judges" are rewriting our laws circumventing the democratic process, this is nonsense. Very easily packaged nonsense, sound byte-ready nonsense, but still nonsense.
If in 1860 you had put emancipation to a popular vote, it would have failed. If in 1960 you had but integration to a popular vote it would have failed. For that matter if in 1776, you had but independence to a popular vote it would have failed. The reason we have a judicial branch is balance of powers, remember that one from social studies?
It's funny how those who are so upset about the "judicial usurping of democracy", don' t consider someone who wants to bring religion in the courtroom with the Ten Commandments to be an "activist judge." But that is neither here nor there.
And as far as these judges being "un-elected" who appointed them? Elected officials did. So the idea that judges striking down discrimination is undemocratic is just not true.
What is true is this. Saying that letting two people of the same gender get married would in anyway "redefine" the marriages of heterosexuals, is the same thing as saying that equal rights for racial minorities would "redefine" being white.
The marriage amendment to the Wisconsin State Constitution is an insult the people and history of that great state, and does nothing to “defend marriage”
If my friend was truly interested in defending marriage in Wisconsin, then he should have pushed for a law making divorce, a far greater threat to marriage, much harder to get. Also adultery, a far greater threat to marriage should have been made punishable by criminal prosecution, fines and perhaps even jail time. Anyone in WI who makes a child out of wedlock should then by law be forced to marry the other parent. Or if they are already married legally adopt the child.
Funny how the amendment my friend is so thankful for, does none of the things I just listed. Clearly it was not enacted protect the people of Wisconsin from anything. It was designed solely to deny equal rights to some people in Wisconsin, and nothing more.
Whenever subject of equal rights for gay and lesbian couples is part of our national discourse conservatives always claim it is an "attack" on marriage and the family. So I decided to look up the word `attack' in the dictionary. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines it as:
Attack
Pronunciation: &-'tak
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle French attaquer, from (assumed) Old Italian estaccare to attach, from stacca stake, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English staca
transitive senses
1 : to set upon or work against forcefully
2 : to assail with unfriendly or bitter words
3 : to begin to affect or to act on injuriously
4 : to set to work on
5 : to threaten (a piece in chess) with immediate capture
intransitive senses : to make an attack
6: the act or action of setting upon with force or violence
Hmmm… to set upon or work against forcefully huh? Ok, so if we take that argument seriously, to give gay couples the same rights as straight couples; Not more rights, not any new rights that straight couples do not currently have, but ONLY the exact SAME rights, this would injure, damage and potentially even destroy heterosexual marriages and families?
Again... Wow. I guess I only have one question then. How?
Would gay marriage mean that straight couples would lose any of the 1,100 federal benefits and protections that they currently have? Does legal gay marriage mean straight couples can’t file joint tax returns, have, adopt or raise children, pass on social security survivor benefits, or make medical decisions for each other? Does the legalization of marriage for gays and lesbians mean that straight people can no longer marry, and those who are married must get divorced?
Would the marriages or families of any heterosexual change in any way?
The answer of course is no they wouldn't. But proponents of discrimination are rarely interested in facts. When faced with them ,they generally fire back with one of three arguments.
The first argument is that; Being gay is sinful because the bible says so.
Well ok, the bible has eight verses that talk about homosexual behavior, And over 360 that condemn heterosexual behavior. (Clearly God must think straight couples need more supervision.) But all this would only make sense if the United States was a theocracy where the church ruled the state. Which, it is worth mentioning would make divorce a criminal offense. My guess is the more than fifty percent of married heterosexual couples that avail themselves of divorce, are thankful this is not the case. And of course this entire debate is about CIVIL Marriage. NOT the religous sacrament of marriage administered by a church. No church will or could ever be forced to perform marriage ceremonies that go against their beliefs.
The second argument is even more fun. Allowing gay marriage will lead to polygamy, bestiality, pedophile marriages, and who knows what else.
Yet the structure and definition of civil marriage is, and has only ever been about two and ONLY two consenting adults of no direct family relationship. So find me the person who truly wants to marry their dog, and for that matter, find me a dog who is over 18 years old, can read and then sign a marriage certificate, and can then say the words "I do". This argument is as ridiculous now, as it was when it was tried in opposition to interracial marriage over half a century ago.
The third argument used against gay marriage is actually a bit more revealing of the the thought process of many conservatives. They say that gay marriage cheapens or lessens the value of the institution of marriage in the eyes of society.
But since none of the marriage rights or benefits that straight couples have would change if gays were able to marry, what opponents of gay marriage are really saying is that letting gay couples marry cheapens their own marriages in their own eyes. Letting gays and lesbians get married means they now have a right that only heterosexuals had. And for some people that is unacceptable.
It's not just that some people want to prevent gays and lesbians from having equal rights, they want make sure that gays and lesbians have no rights at all. They see equal rights for everyone as an attack on them.
That's interesting. Even though the rights and benefits afforded to couples in “traditional marriage” clearly would not change in ANY way, some people firmly believe that their own marriage would lose value, and might even come to an end, if gay couples are given the same rights.
It suddenly occurred to me there is another word for someone who is irrationally fixed on the artificial preservation of inequality that they feel is in their favor. Merriam-Webster's dictionary has the same word for it.
Bigot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
1: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
This irrational nonsensical argument against equality in civil marriage is nothing more that the fear of losing what is seen as a civil superiority, coupled with the desire to take religious beliefs and codify them into civil law. It is bigotry, pure and simple. That is what is being “forced” upon the citizens of Wisconsin.
Attempts to legally create a second class citizen are not new. We have seem them before. They had different names though. The inquisition, Jim Crow, States Rights, Reich Racial Purity Laws, the blacklist. Like its predecessors, the “defense of marriage” is bigotry fueled by politically expedient fear. It is time we call it what it really is, an affront to everything our nation has ever stood for, and completely un-American.
Interestingly enough, a similar proposal to add discrimination to the California State Constitution has no chance of passing. Even Governor Schwarzenegger thinks it is a ridiculous idea.
Just as my friend is thankful that he need not "fear" the horror that my good friends Jody and Dennis, who after years of buidling life, a thriving small business and a family together can now make a public and legally binding affirmation of their relationship. Likewise, now thanks to our state Supreme Court they don’t have to fear that California “will be forced to recognize” Wisconsin's bigotry.
(http://wigdersonlibrarypub.blogspot.com)
The headline of course was referring to the recent California Supreme Court ruling overturning the ban on same- sex marriage in our state. In his post he gushed with relief on that Wisconsin had passed a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage in 2006;
“By amending the constitution, Wisconsin voters removed the possibility the courts would be equally activist here in expanding the definition of marriage. We do not have to fear that Wisconsin will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages by other states as well. “
Okay… So apparently the biggest “fear” that was facing the state of Wisconsin prior to 2006 was the looming terror of being “forced” to accept two consenting adults of no direct family relation living together in a committed and legally binding relationship?
Wow.
Now granted, it has been a few years since I lived in Wisconsin, but I was born there, and I did grow up there. Strangely enough, I don’t recall people living in “fear” about that.
As to the claim that "activist judges" are rewriting our laws circumventing the democratic process, this is nonsense. Very easily packaged nonsense, sound byte-ready nonsense, but still nonsense.
If in 1860 you had put emancipation to a popular vote, it would have failed. If in 1960 you had but integration to a popular vote it would have failed. For that matter if in 1776, you had but independence to a popular vote it would have failed. The reason we have a judicial branch is balance of powers, remember that one from social studies?
It's funny how those who are so upset about the "judicial usurping of democracy", don' t consider someone who wants to bring religion in the courtroom with the Ten Commandments to be an "activist judge." But that is neither here nor there.
And as far as these judges being "un-elected" who appointed them? Elected officials did. So the idea that judges striking down discrimination is undemocratic is just not true.
What is true is this. Saying that letting two people of the same gender get married would in anyway "redefine" the marriages of heterosexuals, is the same thing as saying that equal rights for racial minorities would "redefine" being white.
The marriage amendment to the Wisconsin State Constitution is an insult the people and history of that great state, and does nothing to “defend marriage”
If my friend was truly interested in defending marriage in Wisconsin, then he should have pushed for a law making divorce, a far greater threat to marriage, much harder to get. Also adultery, a far greater threat to marriage should have been made punishable by criminal prosecution, fines and perhaps even jail time. Anyone in WI who makes a child out of wedlock should then by law be forced to marry the other parent. Or if they are already married legally adopt the child.
Funny how the amendment my friend is so thankful for, does none of the things I just listed. Clearly it was not enacted protect the people of Wisconsin from anything. It was designed solely to deny equal rights to some people in Wisconsin, and nothing more.
Whenever subject of equal rights for gay and lesbian couples is part of our national discourse conservatives always claim it is an "attack" on marriage and the family. So I decided to look up the word `attack' in the dictionary. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines it as:
Attack
Pronunciation: &-'tak
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle French attaquer, from (assumed) Old Italian estaccare to attach, from stacca stake, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English staca
transitive senses
1 : to set upon or work against forcefully
2 : to assail with unfriendly or bitter words
3 : to begin to affect or to act on injuriously
4 : to set to work on
5 : to threaten (a piece in chess) with immediate capture
intransitive senses : to make an attack
6: the act or action of setting upon with force or violence
Hmmm… to set upon or work against forcefully huh? Ok, so if we take that argument seriously, to give gay couples the same rights as straight couples; Not more rights, not any new rights that straight couples do not currently have, but ONLY the exact SAME rights, this would injure, damage and potentially even destroy heterosexual marriages and families?
Again... Wow. I guess I only have one question then. How?
Would gay marriage mean that straight couples would lose any of the 1,100 federal benefits and protections that they currently have? Does legal gay marriage mean straight couples can’t file joint tax returns, have, adopt or raise children, pass on social security survivor benefits, or make medical decisions for each other? Does the legalization of marriage for gays and lesbians mean that straight people can no longer marry, and those who are married must get divorced?
Would the marriages or families of any heterosexual change in any way?
The answer of course is no they wouldn't. But proponents of discrimination are rarely interested in facts. When faced with them ,they generally fire back with one of three arguments.
The first argument is that; Being gay is sinful because the bible says so.
Well ok, the bible has eight verses that talk about homosexual behavior, And over 360 that condemn heterosexual behavior. (Clearly God must think straight couples need more supervision.) But all this would only make sense if the United States was a theocracy where the church ruled the state. Which, it is worth mentioning would make divorce a criminal offense. My guess is the more than fifty percent of married heterosexual couples that avail themselves of divorce, are thankful this is not the case. And of course this entire debate is about CIVIL Marriage. NOT the religous sacrament of marriage administered by a church. No church will or could ever be forced to perform marriage ceremonies that go against their beliefs.
The second argument is even more fun. Allowing gay marriage will lead to polygamy, bestiality, pedophile marriages, and who knows what else.
Yet the structure and definition of civil marriage is, and has only ever been about two and ONLY two consenting adults of no direct family relationship. So find me the person who truly wants to marry their dog, and for that matter, find me a dog who is over 18 years old, can read and then sign a marriage certificate, and can then say the words "I do". This argument is as ridiculous now, as it was when it was tried in opposition to interracial marriage over half a century ago.
The third argument used against gay marriage is actually a bit more revealing of the the thought process of many conservatives. They say that gay marriage cheapens or lessens the value of the institution of marriage in the eyes of society.
But since none of the marriage rights or benefits that straight couples have would change if gays were able to marry, what opponents of gay marriage are really saying is that letting gay couples marry cheapens their own marriages in their own eyes. Letting gays and lesbians get married means they now have a right that only heterosexuals had. And for some people that is unacceptable.
It's not just that some people want to prevent gays and lesbians from having equal rights, they want make sure that gays and lesbians have no rights at all. They see equal rights for everyone as an attack on them.
That's interesting. Even though the rights and benefits afforded to couples in “traditional marriage” clearly would not change in ANY way, some people firmly believe that their own marriage would lose value, and might even come to an end, if gay couples are given the same rights.
It suddenly occurred to me there is another word for someone who is irrationally fixed on the artificial preservation of inequality that they feel is in their favor. Merriam-Webster's dictionary has the same word for it.
Bigot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
1: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
This irrational nonsensical argument against equality in civil marriage is nothing more that the fear of losing what is seen as a civil superiority, coupled with the desire to take religious beliefs and codify them into civil law. It is bigotry, pure and simple. That is what is being “forced” upon the citizens of Wisconsin.
Attempts to legally create a second class citizen are not new. We have seem them before. They had different names though. The inquisition, Jim Crow, States Rights, Reich Racial Purity Laws, the blacklist. Like its predecessors, the “defense of marriage” is bigotry fueled by politically expedient fear. It is time we call it what it really is, an affront to everything our nation has ever stood for, and completely un-American.
Interestingly enough, a similar proposal to add discrimination to the California State Constitution has no chance of passing. Even Governor Schwarzenegger thinks it is a ridiculous idea.
Just as my friend is thankful that he need not "fear" the horror that my good friends Jody and Dennis, who after years of buidling life, a thriving small business and a family together can now make a public and legally binding affirmation of their relationship. Likewise, now thanks to our state Supreme Court they don’t have to fear that California “will be forced to recognize” Wisconsin's bigotry.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Me vs. Karl Rove
The great "turd blossom" himself has weighed in with his own fantasy electoral college map. So I thought I would post my own reality based projections. We'll see who is right this November!
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Not "their kind of guy"....?
Jon Stewart as usual is the ONLY one in the media to call the Clinton "win" in West Virginia EXACTLY what it was.
Now I don't mean to make cruel jokes about the good people of West VA, but having spent some time there, I will say this; to claim that the Voters of West Virginia are somehow an indicator of how the rest of the nation would vote in the general election, might be true if this was the election of 1858, instead of 2008.
Now I don't mean to make cruel jokes about the good people of West VA, but having spent some time there, I will say this; to claim that the Voters of West Virginia are somehow an indicator of how the rest of the nation would vote in the general election, might be true if this was the election of 1858, instead of 2008.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
YES!!
The AP just broke the story..
----------------------------------------
Edwards gives long-awaited endorsement to Obama
Democrat John Edwards is endorsing former rival Barack Obama, fresh signs of the party establishment embracing the likely nominee even as Hillary Rodham Clinton refuses to give up her long-shot candidacy.
Edwards was to appear with Obama in Grand Rapids, Mich., as Obama campaigns in a critical general election battleground state.
The endorsement comes the day after Clinton defeated Obama by more than 2-to-1 in West Virginia. The loss highlighted Obama's work to win over the "Hillary Democrats" — white, working-class voters who also supported Edwards in large numbers before he exited the race.
Edwards, a former North Carolina senator and the 2004 vice presidential nominee, dropped out of the race in late January.
Both Obama and Clinton immediately asked Edwards for his endorsement, but he stayed mum for more than four months. A person close to Edwards, speaking on condition of anonymity, said he wanted to get involved now to begin unifying the party. Obama also signed on to Edwards' poverty initiative, which was a major cause for Edwards in his campaign and since he left.
When he made his decision, Edwards didn't even tell many of his former top advisers because he wanted to make sure that he personally talked to Clinton to give her the news, said the person close to him. Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, who has spoken favorably about Clinton's health care plan, did not travel with him to Michigan and is not part of the endorsement.
From the Associated Press
Monday, May 12, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
How Soon We Forget...
I take great comfort at the Republican "outrage" over Barak Obama's former Pastor, Jerimiah Wright. It is always fun to watch idiots who live in glass houses throw stones at their own windows...
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Why Hillary Clinton Can't Win...
As I sat and watched the fairly predictable returns from the Pennsylvania primary, the cable news channels had various surrogates from the Clinton campaign on touting her "great victory", and how this shows how Hillary has what it takes to win.
It has been interesting to watch the Clinton camp's "Kitchen Sink" strategy. Just throw everything you can at Barak Obama and hope some of it sticks and derails his campaign. First it was the "Commander in Chief threshold". Then it was Reverend Wright and his controversial comments. Then came Senator Obama's poorly worded and easily spun comments about "bitter" voters. Then came the debate on ABC, where the first 45 minutes was devoted to issues like American Flag lapel pins.
When faced with criticism that this was politics at it's worst rather than a real debate about the issues facing America, Hillary Clinton's well rehearsed reply was Barak Obama was "whining". And if he thought this was bad he would never be able to stand up to what the Republicans would throw at him come November. She even invoked Harry Truman's famous line; "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".
Interesting....
In that sound byte ready response, Hillary Clinton made what is perhaps the clearest case for her own speedy withdrawal from the Presidential race. Let's be honest and give Hillary Clinton credit. She is absolutely right when she says the GOP will be brutal in their attacks in the general election. The reality so far in this primary season, is that the Obama campaign has been the picture of restraint in their case for his candidacy over Senator Clinton's.
The GOP on the other hand has been dreaming of, and preparing for a campaign against Hillary Clinton for nearly a decade.
To run against her has been the far right's most cherished fantasy. To say that the GOP is well prepared if Senator Clinton is the Democratic candidate is a massive understatement. You won't hear these kind of things from the Obama Campaign, but I guarantee the "swift boat" ads resurrecting the entire litany of Clinton scandals both real and imaginary are already made, and ready to go.
Picture the ads on how Hillary Clinton made a killing on Cattle Futures. You can already hear Sean Hanity, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage spew nonsense on how Hillary and Bill "might have been" responsible for Vince Foster's death. You can see the "special segment" on the O'Reilly Factor on how Hillary's billing records for the Rose Law firm where "lost" and then suddenly were "found" on the table in the White House book room. Picture interviews with fired White House Travel Office staff, Arkansas State Troopers and Indonesian Businessmen.
And of course, the person who is rooting the hardest for a Hillary Clinton nomination? Monica Lewinsky's press agent. Because rest assured Miss Lewinsky and her stained blue dress will once again be front page news. The Washington Times will make sure of that. "But wait!" I hear you cry! "None of that has anything to do with Hillary's qualifications to be President!" Guess what kids? It doesn't have to. All it has to do is take over the debate. You think Reverend Wright was a distraction? That's nothing compared to wild rumors of Hillary's alleged affair with Vince Foster, or the far-far right's favorite chestnut: Hillary Clinton didn't divorce Bill because she is really a Lesbian and didn't care.
Crazy? Outrageous? Outlandish? You bet! I hear you protest that the "vast majority of Americans" won't buy in to such gutter politics. You forget, that we are not talking about the "vast majority". We are taking about fifty percent plus one. We are talking about a campaign that will be run by people who in 2004, convinced a sizable percentage of American voters that John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War hero was less patriotic than, and didn't love his country as much as, George W. Bush a draft- dodging male cheerleader.
Clinton's failed attempt at health care reform has already been spun as "HillaryCare - taking way your choices and forcing you to have sub-standard government medical care". Her own "3 am phone call" talking point practically writes itself into an "unofficial" McCain campaign ad by conservative front groups.
(Cue dramatic announcer) "Who do you want answering the call to the White House at 3 am? A man who has faced combat and survived torture by our nation's enemies? (Insert Vietman War Footge & Picture of Osama Bin Laden) Or a woman who last time she was in the White House didn't even know what was going on under her own roof?" (Insert footage of Bill Clinton's deposition where he parsed the word "is").
The political reality is Hillary Clinton would be ridiculously easy to demonize. Conservative evangelicals who are not thrilled by the prospect of voting FOR John McCain, would come out in droves for the chance to vote AGAINST Hillary Clinton.
I am sorry to say it, but it is long past time the Democratic Party faced the reality, that a Hillary Clinton nominiation will do nothing more than hand the White House to John McCain.
Like we didn't already know this...
From Today's USA TODAY....
Disapproval of Bush breaks record
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — President Bush has set a record he'd presumably prefer to avoid: the highest disapproval rating of any president in the 70-year history of the Gallup Poll.
In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, 28% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing; 69% disapprove. The approval rating matches the low point of his presidency, and the disapproval sets a new high for any president since Franklin Roosevelt.
The previous record of 67% was reached by Harry Truman in January 1952, when the United States was enmeshed in the Korean War.
Bush's rating has worsened amid "collapsing optimism about the economy," says Charles Franklin, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who studies presidential approval. Record gas prices and a wave of home foreclosures have fueled voter angst.
Bush also holds the record for the other extreme: the highest approval rating of any president in Gallup's history. In September 2001, in the days after the 9/11 attacks, Bush's approval spiked to 90%. In another record, the percentage of Americans who say the invasion of Iraq was a mistake reached a new high, 63%, in the latest poll.
Assessments of Bush's presidency are harsh. By 69%-27%, those polled say Bush's tenure in general has been a failure, not a success.
Low approval ratings make it more difficult for presidents to maneuver, limiting their ability to get legislation passed or boost candidates in congressional elections.
"The president understands war and the slowdown in the economy weigh down public opinion, but the situation in Iraq is improving and the economy is about to get a big boost from the stimulus package," said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel.
Bush has had dismal ratings through most of his second term. His approval rating hasn't reached as high as 50% since May 2005. He's been steadily below 40% since September 2006.
Views of Bush divide sharply along party lines. Among Republicans, 66% approve and 32% disapprove. Disapproval is nearly universal — 91% — among Democrats. Of independents, 23% approve, 72% disapprove of the job he's doing.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Here is why I am Voting for this Man...
Any questions and doubts I had about Barak Obama being the BEST choice for President of the United States he answered here:
">
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)