Tuesday, February 24, 2004
"I'm a Unifier, Not a....Wait, I'm a Uniter, Not a Divisor....Ah Hell, I'm a Divider!"
Global warming, terrorist groups, dependance upon foreign oil, unemployment....hmmm...which of those problems can I work on, which of those impacts Americans the most...I know! Gay marriage!! Yup, the recent scene of two grandmothers getting hitched has Dubya finally coming out in favor of tinkering with the Constitution in order to preserve the institution of marriage. This even has Andrew Sullivan mad as hell:
"WAR IS DECLARED: The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land. Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign. He is proposing to remove civil rights from one group of American citizens - and do so in the Constitution itself. The message could not be plainer: these citizens do not fully belong in America. Their relationships must be stigmatized in the very Constitution itself. The document that should be uniting the country will now be used to divide it, to single out a group of people for discrimination itself, and to do so for narrow electoral purposes."
-snip-
"There can be no more profound attack on a minority in the United States - or on the promise of freedom that America represents. That very tactic is so shocking in its prejudice, so clear in its intent, so extreme in its implications that it leaves people of good will little lee-way. This president has now made the Republican party an emblem of exclusion and division and intolerance."
-snip-
"We must prevent this graffiti from being written on a document every person in this country should be able to regard as their own. This struggle is hard but it is also easy. The president has made it easy. He's a simple man and he divides the world into friends and foes. He has now made a whole group of Americans - and their families and their friends - his enemy. We have no alternative but to defend ourselves and our families from this attack. And we will."
I've mentioned this before, but I'm always amazed at the intolerant actions of those who profess to believe in the teachings of and follow a diety who teaches tolerance and compassion for their brothers and sisters.....WWJD indeed.
Global warming, terrorist groups, dependance upon foreign oil, unemployment....hmmm...which of those problems can I work on, which of those impacts Americans the most...I know! Gay marriage!! Yup, the recent scene of two grandmothers getting hitched has Dubya finally coming out in favor of tinkering with the Constitution in order to preserve the institution of marriage. This even has Andrew Sullivan mad as hell:
"WAR IS DECLARED: The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land. Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign. He is proposing to remove civil rights from one group of American citizens - and do so in the Constitution itself. The message could not be plainer: these citizens do not fully belong in America. Their relationships must be stigmatized in the very Constitution itself. The document that should be uniting the country will now be used to divide it, to single out a group of people for discrimination itself, and to do so for narrow electoral purposes."
-snip-
"There can be no more profound attack on a minority in the United States - or on the promise of freedom that America represents. That very tactic is so shocking in its prejudice, so clear in its intent, so extreme in its implications that it leaves people of good will little lee-way. This president has now made the Republican party an emblem of exclusion and division and intolerance."
-snip-
"We must prevent this graffiti from being written on a document every person in this country should be able to regard as their own. This struggle is hard but it is also easy. The president has made it easy. He's a simple man and he divides the world into friends and foes. He has now made a whole group of Americans - and their families and their friends - his enemy. We have no alternative but to defend ourselves and our families from this attack. And we will."
I've mentioned this before, but I'm always amazed at the intolerant actions of those who profess to believe in the teachings of and follow a diety who teaches tolerance and compassion for their brothers and sisters.....WWJD indeed.
Saturday, February 21, 2004
Where Can I Find "His and His" Matching Towels?
Bob Harris, guest-blogging over at This Modern World hits the nail on the head regarding the gay marriage issue:
It all depends on how you define the word "people"
"Here's Bush on gay marriage today:
"I am watching very carefully, but I am troubled by what I've seen," Bush said.
-- snip --
"I am troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage. People need to be involved in this decision," Bush said. "Marriage ought to be defined by the people not by the courts."
This is wrong in so many ways... it's hard to know which specific idiotic idea AWOL had in mind.
For one, what's happening in San Francisco began with a decision by local elected officials, not by "activist judges."
Second, the judicial system has only responded so far by not immediately responding to screaming pleas for oh-my-god-make-it-stop-make-it-stop injunctive measures from freaked-out conservatives, whose cases haven't been thrown out but will simply be heard a little later, possibly by the end of the week. This is the opposite of judicial activism.
(Of course, impatience is as much a hallmark of reactionary thought as fear of people who are slightly different and willful insistence on known falsehoods. Combine this with a blinding terror of human sexuality -- that exposed breast is burning my eyes! It burns! It burrrrns! -- and you've got either the modern conservative movement or an emotionally-damaged six-year-old.)
Third, and most importantly, our dumbass-in-chief misses one of the primary purposes of judicial review, established from the very outset of our republic: in a just society, the civil and and constitutional rights of the few cannot be left merely to the whims of the many. Obviously. Jeebus. Bush's position flies in the face of common sense, any basic understanding of American history, and a large body of constitutional law. Maybe Bush was AWOL when they taught Marbury vs. Madison, too.
And finally, even taking Bush's multiple idiocies wrapped in a single statement at face value: um, aren't all those people getting married... people?"
What I can add to this debate is that the "man-woman" standard better get its act together before it can be sanctimonious about any other form of life commitment....On the soccer team that I help coach, two seven-year olds have no dad, one has no parents at all (raised by two grandmothers) and one's parents are going through a divorce. So four out of seven boys are already behind the eight-ball.....and don't get me started on how kids "bounce back" from divorces....yes they do because they have no choice, but it screws with their perceptions of commitment and love forever. Are gay couples better off and more well-adjusted? Nope, because we are all people....I'm just saying that I would love to see the people who care so much about the "sanctity of marriage" talk about the other stuff as well. For some reason many of these religious groups that are shocked about gay marriage are just obsessed with sex: they don't want other people to have it, they're embarrassed by their own awkwardness about it and are just nuts about it. If they don't realize that married guys and girls participate in the same sexual acts that guys and guys do, they are very naive!
Bob Harris, guest-blogging over at This Modern World hits the nail on the head regarding the gay marriage issue:
It all depends on how you define the word "people"
"Here's Bush on gay marriage today:
"I am watching very carefully, but I am troubled by what I've seen," Bush said.
-- snip --
"I am troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage. People need to be involved in this decision," Bush said. "Marriage ought to be defined by the people not by the courts."
This is wrong in so many ways... it's hard to know which specific idiotic idea AWOL had in mind.
For one, what's happening in San Francisco began with a decision by local elected officials, not by "activist judges."
Second, the judicial system has only responded so far by not immediately responding to screaming pleas for oh-my-god-make-it-stop-make-it-stop injunctive measures from freaked-out conservatives, whose cases haven't been thrown out but will simply be heard a little later, possibly by the end of the week. This is the opposite of judicial activism.
(Of course, impatience is as much a hallmark of reactionary thought as fear of people who are slightly different and willful insistence on known falsehoods. Combine this with a blinding terror of human sexuality -- that exposed breast is burning my eyes! It burns! It burrrrns! -- and you've got either the modern conservative movement or an emotionally-damaged six-year-old.)
Third, and most importantly, our dumbass-in-chief misses one of the primary purposes of judicial review, established from the very outset of our republic: in a just society, the civil and and constitutional rights of the few cannot be left merely to the whims of the many. Obviously. Jeebus. Bush's position flies in the face of common sense, any basic understanding of American history, and a large body of constitutional law. Maybe Bush was AWOL when they taught Marbury vs. Madison, too.
And finally, even taking Bush's multiple idiocies wrapped in a single statement at face value: um, aren't all those people getting married... people?"
What I can add to this debate is that the "man-woman" standard better get its act together before it can be sanctimonious about any other form of life commitment....On the soccer team that I help coach, two seven-year olds have no dad, one has no parents at all (raised by two grandmothers) and one's parents are going through a divorce. So four out of seven boys are already behind the eight-ball.....and don't get me started on how kids "bounce back" from divorces....yes they do because they have no choice, but it screws with their perceptions of commitment and love forever. Are gay couples better off and more well-adjusted? Nope, because we are all people....I'm just saying that I would love to see the people who care so much about the "sanctity of marriage" talk about the other stuff as well. For some reason many of these religious groups that are shocked about gay marriage are just obsessed with sex: they don't want other people to have it, they're embarrassed by their own awkwardness about it and are just nuts about it. If they don't realize that married guys and girls participate in the same sexual acts that guys and guys do, they are very naive!
The Passion of Mel Gibson
Ye cats...anyone see the Diane Sawyer interview with Mel Gibson? Pretty wild stuff there.....he's definitely born again, but the interesting irony of his interview was his confession of his wild past, and tons of addictions. I've known a good deal of folks like that, whose lives are a swinging pendulum of addictions: sex, partying, then religion (yes, I think people can be addicted to religion just like other drugs). These folks hate their past (just like Mel said he would throw darts at a picture of himself that represented his wild past), and dwell in lots of self-flagellation....sort of the kind depicted in his R-rated film. That's the other wierd thing, too...his partnership with churches, having them shill for his flick (are pastors really telling their flocks of kids to see this Biblical bloodletting?).
Ye cats...anyone see the Diane Sawyer interview with Mel Gibson? Pretty wild stuff there.....he's definitely born again, but the interesting irony of his interview was his confession of his wild past, and tons of addictions. I've known a good deal of folks like that, whose lives are a swinging pendulum of addictions: sex, partying, then religion (yes, I think people can be addicted to religion just like other drugs). These folks hate their past (just like Mel said he would throw darts at a picture of himself that represented his wild past), and dwell in lots of self-flagellation....sort of the kind depicted in his R-rated film. That's the other wierd thing, too...his partnership with churches, having them shill for his flick (are pastors really telling their flocks of kids to see this Biblical bloodletting?).
Sunday, February 15, 2004
Outsource This Blog!
Starting today, this blog will now be written by outsourced labor from India (and some of you will say that the writing will improve!). But seriously, folks...the latest flak over the White House's apparent support of outsourced labor as one of many things that will improve the economy is odd....I'm not an economist, so perhaps from a theory viewpoint that stand is correct, but from a visceral reaction viewpoint it is nuts! How can folks losing their jobs in factory towns to overseas labor be good for anybody, especially a President hoping to get re-elected? Is this one of those "supply side" theories that has the classic "rising tide lifts all boats" stuck to it???
Starting today, this blog will now be written by outsourced labor from India (and some of you will say that the writing will improve!). But seriously, folks...the latest flak over the White House's apparent support of outsourced labor as one of many things that will improve the economy is odd....I'm not an economist, so perhaps from a theory viewpoint that stand is correct, but from a visceral reaction viewpoint it is nuts! How can folks losing their jobs in factory towns to overseas labor be good for anybody, especially a President hoping to get re-elected? Is this one of those "supply side" theories that has the classic "rising tide lifts all boats" stuck to it???
New Blogs......
....are added to the blogroll to your right. Go check 'em out: The American Street, Oliver Willis, Margaret Cho, Skimble and South Knox Bubba.
....are added to the blogroll to your right. Go check 'em out: The American Street, Oliver Willis, Margaret Cho, Skimble and South Knox Bubba.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
"....where anybody can be President..."
Yep, it's often been said that any child can grow up in America and become President.....so true, but perhaps too true. As Dubya's National Guard records rear their ugly heads again, this statement bears closer examination. Anybody who has watched Bush stumble his way through the 2000 elections and his first three years as President has to wonder: "Is it really too easy to get into the White House?" In my profession, you can't get to be a "burn boss" (in charge of the prescribed fire) without extensive training and time spent performing the tasks that make up a successful fire. In other words, the person at the top making the life/death decisions has actually spent time "feeling the heat," as it were. My point is, maybe the qualifications or job description of the President should be a bit tighter: previous experience running a successful business, spent actual time supervising troops, extensive world experience, etc. Would this keep potential candidates out of the race? Yep, but maybe we do need this important position filled by qualified folks......
Yep, it's often been said that any child can grow up in America and become President.....so true, but perhaps too true. As Dubya's National Guard records rear their ugly heads again, this statement bears closer examination. Anybody who has watched Bush stumble his way through the 2000 elections and his first three years as President has to wonder: "Is it really too easy to get into the White House?" In my profession, you can't get to be a "burn boss" (in charge of the prescribed fire) without extensive training and time spent performing the tasks that make up a successful fire. In other words, the person at the top making the life/death decisions has actually spent time "feeling the heat," as it were. My point is, maybe the qualifications or job description of the President should be a bit tighter: previous experience running a successful business, spent actual time supervising troops, extensive world experience, etc. Would this keep potential candidates out of the race? Yep, but maybe we do need this important position filled by qualified folks......
Thursday, February 05, 2004
Tempest in a C-Cup
Ok, ok, so I'm not the first one to turn that phrase regarding the Super Bowl halftime show. So, let me see if I have this straight: Folks are shocked at how an MTV-sponsored event starring P. Diddy, Kid Rock, Nelly, Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake could have turned out so lewd! Folks, this isn't "Up With People," this is football with ads for booze, erection pills and big trucks. I love this quote from FCC Chief Michael Powell, the agency's chief federal regulator:
"I'm outraged by what I saw during the halftime show of the Super Bowl," he said in a statement issued Monday. "Like millions of Americans, my family and I gathered around the TV for the celebration. Instead, that celebration was tainted by a classless, crass and deplorable stunt. Our nation's children, parents and citizens deserve better."
..."gathered around the TV for the celebration??" Is he an idiot? Folks, this is football...not family viewing (with young kids, at least). If Janet didn't show off the boob, then that means that all of the gyrating and crotch-grabbing that took place before her act was fine??
Parents, don't let your kids watch the commercials.....
Ok, ok, so I'm not the first one to turn that phrase regarding the Super Bowl halftime show. So, let me see if I have this straight: Folks are shocked at how an MTV-sponsored event starring P. Diddy, Kid Rock, Nelly, Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake could have turned out so lewd! Folks, this isn't "Up With People," this is football with ads for booze, erection pills and big trucks. I love this quote from FCC Chief Michael Powell, the agency's chief federal regulator:
"I'm outraged by what I saw during the halftime show of the Super Bowl," he said in a statement issued Monday. "Like millions of Americans, my family and I gathered around the TV for the celebration. Instead, that celebration was tainted by a classless, crass and deplorable stunt. Our nation's children, parents and citizens deserve better."
..."gathered around the TV for the celebration??" Is he an idiot? Folks, this is football...not family viewing (with young kids, at least). If Janet didn't show off the boob, then that means that all of the gyrating and crotch-grabbing that took place before her act was fine??
Parents, don't let your kids watch the commercials.....
Monday, February 02, 2004
Blowback
That's a term that the CIA developed referring to the likelihood that our covert operations in other people's countries would result in retaliations against Americans, civilian and military, at home or abroad.....sort of the "butterfly effect" from hell. It is also the title of a book I'm just now beginning to read that was published before 9/11, and has just now been recently updated. I've always believed that in order to explore the reasons behind events such as 9/11, we as Americans must come to grips with our involvement in other countries, and openly and honestly debate past successes and failures. This is the action adults must take, and it is not unpatriotic to admit failures. It is unrealistic, however, to believe that mistakes are never made, whether it is one person or a government. This sets up unrealistic expectations and a more-than-perfect ideal. We grow stronger when we learn from mistakes. The "they hate our freedoms" meme that is often trotted out is flimsy and papers over past actions.
That's a term that the CIA developed referring to the likelihood that our covert operations in other people's countries would result in retaliations against Americans, civilian and military, at home or abroad.....sort of the "butterfly effect" from hell. It is also the title of a book I'm just now beginning to read that was published before 9/11, and has just now been recently updated. I've always believed that in order to explore the reasons behind events such as 9/11, we as Americans must come to grips with our involvement in other countries, and openly and honestly debate past successes and failures. This is the action adults must take, and it is not unpatriotic to admit failures. It is unrealistic, however, to believe that mistakes are never made, whether it is one person or a government. This sets up unrealistic expectations and a more-than-perfect ideal. We grow stronger when we learn from mistakes. The "they hate our freedoms" meme that is often trotted out is flimsy and papers over past actions.
