...I respected the hell out of George W. Bush.
Really. No kidding. When he stated in an interview "I don't think we can win" the war on terror, I was staggered. Because he was right, and because he was honest, and because he was making a reasoned evaluation of something that anyone with two licks of sense could have told him.
The "let's declare war on something" mentality reduces complex issues to stark black and white terms that can't begin to encompass the reality of the situation. And when Bush fessed up that the war on terror was, in essence, no more "winnable" than the war on drugs or the war on poverty, I thought, Wow. Okay. Maybe he's really learning. Maybe he really is capable of growth in a way that his fixed "stay the course" mentality would make you think he's not.
And the Democrats went to town comparing terrorism to the Soviet Union which, by the way, self-destructed, and the fall of Communism which, last I checked, is still around. And I thought, "That's just stupid. This is another of those embarrassed-to-be-a-Democrat moments. How can they pounce on him when he's so indisputably RIGHT?"
So what happened? Bush flip flopped. Suddenly the war on terrorism IS winnable, yes siree, don't you believe anything else.
Oh well. Back to status quo.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at August 31, 2004 01:20 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingSometimes, I think that nobody makes sense anymore. Really, can someone just say something and STICK TO IT?
They are all afraid to tell the uncomfortable truth. People tend to vote against truth. Talk about raising taxes? Death to a campaign. If the war on terror can't be won, then the American people will never truly be safe, so lets keep that uncomfortable truth to ourselves. Most Americans prefer soundbites to indepth analysis anymore. (And if you don't believe that, just look at the deterioration of news on the networks. There are many less people employed than years ago. Less fact checkers. Less time to work on a story. Not to mention pressure to be number one so they can charge more for commercial airtime.)To find out what is going on takes much more work than in the past. Who has time for that when you're working to put food on the table?
Except, of course, that the context of his statement in the conversation (if that matters to anyone here) was that it's not winnable *within 4 years*.
But there's no liberal media bias. Heck, no, that couldn't happen....
He didn't flip or flop.
RUSH: By the way, let's talk about the American Legion convention. I watched your speech there this morning, and the Democrats are harping on something you said yesterday, or that was aired yesterday on the Today Show with Matt Lauer about the -- your comment about we can't win it, meaning the war on terror. I think I know what you meant but John Edwards is out there saying (paraphrased), "A-ha! Bush is now flip-flopping, and we, John Kerry and I, we can win this, and Bush is..." What did you mean by this?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate you bringing that up. Listen, I should have made my point more clear about what I was saying, you know, what I meant. What I meant was that this is not a conventional war. It is a different kind of war. We're fighting people who have got a dark ideology who use terrorists, terrorism, as a tool. They're trying to shake our conscience. They're trying to shake our will, and so in the short run the strategy has got to be to find them where they lurk. I tell people all the time, "We will find them on the offense. We will bring them to justice on foreign lands so we don't have to face them here at home," and that's because you cannot negotiate with these people and in a conventional war there would be a peace treaty or there would be a moment where somebody would sit on the side and say we quit. That's not the kind of war we're in, and that's what I was saying. The kind of war we're in requires, you know, steadfast resolve, and I will continue to be resolved to bring them to justice, but as well as to spread liberty -- and this is one of the interesting points of the debate, Rush, is that, you know, I believe societies can be transformed because of liberty, and I believe that Iraq and Afghanistan will be free nations, and I believe that those free nations right there in the heart of the Middle East will begin to transform that region into a more hopeful place, which in itself will be a detriment to the ability to these terrorists to recruit -- and that's what I was saying. I probably needed to be a little more articulate.
RUSH: Well, it's like saying that they're all over the world. You're not fighting a country here, a series of countries. You're fighting a movement that will hide out anywhere it can, and you're always going to have a renegade terrorist. Even if, let's say, we wipe out Al-Qaeda. There's some other group or individual and they spring up and blow up a bomb somewhere. That's always going to happen because it always has.
THE PRESIDENT: Right. Really what I was saying to Lauer was, is that this is not the kind of war where you sit down and sign a peace treaty. A totally different kind of war. But we will win it. Your listeners have got to know that I am, I know we'll win it, but we're going to have to be resolved and firm, and we can't doubt what we stand for, and the long-term solution is to spread freedom. I love to tell the story, Rush, about a meeting with Prime Minister Koizumi. He's my friend. He's the prime minister of Japan. It wasn't all that long ago that may dad your dad and others dads were fighting against the Japanese, but because after World War II we believed that Japan could self-govern and could be democratic in its own fashion, Japan is no longer an enemy; it's a friend, and so I sit down with him to help resolve issues like the North Korean peninsula in other words. We're working together to keep the peace. The same thing is going to happen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that's when I say the transformational power of liberty. That's what I'm talking about.
Not quite like voting for a war your now against, but you know...
Mr. Tichy, if you're going to insist on all comments by public figures only being taken in context, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to cover your ears while I laugh reallllly loudly.
Since when has either side bothered with the CONTEXT of an opponent's statements? Bush has played this game long enough and well enough that he should know better than to put together the phrase "we can't win the war on terrorism" regardless of the context or what words precede or follow the phrase.
In CONTEXT, neither Kerry nor Bush has flip-flopped on the war. It's just that now the sauce for the goose has become sauce for the gander.
Dave, you are absolutely right. Just a few weeks ago, Kerry gave a speech stating he would wage the war on terror, saying, "I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side."
No sooner did this sentence leave his lips than Cheney was making this remark, "America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive."
So, if you're going to bitch about context, then realize that both sides abuse it.
I figured some folks might actually want to read what he said.
"Lauer: “You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?”
President Bush: “I have never said we can win it in four years.”
Lauer: “So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?”
President Bush: “I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world –- let's put it that way. I have a two pronged strategy. On the one hand is to find them before they hurt us, and that's necessary. I’m telling you it's necessary. The country must never yield, must never show weakness [and] must continue to lead. To find al-Qaida affiliates who are hiding around the world and … harm us and bring ‘em to justice –- we're doing a good job of it. I mean we are dismantling the al-Qaidaas we knew it. The long-term strategy is to spread freedom and liberty, and that's really kind of an interesting debate. You know there's some who say well, ‘You know certain people can't self govern and accept, you know, a former democracy.’ I just strongly disagree with that. I believe that democracy can take hold in parts of the world that are now non-democratic and I think it's necessary in order to defeat the ideologies of hate. History has shown that it can work, that spreading liberty does work. After all, Japan is our close ally and my dad fought against the Japanese. Prime Minister Koizumi, is one of the closest collaborators I have in working to make the world a more peaceful place.”
As I've said before, nobody could possibly believe that we could ever win "the War On Terror" if it is defined as ending terrorism forever. By that definition we have also not won the war against the nazis since there are still those who espouse fascistv beliefs. However, most of us would logically conclude that the war against the Nazi's ended in victory because their philosophy is no longer one that poses any kind of major threat, outside of spy movies.
Similarly, we can win the War on Terror if you define it as Bush does--making it impossible for organized, government supported terror organizations to operate. They will ALWAYS be able to shoot up a VA hospital or plant bombs on a Greyhound bus or set off a car bomb in downtown Manhatten. Without the resources of a rogue nation however, they will never rise far above the level of minor parasites. They will not be what they hope to be--major players, influencing the future course of the world.
Sometimes, I think that nobody makes sense anymore. Really, can someone just say something and STICK TO IT?
No, because there are so many areas of gray.
PAD:
Actually, as much as I support him, I was surprised to hear him admit to the war not being winnable. But, amazingly, I agree with you AND BUSH. The war on terror isn't winnable. Still, you left off the last part of his answer, "we can make things more difficult for the terrorists".
Now, on the other side, I never really thought of the war as something "winnable". I, and I suspect, many other Bush supporters, have always seen it to be more symbolic, like the "war on crime" which isn't "winnable" either.
On a related note, has anyone noted that France has had 2 journalists kidnapped and their lives threatened unless France allows Muslims to wear the head scarves in the public schools again, which France had banned?
Just to throw in a pop-culture perspective, the whole thing reminds me of the ultimate message of the Angel series finale.
Just because a war can't be won, that doesn't mean you shouldn't fight it.
"Just to throw in a pop-culture perspective, the whole thing reminds me of the ultimate message of the Angel series finale.
Just because a war can't be won, that doesn't mean you shouldn't fight it."
as long as I get to kill the dragon.
Travis
The difference between the war against the Nazis and the war on terrorism is that the Nazis were a group of people bound by a common philosophy and goal: world domination and the extermination of what they considered "undesirables." We won because we stopped from achieving their goals.
"Terrorism" is not a group of people. Terrorism is a tactic used by certain people to achieve goals. You cannot wage war against a tactic. We can wage a war against religious extremists who promote terrorirsm. We can wage (and win) a war against the nations and organizations that support and promote terrorism. But, we can't wage a war against terrorism.
Yeah... both Bush and Kerry have promised to win the War on Terror. They both know it's a lie.
Vote for ABB/K this November.
From Rush from James Tichy
>>There's some other group or individual and they spring up and blow up a bomb somewhere. That's always going to happen because it always has.
Which means unwinnable, yes?
PAD
If you have been paying attention, Bush always said that we werent going to win this war in any conventional fashion. He said this before Congress on television. He also said that this something that would last beyond his administration. This is not news. Anyone here can look up what the president said in his own words since 2001.
Umemployment rate 5.5 percent
Crude Oil down to 42.15
Stock market up
Iraq free
Afghanistan free
Bush approval rating 52% according to Gallup
An open letter to PAD:
Thank you. Thank you for providing a forum for me both to express my views, and for an opportunity to hear other views. We probably could not be more different in our views on many things, but I don't take for granted your allowing us to post in reply to your thoughts. So thanks for giving me a "liberal" education.
Regarding Bush, I agree with you partially. I don't see it as a true "flip-flop," but I think what he said yesterday is true at its heart. And I would have liked it better if he had stuck to it. That being said, his "spin" on it today I also agree with. It just depends on how you define your terms and what you mean by "victory" or "winning."
While we don't agree on Bush, the war on terror, etc., I do believe you post what you think and believe, and I find it interesting (and occasionally maddening). Thanks.
Jim in Iowa
I'm a Kerry voter but much too much was taken from Bush's statement. There will not be a conventional win like he stated occurs in a traditional war but there will be a win, moreso if Kerry takes the election.
If it wasn't for Iraq, this would be a landslide election for Bush.
The problem, Peter, is that you did not expect Shrub to flip flop. You should be used to it by now. Shrub is an expert at this.
ABB
If it wasn't for Iraq, this would be a landslide election for Bush.
No it wouldn't. If it wasn't Iraq, it would be the 2000 election. Or the economy, Or the environment.
In fact, many of the Democrats that are currently FOR Bush would be against him.
I'm under no illusion that many Democrats and specifically liberals, hate this president on a very visceral level. But it's more because they lost the 2000 election than because of ideology.
eclark said "I'm under no illusion that many Democrats and specifically liberals, hate this president on a very visceral level. But it's more because they lost the 2000 election than because of ideology."
Why do people want to believe this? I've hear it claimed of Terry McAuliffe, now the electorate in general. I wonder about the minds of people who think that grudge-holding is the most logical explanation for political antipathy. Does this come from not seeing any flaws in their candidate and therefor believing it must be a grudge thing? Does it reflect on the person saying it and their reaction to adversity? Or is everyone so wrapped up in this idea that the "other side" has to necessarily just flat-out be bad people?
In a Bush quote from above:
"On the one hand is to find them before they hurt us, and that's necessary. I’m telling you it's necessary. The country must never yield, must never show weakness [and] must continue to lead. To find al-Qaida affiliates who are hiding around the world and … harm us and bring ‘em to justice –- we're doing a good job of it. I mean we are dismantling the al-Qaidaas we knew it."
Except of course for Osama Bin Laden (you remember him, don't you? The guy they said started all this mess?),who several months ago was declared "no longer a priority." I would like to think that this means that the military knows what it's doing, and has changed objectives (yet again). However, I am cynical enough to think that it really means they will finally actually "capture" him...say, around the first of November?
No, E. Clark, many of us that are against Shrub are against him because he is an idiot.
I'm sure you've all heard this info by now, but let's not forget that Bush has failed in his promise to fight the war against poverty.
Check out the following link to an article that contains the numbers showing that--since Bush took office--the decline in poverty reversed to an increase, median household incomes have dropped, and the number of adults without insurance has gone up.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35175-2004Aug26.html
Daniel
As one of your neighbours to the north, I must say that reading these exchanges gives me that same guilty feeling that I get watching a car crash with victims strewn everywhere and nothing but recriminations on all sides rather than a mutual effort to help each other. Not to mention a visceral shiver of fear. Don't you think that the venom and the vitriol are frightening, particularly when one considers the military might your country wields and the level of personal weaponry your citizens own?
I ask myself "Whither America?" Can this internecine antipathy abate? After the election, what is going to be the mood of the population in the years to come? Triumphalism vs. resentment? Relief? Anger? A mutual coming together for the greater good?
At the risk of sounding superior, we just had an election with no fewer than five significant political parties in the contest. We ended up with a minority government (no one party with enough seats form a government), which is going to require our politicians to work together if anything is going to get done. This has worked extraordinarily well in the past and I hope will again. (And why are the words "liberal" and "conservative" now epithets? They're are just points of view. No single philosophy has all the answers.
Your leaders are merely human and yet are not allowed to be so. Mistakes are not taken in stride but rather used as clubs to batter the other. And gods forbid that anyone change their mind about anything. That is a sign of weakness never to be countenanced.
One of our former prime ministers compared Canada's geographical position to sleeping next to an elephant. No matter how companionable the beast, it's every move affects us greatly.
I fear for you and I worry about you. To quote Galactus way back in FF 50: "You have a spark of greatness in you. Be ever mindful of that spark because it can raise you to the stars or bury you in the ruins of war."
Take care of yourselves.
The Rev
This is probably going to get me excommunicated from the site, but I would really like to nominate a soundtrack for this board's political debates.
"Terrorism" is not a group of people. Terrorism is a tactic used by certain people to achieve goals. You cannot wage war against a tactic. We can wage a war against religious extremists who promote terrorirsm. We can wage (and win) a war against the nations and organizations that support and promote terrorism. But, we can't wage a war against terrorism."
That's true but I don't think that very many people really think that the War on Terror is an actual war against every person who uses terrorism as a tactic. It's more or less specific against a particularly virulent brand of radical Islam. If the FBI arrested a bunch of KKK goons tomorrow nobody would consider it a big part of any war on terror.
This whole discussion seems somewhat contrived. I can't believe anyone really though that when LBJ declared a War on Poverty he meant that we could expect one day to wake up with no poor people left in the country. Winning a war doesn't require the obliteration of every aspect of the adversary.
If the FBI arrested a bunch of KKK goons tomorrow nobody would consider it a big part of any war on terror.
This is my Problem with the war on terror.It should be more defined as the war against radical
islamic terrorists.If Terror is going to be stopped all aspects need to be considered and prosecuted as such.Mcveigh and Nichols were angry,american white guys.Despite the conspiracy theories about middle eastern influence bottom line they did it.People that blow up abortion clinics,militia groups ,white separatists,black separatists all terrorists.
The fact that people are like these types of groups are allowed to walk around while we go after the "real threat" of terrorism bothers me.
Yes ,i know what happened with the world trade center but we did not war against pissed off,angry white guys after OKC.Im just saying if we are going to do this we take down everyone.
Sorry to go off thread,just making a point .
Just my opinion:)
The one thing that has struck me as odd about both from both sides of the campaign is the glaring lack of one name when referring to terrorism:
OSAMA BIN LADEN.
Not that I think capturing or killing Bin Laden will not stop the Islamic extremists/fundamentalists; in my not-so-humble opinion, it will raise his standing to a martyrdom next to Mohammend himself...
...but I do wonder what the hell is going on, y'know? When neither side has mentioned him in months, instead concentrating on bullshit like Kerry's behavior 30 years ago in a war that Robert McNamara (spelling?) himself realized and wrote "was just plain WRONG."
And I don't believe this is a "war on terror" (man, I hate that sound bite!)...I believe this is a war of civilizations, or cultures, and, yes, in a large degree, religions. And no one, except maybe Rudy Guiliani, who sort of acknowledged that yesterday during his speech, has the guts to admit it.
Mindy
To Reverend Mr. Black,
Reading your post just emphasized the strength America has. We have people with strong and different ideas. We have a system that allows us to openly debate the issues amongst ourselves. There are people openly protesting in the streets, and it's not only allowed, but often encouraged. All that is asked is that the protests are peaceful and nondestructive.
What's the mood going to be after the election? I will step out on a limb and say that about half of the country will be happy with the outcome, and the other half won't be. The unhappy half will just need to work harder to convince more people that "their" way is the best way, and still try to work together for the common good. It's that simple.
That's one of the wonderful things about the US system of government. The President has a lot of power, but there are checks and balances with the Congress and the Supreme Court. One person cannot have their way all of the time. Is mud thrown back and forth? Yep, sure is. Does some stick? Of course, that's what mud does. But, most of it washes right off. I HONESTLY believe that the majority of the voters look at the issues and make decisions based on the issues. We might not all agree on the priority of the issues, but that's just part of the magic.
America is about freedom, and the responsibilities and costs of freedom. We might not always agree on how we get there, but for the most part, we're all trying to go in the same direction.
I think it's fairly obvious why Osama bin Laden hasn't been mentioned.
You're George W. Bush. You don't want to mention bin Laden because you swore you'd get him dead or alive, and it's several years later and he's still out there. In fact, part of the reason you went after Saddam was to give you a shot at catching a high profile bad guy, and you succeeded. So why in the world bring up the bad guy you did NOT catch.
You're John Kerry. Osama bin Laden remains a gaping wound for Bush, but it's one you dare not take. Why? Because if you go around saying, "Where's bin Laden? Bush is a failure because he has yet to round up bin Laden," and then bin Laden is apprehended anytime in the next few months...the election's over. Seriously. You're standing there with huge dripping gobs of egg on your face. How are you supposed to spin it? "Took Bush long enough; if only he'd been focusing on bin Laden instead of diverting forces to a needless war in Iraq, we might have got him sooner." Which is true, but it sure isn't going to play in Peoria. You'll just look like a schmuck. Better not to say anything.
That's why.
PAD
PAD-- regarding Osama--you are 100% spot-on.
I don't buy the paranoid idea that we have Osama and Bush is just waiting for the right moment to display him on camera...but given the recent captures of people close to him in Pakistan it would be a tremendous role of the dice for kerry.
That said, if the convention keeps hitting the high points that it has so far and Bush comes out with a big bump and Kerry has to do a big shake-up of his staff--all of which look very possible at this point--it may be time for a swing for the fences.
Nice job by Arnold. I don't think that John McCain is gonna want to be changing the constitutional requirements for Presidential birthplace any time soon.
Bush flip-flopping? Are you serious? At least it's something he's certain about, like those weapons of mass destruction.
Welp, the whole comment he meant was that we could never defeat terrorism completely. It's like the war on poverty by the Dimocrats for over 40 years. After trillions of dollars, they should have won it, right? Nope, 'cause no matter what you do in both cases, there will always be people with an axe to grind, wrong or right. So, we can't win it, but we can make it so hard that it will have to work and work to hurt people, unlike the Clinton years where they had a damned cakewalk. We can smother, surpress, punish terror, but defeat it? Might as well say we are going to cure all the diseases plagueing mankind too while you are at it...
Maybe we could if we had a decent amount of stem cells for research...
Karen, we do, they are adult stem cells.
PAD and Bill Mulligan:
The other reason you are not hearing much about OBL from Kerry is because if he wins then he now has the job of hunting him down.
Press: "Mr. Kerry you criticized former President Bush for not capturing Osama Bin Laden. It is now three and a half years into your presidency and he is still at large. Your Republican challenger has promised to focus on capturing Bin Laden if elected...."
You get the idea.
"It just depends on how you define your terms and what you mean by 'victory' or 'winning.' "
Is that anything like "...what your definition of 'is' is"?
Karen says:
"Maybe we could if we had a decent amount of stem cells for research..."
Would any of Bush's critics on this issue (and I'm ione of them) really like to go back to the Clinton policy on stem cell research? Think carefully before answering...
Carl:
>Welp, the whole comment he meant was that we could never defeat terrorism completely. It's like the war on poverty by the Dimocrats for over 40 years. After trillions of dollars, they should have won it, right? Nope, 'cause no matter what you do in both cases, there will always be people with an axe to grind, wrong or right. So, we can't win it, but we can make it so hard that it will have to work and work to hurt people, unlike the Clinton years where they had a damned cakewalk. We can smother, surpress, punish terror, but defeat it? Might as well say we are going to cure all the diseases plagueing mankind too while you are at it...
Only difference being that the War on Poverty has, to the besr of my knowledge, never been exploited to rationalize an invsion of a sovereign nation, going up against a large part of a world who disagrees with us, killing off thousands of innocents, etc. In fact, the worst thing that one could say about the war on poverty, is that it has been proven ineffective...... while that statement has proven to be one of the least damning statements that can be made about Bush's war on terror.
If one takes the approach that, for the purposes of this exercise, the 'war on terror' refers strictly to stopping the Islamic extremists from wreaking havok in North America and elsewhere, the solution is simple. In the words of Senator Palpatine, "Wipe them out. All of them."
Of course, this is a 'solution' which, even if it were morally defensible (which it isn't, yet), would bring about worse problems down the line.
Back to the drawing board ...
Press: "Mr. Kerry you criticized former President Bush for not capturing Osama Bin Laden. It is now three and a half years into your presidency and he is still at large. Your Republican challenger has promised to focus on capturing Bin Laden if elected...."
You get the idea.
Kerry: Well, you know, three and a half years into my presidency, and I still haven't gotten this mess called Iraq cleaned up. So we still haven't been able to move the 100k troops in Iraq to Afghanistan, where they should have been in the first place to hunt for OBL.
For The Reverend Mr. Black Re: Minority Governments.
Some minority governments in Canada have worked well, the actual majority do not. They generally disolve and lead to yet another election (which I definitely consider not working out). Of the list (from http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/leadersparties/parties/minority.html):
1921 -- Worked out.
1925 -- Lead to "King-Byng affair", did not work out.
1926 -- Worked out.
1957 -- Another election was called in 1958. This I would consider not working out as all the election did was lead to another election.
1962 -- Definitely didn't work out and Diefenbaker was out in less than a year.
1963 -- Another election called in 1965 to try to win the majority. Again, I wouldn't consider this working out.
1965 -- Worked out.
1972 -- A second election was called within two years. Again, not working out.
1979 -- Joe Clark's very short run as PM. Again, not working out.
Just wanted to point that out.
Darrell
Btw, I love this quote from Bush's wife at the RNC last night:
"You can count on him, especially in a crisis."
Maybe she hasn't seen the footage of Bush after the 2nd plane struck on 9/11?
Or maybe she understands that he kept a cool head, and is not going to criticize him for what was not a tragic decision just because Michael Moore says that we should.
Maybe she read what John Kerry did:
From Larry King Live
KING: Where were you on 9/11?
KERRY: I was in the Capitol. We'd just had a meeting -- we'd just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle's office, looking out at the Capitol. And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon. And then word came from the White House, they were evacuating, and we were to evacuate, and so we immediately began the evacuation.
The second plane hit the WTC at 9:03 AM and the plane crashed into the Pentagon at 9:43 AM. Do the math.
Since we’ve now gotten on the subject of stem cell research:
Karen:
“Maybe we could if we had a decent amount of stem cells for research...”
James Tichey:
“Karen, we do, they are adult stem cells.”
While adult stem cells do hold promise in research to cure diseases, they are more difficult to work with because they have to be “unprogrammed” of what they’ve developed over a lifetime first before they can used, which takes a good deal of time. Most researchers agree that the use of embryonic stem cells will yield much quicker results for cures in the relative scheme of things.
Bill Mulligan:
“Would any of Bush's critics on this issue (and I'm ione of them) really like to go back to the Clinton policy on stem cell research? Think carefully before answering...”
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll010626.html
L.H. Hicks,
I understnd that most people are for stem cell research. I'm one of them. I just wanted to point out that A- actually, the government funds more research now, even under Bush's restrictions, than it did when Clinton was president and B- despite what most believe, there is NOTHING stopping private companies from harvesting new fetal stem cell lines.
They may not get federal funding for it but let's face it, if they really thought that they could so all of the things that some stem cell proponants claim--everything from curing baldness to wiping out all diseases, as well as aging--I don't think the lack of government seed money would stop them. There's likely a tidy profit to be made in the whole "curing all diseases" project!
Darrell, it's true that minority governments here in Canada don't always work out. I think that they're still the way to go, though. Any system that requires all the viewpoints to work together is okay in my books. I think the problem is that our system is becoming increasingly polarized, and is in danger of becoming a two-party system like our friends to the south, which I certainly don't want. Hard to reach a compromise when each party feels they have to insist that everything the other parties do is wrong.
The way I see it, we'd ideally have a minority government situation under a system of proportional representation. This would lead to greater stability in the long-term policies of the government, instead of the massive (dare I say it) flip-flop from liberal to conservative that we end up with every decade or so currently.
If anyone, Canadian or American, is interested in the concept of Proportional Representation, there's an excellent video by John Cleese (about the UK political system of course, but it's a good watch nonetheless) that you can check out here, in RealVideo format.
L.H. Hicks wrote: "While adult stem cells do hold promise in research to cure diseases, they are more difficult to work with because they have to be “unprogrammed” of what they’ve developed over a lifetime first before they can used, which takes a good deal of time. Most researchers agree that the use of embryonic stem cells will yield much quicker results for cures in the relative scheme of things. "
Please go do a little more research. Adult stem cell research does not simply show promise, it has *produced* over 30 known cures. It has led to over 30 effective treatments of diseases. And, yes, it does show promise for even more.
Embryonic stem cell research has produced none -- let me repeat, not one actual treatment. Why? Because they are unprogrammed, and we are having a hard time figuring out how to program. Every cure that has been tried leads to tumors and cancer because we don't know how to stop the cells once we turn them on.
The media has done an extremely poor job (dare I say, they have demonstrated a bias?) regarding this issue. We are not moments away from a cure for a host of diseases. In truth, we have spent and are spending a large amount of money on embryonic research. But it is almost all Federal money because most private investors are not confident that we will be able to overcome the problems. As noted above, there is *no* ban on private research.
While it is possible embyonic research will produce some very valueable cures (ignoring, for the moment, the ethics questions some have), the reality is adult stem cell is the reality while embryonic research is at best a distant promise.
Jim in Iowa
Jim,
You raise some good points. I've worked with cell tissue in bio research and while I would never say that there is NO way that fetal setm cells will produce great results, I suspect that more will come from adult cell lines.
The great potential of the fetal cell lines--their ability to become almost anything--is what makes them so attractive, but the reality is that it will be very hard to control them. Adult stem cells may have more limited potential but are easier to control.
And control is the key. I mean, we've already managed to defeat death at the cellular levl. We can make you immortal. Henrietta Lacks will live forever in the HeLa cell lines. It's not all it's cracked up to be.
Bill and Jim, no authoritative researchers claim that stem cell research will lead to cures for all diseases. That's a myth. It's the opponents on the right who attribute such claims to those who support the research. And the hard truth is that the only reason that federal funding is denied by the current administration is to placate those who oppase it for religious and moral reasons, and while I empathize with those who feel that way, I in no way support such feelings as universal justification for denying it. No babies will be killed to advance this research, and as I'm sure you've heard many times over, the research would only use embryonic cells that would have been destroyed anyway.
Yes, I've seen some studies supporting the superiority of adult stem cell research, but I've seen many more in support of embryonic cells, and I've made my informed opinions based on that. It wouldn't make sense for researchers not to acquiesce to using adult stem cells only, and thus avoid controversy and ridicule, if embryonic cells didn't hold more promise.
The Reverend Mr. Black wrote: "Don't you think that the venom and the vitriol are frightening, particularly when one considers the military might your country wields and the level of personal weaponry your citizens own?"
Nah.
Despite our political differences, most Americans pull together when the chips are down. If there is a natural disaster or terrorist attack, for example, we don't ask someone their political persuasion before we start helping them.
In my family, for example, there are liberals, conservatives and independents, and we all get along just fine.
"Bill and Jim, no authoritative researchers claim that stem cell research will lead to cures for all diseases. That's a myth. It's the opponents on the right who attribute such claims to those who support the research."
Maybe no authoritative researcher does but such claims get expounded by laymen all the time (look no further than up above, although I think Karen was speaking tongue in cheek). You can find plenty of idiots who even claim that reagan's alzheimers might have been cured had he only blah blah blah.
It's not just the right wing
Deano,
I like you, dude. But your broad statement regarding terrorsm is sweeping, slightly misinformed, smplistic and scary, IMO.
First, there is a huge difference between domestic "terrorists" and the Islamic fanatics that want to kill us. The latter have attacked us to various degrees since the hostage crisis in 1979 under Carter. Since then, there have been bombings in Beiruit under Reagan,the Pan Am Flight 103 incident under Reagan, the USS Cole incident, the first World Trade Center bombing under Clinton, the embassy bombings under Clinton, and of course 9/11.
This constant muddying of the issue by bringing up the animals McVeigh and Nichols is political correctness at its worst. It says that A.) the Oklahoma City bombing should somehow be lumped in with groups who are tryng to kill us in the name of Islam and who are organized and have a uniting ideology/religious fundamentalist belief and motve for their actions. I remember some fool saying, "So, why didn't we invade Ireland after Oklahoma City?" Pure idiocy.
Which brings up the problem - if we do profile Arab men, since 100% of the terrorist attacks from abroad have been Arab men, we are accused of being racist instead of applauded for using common sense.
As for the other groups you mentioned, well, I know many of these group are and currently have been watched carefully by the government. The KKK and black sepratists say some truly disgusting stuff, but I don't recall either one of them being responsible for a wave of violence in the last quarter-century. And you really have to be careful when you say "take them all down". Because if you silence these vile individuals for being hateful, who's next? Christians who believe homosexuality is an abominaton? Leftists who bash Christians? Groups who oppose affirmative action - many of whom are accused of being hateful towards minorities and women? People with radical environmental ideas, who could be lumped in with those who spke trees to hurt those using chainsaws?
You have to be really careful.
On a lighter note - Dude, you really should give Meltzer another shot, as "Identity Crisis" is one of the best mysteries of any drama I have read in years. You obviously had an emotional reaction, which was the point. I mean, PAD killed Jean DeWolff in a brutal fashion, and thought that character was cool and had a lot of potential. Karen Page, Gwen Stacy, Kyle Rayner's girlfriend Alex (who was stuffed in a refrigerator) and many others have "bit the bullet" in stories, and most of them are remembered as great stories. Heck, the Joker brutalized and crippled Barbara Gordon and The Killing Joke is considered one of the best stories ever, while Gordon's character as Oracle is far stronger than it ever was as Batgirl. Give IC another chance, man:)
>Which brings up the problem - if we do profile Arab men, since 100% of the terrorist attacks from abroad have been Arab men, we are accused of being racist instead of applauded for using common sense.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of Islamics are light-skinned, so the profiling that our government is currently practicing is not only pissing people off, but also largely ineffective.
On 9/11 John kerry was not the President of the US. He did not wield executive authority or possess any control of the US military. Indeed, other than the small senatorial staff, he had no executive authority whatsover. He was, in most respects, just a normal person.
Bush on 9/11 was the leader of the US, the one person would could command the US military. For all we knew, there were several other planes in the air loaded with lunatic suicide bombers. It was absolutely imperative that Bush take action quickly and sitting in a classroom was clearly not a good use of his time. You do not need to believe Moore's sometimes wild speculations to conclude that Bush's actions were suspect.
Now, there were a lot of people who were caught off guard on 911, and Bush was not the only or even the worst offender. This sort of lapse is tolerable once, but comparisons to John Kerry are stupid, because Kerry was not the President at that time.
'we can't win it, but we can make it so hard that it will have to work and work to hurt people, unlike the Clinton years where they had a damned cakewalk'
Someone must have forgotten to tell Ramzi Yousef and the other 93 WTC bommbers, because they were all arrested and put behind wars. Ditto for Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols and the like.
Someone must have forgotten to tell Ramzi Yousef and the other 93 WTC bommbers, because they were all arrested and put behind wars.
Some people say there are no real typos...
BTW, Glenn, does the Preview button not work anymore or am I doing something wrong? I can't can't get a preview to show up. All I get is the page I just had with my comments intact, but my personal info missing.
See what happened here is that PAD has spent too much time concentrating of his ideas for What if..? story lines. That’s all this incident was, a wistful what if. In reality it never happened. Come on George W. learn something? That’s about as likely as what if Aunt May became Spider-man. Yep Super powers, surgery and hormone therapy! Scary as Hell!
Re :Jerome
Okay ,first i didnt say "take em all down",At least I dont think i did.OOPs just checked ,yeah I did.My point was that domestic terror should have the same attention that the islamic terrorists do.I recall a case a few months ago of a white miltia group that was stockpiling weapons and cyanide bombs but this was not given the same attention as some of the arabic people that have been detained which may be a mechanism of the media more than the respective agencies in charge of these things.
By no means am i advocating internment camps for angry white men.What i am saying though is that we should not be so blinded into only seeing arabic muslims as terrorists.As far as hate groups we all have the right to like and hate whomever we choose as long as the hatred doesnot extend to the physical actions ot the violations of the rights of others.Unfortunately many of these groups are united and do use religion to justify their hatred.My take em all down comment..I was watching the Professional the other day the one seen towards the end where Gary oldman says "GET EVERYONE !!!!"must have stuck. :)IMO profiling may cause you to miss something else going on.
On a somewhat lighter note...I actually thought about the Jean Dewolff story and i did enjoy that and Killing joke.So i guess i am being hypocritical in that aspect.My concern was that was no warning about the content.Which if you read my other posts there was a disagreement between me and a local comic store over SUPREME
POWER and the nudity in that comic.Bottom line SP
was put in a plastic bag,IC wasnt even though SP had a tag about the content.I suppose i won since IC# 3 was in a plastic bag the other day.
I guess to an extent i still read comics to escape all the ugliness of reality and this seemed like a bit much to me.Maybe i will try it maybe i wont.
PAD...
Yeah, I know all that (i.e., why no one has mentioned Osama Bin Laden.) I was sorta playing "devil's advocate" by throwing it into the discussion, but it does make me angry that no one has the guts to bring him up...on either side.
Speaking of which, a few minutes ago John McCain was asked by Bob Woodward on Larry King Live why most of his fellow politicians haven't followed his lead in "talking straight from the hip?" (I'm paraphrasing.)
My mom said yesterday that she thinks Bush is going to win the election (I don't think she's too happy about that--I know my dad isn't), and that the 2008 ticket will be Guiliani and McCain...
I must admit that after listening/watching Rudy, I sure wished he was running...
Does seem like Kerry is starting to scramble, doesn't it? (referring to the rumors of a shake-up in his campaign team.) NOT a good sign two months before the election.
How many of us cringed while the Bush girls were on the podium? Embarrassing. REALLY embarrassing. I felt sorry for them.
Mindy
the republican party will never nominate a pro choice candidate both rudy and mcain are pro choice
they may run but they will never be nominated
John McCain on abortion:
"I am proud of my pro-life record in public life, and I will continue to maintain it... As a leader of a pro-life party with a pro-life position, I will persuade young Americans [to] understand the importance of the preservation of the rights of the unborn."
Don't know where you got the idea he was otherwise.
Fred,
No, the system currently n place is pissing a lot of people off because the government , under Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta has refused to use common sense or enact any procedures at airports that would even gve the whiff of profiling. He has piled on lots of useless regulations that inconvenience the maximum number of passengers, whle, at the same time, makng the planes no safer. The most important thing, according to Mneta, is to prohibit airport screeners from paying any extra attenton to anyone who looked like the last several dozen terrorists to attack an Amercan aircraft, embassy, or military installation. nstead, he inssted that the arlnesgo through the manifestly absurd exercise of strip-searchng little old ladies. THAT pisses a lot of people off.
In fact, n one of the more absurd examples, arport security searched Al Gore. Why? To what end? There's a lot of thngs not to like about Gore, but 'm pretty sure he's not a terrorist.
Also, arlines, to avoid gettng sued, are allowng a maxmum of only two Arab men to searched per flight. So taken to an absolute extreme, if three men who literally looked like Al-Sadr, Bin Laden and Kamal Derwish all were boardng the same flight, securty would hesitate to check them all for fear of being sued.
Fnally, I don't believe ever cited "Dark skin" or "olve skin" n describng crtera to search Arab men. I am quite aware many Arab men and women - just like many of African or talian descent are light-skinned. There are many critera to look at, if you know what to look for.
Mndy,
The Bush girls WERE embarrassing. realze they were pokng fun at themselves, but it got so bad, considered changng the channel. It was painful to watch and hear. And when Jenna said, "We have tried to stay out of the spotlight", was like "Thank God! I can see why!"
I can't recall feeling that way before. I've gotten angry listening to people like Sharpton, but I can't recall being so horrified.
Yikes!
Jerome:
>No, the system currently n place is pissing a lot of people off because the government , under Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta has refused to use common sense or enact any procedures at airports that would even gve the whiff of profiling.
"..we are accused of being racist instead of applauded for using common sense.?" This was the statement that I was responding to. Sorry if I misinterpreted your intent.
I agree with this 100%. I have an uncle who had just retired from an administrative position and took a position of security at an airport after 911. I am amazed at the *ahem* training he was given.
>The most important thing, according to Mneta, is to prohibit airport screeners from paying any extra attenton to anyone who looked like the last several dozen terrorists to attack an Amercan aircraft, embassy, or military installation. nstead, he inssted that the arlnesgo through the manifestly absurd exercise of strip-searchng little old ladies. THAT pisses a lot of people off.
This is also true.
>In fact, n one of the more absurd examples, arport security searched Al Gore. Why? To what end? There's a lot of thngs not to like about Gore, but 'm pretty sure he's not a terrorist.
I dunno. Many people thought that his plans would have setroyed America.
>Also, arlines, to avoid gettng sued, are allowng a maxmum of only two Arab men to searched per flight. So taken to an absolute extreme, if three men who literally looked like Al-Sadr, Bin Laden and Kamal Derwish all were boardng the same flight, securty would hesitate to check them all for fear of being sued.
Within the first several months after 911, "Arab-lokking" people were pulled aside as well as being subjected to racism by many that they shared a plane with, a campus with, or walked down a street across from. Working and socializing with someone who was born in the U.S. and has parents from the Middle East, I can confirm all of these as fact first hand.
>Fnally, I don't believe ever cited "Dark skin" or "olve skin" n describng crtera to search Arab men. I am quite aware many Arab men and women - just like many of African or talian descent are light-skinned. There are many critera to look at, if you know what to look for.
True. Unfortunately, most don't.
Jerome - " It says that A.) the Oklahoma City bombing should somehow be lumped in with groups who are tryng to kill us in the name of Islam"
As far as the victims were concerned I doubt there's much difference. Dead is dead.
Dr. Pym - Your comments on minority governments have a certain value, but there are two problems.
1 - the inability of such governments to take decisive, necessary action because it could bring them down in a non-confidence vote
2 - in Canada it could result in the ridiculous scenario playing out where the Bloc Quebecois - whose raison d'etre is the destruction of Canada - being in power. OK, rather unlikely, but mathematically not impossible under minority rules.
If we're supposed to decide who potential enemies are by using the profile of the 9/11 terrorists, why did we invade Iraq? Remember, 15 of the 19 men involved directly in the attacks were Saudi citizens - by your reasoning, wouldn't Saudi Arabia have been the logical target?
I like going off-topic. Do you like going off-topic?
1 - the inability of such governments to take decisive, necessary action because it could bring them down in a non-confidence vote
2 - in Canada it could result in the ridiculous scenario playing out where the Bloc Quebecois - whose raison d'etre is the destruction of Canada - being in power. OK, rather unlikely, but mathematically not impossible under minority rules.
1) I don't have any figures in front of me right now, but I do believe that every European country (except the UK) has a proportional representation system that promotes minority governments. Most of them seem to get along just fine. I think that most of the "decisive, necessary actions" that they'd be prevented from carrying out would be the most extreme, right-or-left-wing ones. Not necessarily the same thing.
2) An interesting point, but despite the Bloc's resurgence in popularity this year, I don't think there's been any serious talk about separatism in some time. Also, there's a lot to be gained by the French having a clear voice in parliament...something that took me several history, geography, and sociology classes to understand. Thirdly, under a proportional representation system (yes that again), the Bloc would actually have less power.
For example, in this year's election, the Bloc received 17.5% of the seats in parliament, with only 12.4% of the national vote. Under a PR system, their seat share would be equal to their vote share, thus reducing the power of regionally-based parties such as the Bloc, in favour of parties that promote national interests.
Thanks for your interest.
Or maybe she understands that he kept a cool head, and is not going to criticize him for what was not a tragic decision just because Michael Moore says that we should.
Sitting there with your mouth hanging open is not keeping a "cool head". It's looking like an idiot, which is something Bush is masterful at.
Everybody wanted to hold Clinton to a higher standard, yet that isn't the case with The Bumbling One.
Either way, this is the President. The man should have done *something* other than sitting in a public school classroom knowing that we were under attack.
The problem here is all these politicians and spin doctors haven't read enough comics....
Otherwise someone would have invoked the phrase "A never-ending battle for..." which is more accurate than "unwinnable" in this context.
(sooner or later EVERYTHING comes back to comics...)
Fred,
One of the most beautiful people I know is a young woman named Zoreh. She is of Iranian descent. She is sharp, intelligent (she's a lawyer), kind-hearted, hard working and beautiful. I remember one time, shortly after 9/11, at a social event in Philly, this middle-aged woman looked concerned and I asked her why. She asked if Zoreh was "on our side". I was incredibly hurt, but simply told her yes, and briefly summarized why she had nothing to "fear". It would have been easy to either A.) Say nothing B.) Call the woman a "racist" and walk away.
But that solves nothing. Racism is based on fear and ignorance. The only way to truly change that is not by enacting laws but trying to change hearts and minds, one at a time, and having the guts to engage people. True victory in something like racism, which is not tangible, can only occur when you take the time to debate people and challenge them about why they feel the way they do, and make THEM realize how wrong they were to feel that way. And that does not and cannot mean that we must overcompensate by enacting insane laws that would allow decent, competent police officers/security people from doing their jobs.
The Star Wolf,
I was of course talking about motivations, coordination of activities and level of frequency of threats.
If "dead is dead" then I guess Mother Nature should be as high up the terrorist list as Osama Bin Laden, snce earthquakes and floods kill thousands of people around the world.
Jerome:
>One of the most beautiful people I know is a young woman named Zoreh. She is of Iranian descent. She is sharp, intelligent (she's a lawyer), kind-hearted, hard working and beautiful. I remember one time, shortly after 9/11, at a social event in Philly, this middle-aged woman looked concerned and I asked her why. She asked if Zoreh was "on our side". I was incredibly hurt, but simply told her yes, and briefly summarized why she had nothing to "fear". It would have been easy to either A.) Say nothing B.) Call the woman a "racist" and walk away.
Agreed.
>But that solves nothing. Racism is based on fear and ignorance.
Agreed.
>The only way to truly change that is not by enacting laws but trying to change hearts and minds, one at a time, and having the guts to engage people. True victory in something like racism, which is not tangible, can only occur when you take the time to debate people and challenge them about why they feel the way they do, and make THEM realize how wrong they were to feel that way.
Agreed... to a point. We can not now nor can we ever dictate morality. It has been attempted in the past with devestating results. What we can do is challenge the thoughts and enforce consequences against behavior. One must never be confused with the other or we are all lost.
>And that does not and cannot mean that we must overcompensate by enacting insane laws that would allow decent, competent police officers/security people from doing their jobs.
True. Although, I'd counter by simply saying that this is a very fine line to walk. Who draws it? You? Me? It is dangerous to subject every white hick with a flannel shirt and a pick-up to investigation simply because that description may match the typical hood-wearing lyncher. Overcompensation goes both ways, afterall.
Again, both sides meet at a very fine line and we must all constantly remind ourselves of that and challenge our oun thinking.
Fred,
Of course it is a fine lne to walk. But if, using your example, a black man was lynched in the South, it would be quite insane to use energy and resources to stop Asians or self-loathing black men (or women)n the name of "fairness" and non-stereotyping . Because history and the officers' experience have shown that it is VERY likely, if not an absolute certainty, that it IS and angry, uneducated redneck in a pickup truck who committed the act.
As the Arab woman Fedwa Malt-Douglas wrote in The New York Times, on February 6, 2002 in a column titled "Profile Me", she said she does not blame those who are fearful of people who look like her as much as she does the people who look like her who gave people a genuine reason to be fearful. She says she supports profiling. Why? Because she doesn't want to die either. That knd of trumps potential hurt feelings.
Jerome:
>Of course it is a fine lne to walk. But if, using your example, a black man was lynched in the South, it would be quite insane to use energy and resources to stop Asians or self-loathing black men (or women)n the name of "fairness" and non-stereotyping . Because history and the officers' experience have shown that it is VERY likely, if not an absolute certainty, that it IS and angry, uneducated redneck in a pickup truck who committed the act.
As the Arab woman Fedwa Malt-Douglas wrote in The New York Times, on February 6, 2002 in a column titled "Profile Me", she said she does not blame those who are fearful of people who look like her as much as she does the people who look like her who gave people a genuine reason to be fearful. She says she supports profiling. Why? Because she doesn't want to die either. That knd of trumps potential hurt feelings.
I'm not arguing the ridiculousness of picking out vice presidents or old Jewish women as potential threat, my concern isn't even with hurt feelings. I simply don't think that it is any more effective to profile all Arabs at airports than it would be to profile all white men in a state where lynchings occurred. Not only a waste of resources, but one tends to provoke ill will from people who had none previously. It just makes no practical or moral sense to me. Practical moreso than moral.
Either way, this is the President. The man should have done *something* other than sitting in a public school classroom knowing that we were under attack.
Like what? I mean, I've heard every body criticize Bush, and it's pretty easy with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, but what would you have done THEN at that moment? Considering Bush probably didn't know anymore at that particular moment than you did.
I mean, come on. Let's see if you can truly be fair. You're President. An aide rushes in and tells you that a plane has hjit the World Trade Center. Armed with no more information than that, What would you have done in the intervening seven minutes that would have changed anything?
I remember watching it on tv and it wasn't until the second plane hit that I even thought something was up.
eclark:
>Either way, this is the President. The man should have done *something* other than sitting in a public school classroom knowing that we were under attack.
Like what? I mean, I've heard every body criticize Bush, and it's pretty easy with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, but what would you have done THEN at that moment? Considering Bush probably didn't know anymore at that particular moment than you did.
I mean, come on. Let's see if you can truly be fair. You're President. An aide rushes in and tells you that a plane has hjit the World Trade Center. Armed with no more information than that, What would you have done in the intervening seven minutes that would have changed anything?
I remember watching it on tv and it wasn't until the second plane hit that I even thought something was up.
The big difference being that none of us are president and should not be held to the same standards. This is no different than a police officer being placed in a position where he needed to respond when "off duty". I'm a counselor at a college. I'm expected to respond to certain ciris on campus in a certain manner. I would not expect a student or even another staff member or faculty to respond in the way I am expected to.... I certainly would attempt to dodge my responsibility should I not respond at all.
Faus paus at the very least.
Craig wrote: "Sitting there with your mouth hanging open is not keeping a "cool head". It's looking like an idiot, which is something Bush is masterful at."
Occasionally, my wife, relatives or friends will walk up to me and say, "What's wrong?" Invariably I say something like, "Huh? What do you mean?" And they'll respond, "You look really mad." Yet most of the time in the moments preceding an exchange like this, what's really going through my mind is something thoughtful or innocuous -- something like "Hmmm, I wonder what the creamy filling of a Twinkie is made out of?" or "Is Sirius 20 light years away or 25?"
Thus, when Michael Moore jumps up and down and says, "Look! Look! Bush looks dumb right after he was told about 9-11" I shrug it off with a big "So what?"
Face it, we have no idea exactly what Bush's aide said to him at that moment, and we have no idea what was REALLY going through Bush's head. All we can do is assume, and as a wise man once said, "When you ass-u-me, you might make an ass of u and me."
RMaheras:
>Face it, we have no idea exactly what Bush's aide said to him at that moment, and we have no idea what was REALLY going through Bush's head. All we can do is assume, and as a wise man once said, "When you ass-u-me, you might make an ass of u and me."
In recent interviews Bush's aide stated that he said, "America is under attack."
There is really not a lot of room for misinterpretation there.
I wouldn't necessarily vote the guy out of office on that moment alone, but....
It's been a while since I was on the site (or a lot of the net for that matter). It's nice to see some things never change.
Fred,
1.) "I certainly would attempt to dodge my responsibility should I not respond at all"
Er, I'm pretty sure you meant "I certainly would NOT attempt to dodge my responsiblity". Right? And F.Y.I.: It's "Faux" not "Faus".
2.) Final comment for now on racial profiling:
You see a "moral" problem wth profiling all Arab men at airports or all white men after a lynching. First, neither I nor any reasonable person suggests that. It's like trying to stop all speeders. But DUI checkpoints are usually set up near bars. That makes sense (although I disagree with the concept itself).As stated, there are many criteria to look at. Is the person behaving suspiciously? Does he or she have a weapon, etc. But when the overwhelming likelihood is that members of a certain group ether committed or might commit an activity, based on prior experience and a pattern of history, it is morally reprehensible to waste time and resources so that said group isn't "disproportionately" singled out. Last I knew, there weren't too many black members of the KKK.
Does this terrify you as much as this terrifies me?
Kerry and EU would offer Iran a nuclear deal
Have those people not remembered what happened when Clinton foolishly gave North Korea nuclear material to "rebuild their nuclear reactors"?
Gaah!
Don,
"Why do people want to believe this?" (That the 2000 election is a huge reason the Democrats hate Bush so much")
Let's see...
1.) New York Democrats are still pushing for "international monitors" for this election based on 2000.
2.) It is constantly bandied about that "the people didn't pick Bush, the Supreme Court did"
3.) Last year in Philadelphia, a close mayoral election was turned into a landslide, when the corrupy mayor was shown to be investigated by the federal government for bribes, etc. The rallying cry became "Don't let Bush and Ashcroft hijack ths election, like they did in Florida".
4.) An aide to the former mayor of Scranton, said to him on TV a couple of months ago, "We are gong to put John Kerry in the White House and make up for that election which was STOLEN! Stolen!"
5.) Margaret Carlson, on last week's Capital Gang, when asked about what Kerry could do to avod defeat lke Gore, said, "I don't know that he lost. He got the most votes."
6.) Jesse Jackson still talks about "Black disenfranchisement".
7.) Al Sharpton, in a debate, said the "Republicans are against democracy, citing Florida.
8.) Sharpton again, this year, "Bush says we don't need a permission slip from the U.N.? Heck, he doesn't think he needs the most votes to be President."
9.) Michael Moore, in "Stupid White Men" devotes a lot of the book to Florida 2000, and in a list of world leaders, Has "President" George W. Bush in quotation marks and with an asterisk.
10.) In "F 9/11", Moore focuses quite a bit of time on Election 2000 and how Gore "really" won the election.
Gee, I have no idea why many people believe Democrats are still angry over Election 2000!
What would you have done in the intervening seven minutes that would have changed anything?
Well, contacting the White House would've been a start, but that's obviously a stretch to expect something so simple to be done.
He's Commander in Chief for what reason again?
Can't imagine what Bush would do if somebody dropped a nuke on his ranch in Texas. That might atleast cause him to choke on another pretzel.
Gee, I have no idea why many people believe Democrats are still angry over Election 2000!
Maybe because, all around, it was a poor representation of how things work.
The whole thing was a fiasco from the start, and it's rather sad that it ended up the way it did, regardless of who wanted what votes recounted.
Probably even worse than that is the fact that, 4 years later, I'm not sure we've remedied the situation at all.
Um, Jerome?
The claim made was not that "a lot of Democrats are still angry about 2000."
The claim was that 2000 is the ONLY reason for the visceral dislike of Bush.
You have not addressed that claim, satisfactorily or otherwise. No one is denying that the 2000 election still leaves substantial scars; that's not the same, however, as saying that Bush would be much more loved/respected/etc. now if he'd won a more clear-cut victory.
Happy to help.
TWL
too sleepy to get into this other than pedantry
Craig wrote: "Well, contacting the White House would've been a start, but that's obviously a stretch to expect something so simple to be done."
Hello, Craig, why exactly would he contact the White House? Whenever the President goes anywhere, he takes a virtual city with him.
It is interesting how quick both sides are to read into things. The reality is, we don't know why. Can we speculate? Sure, if you are willing to admit it is a guess. But if you were honest, you would have to admit you could be wrong.
The reality is most people already have a belief about Bush. Some think he is an idiot. So if he sits there for 7 minutes, it is proof he is an idiot.
Others think he is careful and deliberate. He is not normally given to hysterical extremes (unlike, say, Howard Dean).
I have no idea why he say there. But I think his actions throughout that day and for the next few weeks say a lot more than trying to read into 7 minutes of silence.
Arguments from silence are weak, and this is no exception. At least I don't have to explain why my candidate voted for the funding for the war in Iraq before he voted against it. There I can use his actual words to tell me how he handles crisis situations.
(For those who dare, go watch the video at http://www.kerryoniraq.com/ -- it simply uses Kerry's own words about the war to demonstrate his lack of clarity and conviction.)
Jim in Iowa
It was more than seven minutes. Bush followed his reading with a 20 minute photo op. Isn't it nice to have a president who knows his priorities. On being made aware of the second crash, he should have ordered the school vacated at once.
Since everyone seems to know why the Dems are so angry at Bush ( the 200 election, Iraq, blah, blah), maybe someone could tell me why the Republicans are so angry? They have spent an entire convention ripping John Kerry a new asshole while barely mentioning the finer points of the incumbent.
I thought the GOP was all about restoring honor and civility to the office and the political process.
I don't know what conventions you were watching, but nothing has been said, by a Republican, than was said by the Dems at their convention.
While the Dems claimed the high road, they were bashing Bush every step of the way.
KEN:
>I don't know what conventions you were watching, but nothing has been said, by a Republican, than was said by the Dems at their convention.
>While the Dems claimed the high road, they were bashing Bush every step of the way.
While I watched much of the GOP convention with mild facination, I actually had to stiffle a snicker last night when Cheney made a statement of watching our president respond to issues with humility. While many things may be said for or against the man, I'd never have believed that I'd hear this.
Fred
"So if he sits there for 7 minutes, it is proof he is an idiot. Others think he is careful and deliberate. He is not normally given to hysterical extremes (unlike, say, Howard Dean)."
Seven minutes he could have used to be seven minutes closer to direct contact with a command center which could have been useful if the country really was at war. Or at least to start getting emergency actions started on the spot.
And, somehow, I don't think a classroom of pre-teens is a great place to start bluntly discussing out loud one of the worst disasters in the nation's history.
Jim in Iowa:
>(For those who dare, go watch the video at http://www.kerryoniraq.com/ -- it simply uses Kerry's own words about the war to demonstrate his lack of clarity and conviction.)
I did. I want my 13 minutes back. That video is relentlessly dishonest.
To pick just one issue, when Kerry voted for and against the $87,000,000,000, he was voting on DIFFERENT VERSIONS. One was acceptable to him; the other was not. There was never any flip-flopping.
Check the Daily Howler at www.dailyhowler.com for more discussion of the 87B and other alleged flip-flops. The rhetoric is quite heavy, but the facts are sound.
Jerome:
>>1.) "I certainly would attempt to dodge my responsibility should I not respond at all"
Er, I'm pretty sure you meant "I certainly would NOT attempt to dodge my responsiblity". Right? And F.Y.I.: It's "Faux" not "Faus".
Yeah, I noticed both errors when I came back to check the board. I was at work and didn't have time to proof read.
Although, I thought that we had begun to actually discuss points for a moment there, not simply proof reading them.
To pick just one issue, when Kerry voted for and against the $87,000,000,000, he was voting on DIFFERENT VERSIONS.
See, it's things like this when I flip stations from commercials talking about somebody's voting record.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - there are many reasons why somebody could be in favor of something, but then not sign the bill.
Things get attached (which is commonplace) that they don't want, things are changed from the initial approval compared to the final version.
Or, in the case of Iraq, it is decided that invading wasn't the best thing to do after all.
The whole thing was a fiasco from the start, and it's rather sad that it ended up the way it did, regardless of who wanted what votes recounted.
Yes. And in the irony department, the last major report on it that I read was that Bush would have won under Gore's recount method, and Gore would have won under Bush's.
The other thing that's sad is that (from my layman's perspective), both the Florida Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court ruled badly. The FSC ignored Florida law and election guidelines (which was pointed out by the dissenting Chief Justice) in their decision. I still think to this day that the US Supreme Court - knowing they couldn't interpret Florida Law and send it back - found a way of interpreting the law so that the outcome is what the FSC should have come up with in the first place. Two wrongs aren't supposed to make a right, but in this case I think that was the decision.
Probably even worse than that is the fact that, 4 years later, I'm not sure we've remedied the situation at all.
Agreed. I'm still annoyed that we've moved to touchscreens in my district. I can't request a paper ballot, which I'd prefer. A clear paper trail is a good idea. Optical scanners (the connect-the-bars method) are best, IMHO.
In answer to two subjects brought up above:
1) Regarding Bush's inactivity for seven minutes and was it an indication of stupidity? Yes, of course it was, if for no other reason than this: It might have occurred to him somewhere in that seven minutes that a photo op with him reading to children was not only an irrelevancy in the face of America being attacked, but was going to make him look spectacularly inept for just sitting there. When someone is called the Commander-in-Chief, you kind of expect him to command. Here's a politician who, in seven minutes of musing, was unable to come to the independent conclusion that it was, if nothing else, politically bad to appear indecisive in front of cameras recording your every breath.
2) I'm not angry about the 2000 election. I'm just amused by it. Here's the GOP, the party ostensibly for smaller government. The party that believes states should be able to handle their own affairs. And in a burst of hypocrisy, they sprinted straight to the Supreme Court to get their guy appointed, rather than let the state of Florida handle the matter as it was doing. Thus does an entire administration rest on a stench-ridden foundation of hypocrisy, and GOP pundits have been shoveling BS for so many years that they can't even smell it.
PAD
Yes, and the Democrats - who historically try to federalize everything - were screaming for State's rights because they knew the FSC was more left-leaning than the USSC. The hypocrisy was on both houses. What's the saying about strange bed-fellows?
A clear paper trail is a good idea.
Yes, lot of good that did Florida in 2000. :)
PAD: ** I'm not angry about the 2000 election. I'm just amused by it. Here's the GOP, the party ostensibly for smaller government. The party that believes states should be able to handle their own affairs. And in a burst of hypocrisy, they sprinted straight to the Supreme Court to get their guy appointed, rather than let the state of Florida handle the matter as it was doing. Thus does an entire administration rest on a stench-ridden foundation of hypocrisy, and GOP pundits have been shoveling BS for so many years that they can't even smell it.**
Again, proves my point. GWB is as far away from a true Republican than he can be. This is the man that created Homeland Security... but refused to fund it, and made the states fund it. This is the man that mandated States follow No Child Left Behind... but refused to fund it. Again, infringing on States rights. This is the man who believes in taking away State's right to decide on marriage or civil unions of homosexuals, and force an ammendment on them. So much for the power of the individual and states. (oh, and these are only three of the many incidents)
And don't get me started on his version of Christian values.
Incindenary. Of Course.
Travis
**And don't get me started on his version of Christian values.**
Gee, I can be an ass, can't I? Ignore this, if you will.
Travis
(Yeah, I just know how to offend about everyone)
2) I'm not angry about the 2000 election. I'm just amused by it. Here's the GOP, the party ostensibly for smaller government. The party that believes states should be able to handle their own affairs. And in a burst of hypocrisy, they sprinted straight to the Supreme Court to get their guy appointed, rather than let the state of Florida handle the matter as it was doing. Thus does an entire administration rest on a stench-ridden foundation of hypocrisy, and GOP pundits have been shoveling BS for so many years that they can't even smell it.
PAD, that's crap.
The FSC was trying to do an end run around around an earlier ruling by the Supreme Court which ordered the FSC to come up with more consistent standards to judge the votes by. Instead of doing this, and following the law, the FSC tried to sneak a vote recount by on a weekend to avoid Supreme Court action which they KNEW was going to come. They INVITED the Supreme Court intervention. Furthermore, their OWN decision to go ahead with that recount was disagreed with by none other than their OWN Chief Justice, a Democrat.
Now why did they do this? Because in Florida, if the FSC couldn't come up with the standards needed to allow a full recount, the ball would have been tossed into the Legislature's court. Florida law gives the legislature the authority to simply choose the delegates to the electoral college if a voting decision can't be deteremined. And with a predominantly Republican Legislature, it's likely that Bush would have gotten Florida's electoral votes anyway.
Asking people sworn to uphold the law to follow it, is not hypocritical. Nice try though.
1) Regarding Bush's inactivity for seven minutes and was it an indication of stupidity? Yes, of course it was, if for no other reason than this: It might have occurred to him somewhere in that seven minutes that a photo op with him reading to children was not only an irrelevancy in the face of America being attacked, but was going to make him look spectacularly inept for just sitting there. When someone is called the Commander-in-Chief, you kind of expect him to command. Here's a politician who, in seven minutes of musing, was unable to come to the independent conclusion that it was, if nothing else, politically bad to appear indecisive in front of cameras recording your every breath.
To quote Patrick Swayze from "Roadhouse", "Opinions vary".
Of course, I expect cynicism from you regarding politicians, and particularly Bush. I suspect that had he actually done anything else, you'd be saying how easily rattled he became.
Um, Jerome?
The claim made was not that "a lot of Democrats are still angry about 2000."
The claim was that 2000 is the ONLY reason for the visceral dislike of Bush.
Since I actually used the word "visceral" in description of the dislike, I'm assuming you're discussing "my" claim.
I said it was MORE likely that it was the 2000 election, than because of ideology. I never made the claim that it was the ONLY reason for people to dislike Bush.
And just in case you don't believe me, I went through the posts and clipped my own words:
I'm under no illusion that many Democrats and specifically liberals, hate this president on a very visceral level. But it's more because they lost the 2000 election than because of ideology.
emphasis added
Whatever the dubious motivations and interpretations of the FSC, the fact remains that they were completely empowered and entitled to make the decision that they made, and that the USSC decision to intervene flies in the face of traditional judicial logic.
Hey all, this might be old news to some, but I just read it and found it amusing enough to pass on:
Arnie's grasp of Austrian history questioned
Last Updated Fri, 03 Sep 2004 13:07:11 EDT
VIENNA - While he has been a success as a bodybuilder, action star and politician, Arnold Schwarzenegger is a failure as a historian.
That's according to some people in Austria, his former homeland, who are calling into question the picture of his boyhood that Schwarzenegger painted when he addressed the Republican National Convention in New York.
Schwarzenegger, star of such films as Conan The Barbarian and The Terminator, told delegates on Tuesday that he recalled seeing Soviet tanks and that the country was dominated by socialists.
"I saw tanks in the streets. I saw communism with my own eyes," Schwarzenegger said in a speech that was lauded by many observers as the highlight of the gathering.
But those who have studied the history of Austria say that would have been impossible.
Schwarzenegger was raised in the province of Styria. It was occupied after the Second World War by allied troops, including U.S., British and Soviet forces, before he was born in 1947. The Soviets withdrew from the region in 1945, one historian says.
"It's a fact – as a child he could not have seen a Soviet tank in Styria," the Associated Press reports Stefan Karner telling the Vienna newspaper Kurier.
"The Terminator is constructing a rather bizarre Austria image," added Norbert Darabos, a ranking official of Austria's opposition Social Democratic party.
Schwarzenegger also said that "As a kid, I saw the socialist country that Austria became after" the country regained its independence in 1955.
But according to Martin Polaschek, a law history scholar, none of the country's chancellors were socialists between the years of 1945 and 1970.
"He did not speak as a historian, after all, but as a politician," Polaschek said, noting that during the period in question the country was governed by coalition governments, including the conservative People's party and the Social Democratic party.
In Polaschek's view, the former actor was "using the old Communist enemy image for Bush's election campaign."
Written by CBC News Online staff
Since I actually used the word "visceral" in description of the dislike, I'm assuming you're discussing "my" claim.
I said it was MORE likely that it was the 2000 election, than because of ideology. I never made the claim that it was the ONLY reason for people to dislike Bush.
Fair enough; my apologies for the misstatement. I didn't go back to check the exact wording, going instead with my gut-level memory of what was said.
I don't feel Jerome has supported your words as stated any more than he has the mistranslation I made of them, but I do regret the mistake.
About all I can do in response to the claim itself is say that it's heavily untrue among my circle of friends and acquaintances, but that's certainly no guarantee of a representative sampling.
TWL
Whatever the dubious motivations and interpretations of the FSC, the fact remains that they were completely empowered and entitled to make the decision that they made, and that the USSC decision to intervene flies in the face of traditional judicial logic.
I beg to differ. What you're saying is that the FSC was LEGALLY empowered to start the recount when in fact what they actually did was to ignore the USSC ruling that they find a FAIR way to count the ballots first. That's where all the fuss about "hanging chads" counting as a voting or not came in. The FSC was supposed to determine what actually constituted a vote or not BEFORE they started a recount, not after.
Further, subsequent recounts by newspapers and independent organizations have found that Bush did win Florida. To counter this, the claim has been that voters were disenfranchised when no actual proof has been offered.
"Yes, and the Democrats - who historically try to federalize everything - were screaming for State's rights because they knew the FSC was more left-leaning than the USSC. The hypocrisy was on both houses."
The Democrats have a track record of saying that cases in progress should be yanked out of the state courts and sent straight to the Federal court? Huh. I didn't know that.
PAD
I beg to differ. What you're saying is that the FSC was LEGALLY empowered to start the recount when in fact what they actually did was to ignore the USSC ruling that they find a FAIR way to count the ballots first. That's where all the fuss about "hanging chads" counting as a voting or not came in. The FSC was supposed to determine what actually constituted a vote or not BEFORE they started a recount, not after.
All I mean to say is that the U.S. Supreme Court had no meaningful jurisdiction over the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of the state's own statutes, in this case. See Alan Dershowitz's book on the debacle, Supreme Injustice, for more details on this.
Further, subsequent recounts by newspapers and independent organizations have found that Bush did win Florida. To counter this, the claim has been that voters were disenfranchised when no actual proof has been offered.
Untrue; as someone noted elsewhere, under differing standards, either candidate might have won.
At this point, we're never going to know iron-clad who won Florida.
The Democrats have a track record of saying that cases in progress should be yanked out of the state courts and sent straight to the Federal court? Huh. I didn't know that.
There were two cases that Bush brought federally: one that was filed before any state case started (it was filed after Gore requested the state election board authorize the limited recounts), the other was after the FSC ruled to not stop the recounts. So, neither was inappropriately yanking a case out in process in the state court.
Besides, I'm really discussing trends. Democrats tend to want large, federal solutions: labor laws, health care, education, entitlements. Republicans tend to want smaller, more local solutions: welfare reform where states get to implement work programs, state-implemented educational exams, etc.
Both parties bucked their usual trends in the 2000 election, which is why I said there was hypocrisy both ways.
(Election legal timeline: http://election2000.stanford.edu/newtimeline.html)
"Republicans tend to want smaller, more local solutions: welfare reform where states get to implement work programs, state-implemented educational exams, etc."
Constitutional amendments to forbid certain sorts of relationships; Federal regulations to force local schools to achieve certain Federally-mandated standards - yep, sounds like "smaller, more local solutions" to me! [/sarcasm]
Let me get this straight: you respect a leader more for believing that fighting evil in various and specific forms is a waste of time and lives and such?
Or you respect him less for the notion that we're fighting for something that at least in some sense here and there it can be achieved.
Constitutional amendments to protect people's votes from FRIGGING activist screwhead judges....
If the majority of voters want it over the choices of a couple of few whose only thin blocked is "marriage"... well, too bad for them. And no ONE judge should just screw over the movement of the many.
Constitutional amendments to protect people's votes from FRIGGING activist screwhead judges....
Such lovely rhetoric. I'm afraid that an interpretation dating back nearly as far as the Republic itself gives judges the right to strike down laws.
If the people genuinely want an amendment, of course that's their right, but don't knock judges for doing as they see fit.
If the majority of voters want it over the choices of a couple of few whose only thin blocked is "marriage"... well, too bad for them. And no ONE judge should just screw over the movement of the many.
I'm afraid that one of the founding principles of our nation is that "minority rights" and "majority rule" must be kept in reasonable balance; that's one of the responsibilities of the judiciary.
Tim Lynch and EClark,
(Boy, whoever thought I'd be addressing the both of you on the same topic:)
You both misinterpreted what I was responding to, and therefore my conclusion.
The argument was made that a large number, if not a majority, of Democrats/liberals are MORE angry at Bush because of the 2000 election than because of ideology (PAD's "Thus does an entire Administration rest on a stench-ridden foundation of hypocrisy" is yet another case inpoint that many/most Democrats have never gotten over it). I never said it was the only reason. My response, citing other examples, was directed at Don, who asked "Why do people believe this?" I was responding to Don.It was not directed at you, eClark.
This is a huge reason why Democrats are more passionate than usual in defeating Bush. Because if Bush wins in 2004, particularly in a landslide, in an election without controversy about hanging chads and Supreme Court decisions, it not only will give him a legitimate mandate (especially after his State of the Union-style convention speech), but gives a final, irrefutable legitimacy to his first term, since a re-election bid is always a referendum on the incumbent. An undisputed endorsement of the Bush Administration by a majority of American voters is too much for many Democrats to contemplate.
"Let me get this straight: you respect a leader more for believing that fighting evil in various and specific forms is a waste of time and lives and such?
"Or you respect him less for the notion that we're fighting for something that at least in some sense here and there it can be achieved."
I respect people who don't fabricate positions for me and attack them and I respect people who post under their true names. Beyond that, I don't know what the hell you're talking about.
(Has anyone ever noticed that the words "Let me get this straight" are, more often than not, followed by a total distortion that's about as unstraight as possible?)
PAD
I respect people who post under their true names.
I didn't realize that was a prerequisite for respect around here. I'll certainly think about registering for a new account, but until then I'll definitely think twice about posting here.
I respect people who post under their true names.
I've heard this a lot and I've just got to know...what's the big freaking deal with posting under a true name or not?
Seriously, I mean, it doesn't make you more right than if you post under a pseudonym, and you can lie just as well.
And for the record... "E", is the initial of my first name, and "Clark" is my last name. "1849" was the year I achieved godhood. I've been living among you insignificant, but intriguing human mortals ever since.
If you need to know more than that you need to buy my book Confessions Of A God now available on Amazon.com.
BTW, I don't need any trouble from that Elohim guy. He gets a little testy when he thinks other gods are trying to move in on his turf, so nobody fall down and start worshipping me, okay?
Spider, until 1968, my marriage would have been illegal in several states. Most of the others at least frowned upon people like us. The majority of voters, at the time, thought that the status quo was meet and proper - that "mixing the races" was evil, and would result in the weakening and destruction of humanity. Did that make the Supreme Court a bunch of "activist judges" (a phrase with little, if any, semantic value), who were wrong for opposing all those right-thinking people in the majority? Should Congress have immediately pressed for a Constitutional amendment preventing members of different "races" from marrying?
"But that's different!" I hear you cry.
How, exactly?
"I respect people who post under their true names."
My first name is Sean, last name Mulligan, and Blackjack is an old nickname. It ain't on my driver's license, but if someone says "Hey Blackjack" to me, I'll respond.
Of course, I could post under Sean Mulligan, and be lying about that being my real name, and no one would be the wiser. So it's really a moot point.
i was just looking for opinions on bushs speech the other night and the subsequent bounce in the polls
is the election over?
i say NO
anybody disagree?
While one could just as easily make up a fake name ("Hi, I'm Winston S. Lowell") to post under, the idea of responding to a Sam Smith when discussing a somewhat serious topic (politics, religion etc,) is a lot less surreal than carrying on a conversation with someone named Bubba Ho-Tep or Big Poppa Smurf.
And Blackjack Mulligan has always been one of my favorite wrestlers.
" i was just looking for opinions on bushs speech the other night and the subsequent bounce in the polls
is the election over?
i say NO
anybody disagree?"
I thought it seemed like more of a first time office seekers speech than an incumbents. There was an inordinate amount of "I wills" as opposed to "I haves" in the speech. As a sitting president you would think that a major point of your reelection campaign would center around the things that you accomplished.
It wasn't a particularly bad speech, although by the time Bush's speech arrived I was really sick of the misrepresentation of Kerry's Senate voting record, it was really kinda blah.
I also was completely bewildered as to how Bush planned to pay for all of his future plans considering he criticized Kerry as being a "tax and spend" president if he were to be elected.
The only offensive part of the entire thing was the enthusiasticly gleefulness that came from the audience when Bush talked about making homosexuals second class citizens.
So count me in as not thinking the election is over. I still think that the debates will be a huge deciding factor especially if Kerry can get at least one thats an open forum.
Derek!,
First, the election will not be over until the election is over. I was even nervous Electon Day '88 when Bush The Father led by a huge margin in the polls. Also, in 1996, I still felt there was a possibility more people would vote for Dole ( and actually, more men did). So I never let myself get overconfident or resigned durng a campaign (unless it's a ;ocal Congressional race or somethng where the incumbent is polling 80% or something like that).
regarding the supposed lack of "I haves", I have to disagree a bit. He talked about his AARP-backed Medicare reform, which for the first tme covers prescription drugs, while taking the first steps toward reforming it for the 21st century. He talked about No Child Left Behind, and of course the tax cuts.
As for it being kind of "blah", I know a lot of Republicans who agree with you, who wanted a rousing speech that would have had a ton of soundbites and that would have shot his poll numbers nto the stratosphere. But by giving a State-of-the-Union type speech (would you have rather he gave a Zell Miller-like speech?) he A.) Looked presidential, especially in contrast to Kerry's almost Dean-like, angry, un-Presidential and poorly attended and ill-timed rant immediately after. and B.)By looking toward the future, and laying out his plans, Bush will be able to claim that the American people not only support his leadership on the War on Terror but claim a mandate for his domestic initiatives, like Social Security privatization, etc. It was actually quite smart in the long term to be looking toward the future. That polls, at least in the short term, have shown Bush's standing on domestic issues/the economy improving markedly after the speech, it was definitely wise. Because if kerry can't claim those issues he is toast, since Bush is way ahead on matters of national security.
Re: Gays as "Second-Class Citizens". You know, it is this kind of thinking and interpretation of ebents that will likely doom the Democrats. Americans in general have become far more tolerant of gays in the past two decades. From Gov. McGreevey beng looked at with more sympathy than scorn in many quarters for his "revelation" to representation in everything form government to TV shows, to Jesse Helms emotionally telling Bono he was wrong on the AIDS issue, to Jerry Falwell having to demonize slam because demonizing gays just doesn't fill the coffers the way it used to.
Now with all that and all the gains, has come a general acceptance of civil unions. The difference between "civil unions" and the legal rights of "marriage" are not that significant and would seem to be one of semantics. But it is important to many people because it is a RELIGIOUS ceremony. Now, I understand full well the history of marrage and how many times it was simply a mewrger between two powerful families. I also understand that many heterosexuals (Jennifer Lopez anyone?) do the institution no favors.
But what I think you and others who think like you need to understand is that you have basically won. By not being satisfied with civil unions, you are risking a lot that has been achieved, and I truly feel it will result in a backlash. The more gays are shown protestng on the news and looking more like the "We're here! We're queer! We're in your face!" crowd rather than the neighbor next door, the more they will put at risk a great deal of what they have achieved.
Jerome,
I agree with almost everything you said, except for some of the gay rights arguments. I think it was a huge mistake not to at least have Dick Cheney's daughter and her partner out on the stage with the rest of the family. Since Cheney is the only--ONLY--one of the 4 candidtaes that has shown the right sensitivity to the issue, it was particularly sad. I'm guessing that she felt it would take attention away from the speech. nevertheless, were I Cheney I would have insisted and, if needed, had the president himself ask her to be there (and if I were Bush, I would certainly have asked).
Gay marriage is coming. It is inevitable. Me, I see nothing wrong with it anyway but just from a purely startegic political view there is little point in opposing something that is A-inevitable, B-makes life easier for a segment of the population, C-harms nobody else, D-gains the party little for the opposition to it.
The republican party's opposition to Gay rights is not a dealbreaker for me but it probably is for a lot of gays and the folks who love them, people who might otherwise support the party. I don't think it gains them much support in return. The most homophobic people I know are young black males and they ain't voting republican anyway.
Jerome,
The minute Bush proposed a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was the moment he went over the line. Its not about being "happy with civil unions" as much as its about using the Constitution as a weapon against a section of tax paying citizens.
As for Bush's speech he avoided two very large elephants in the room: coming up with some solution for the record deficits he has presided over and avoiding the hard truths of the employment situation in this country, namely the people who are underemployed or who have dropped out of the job picture altogether. I think that those issues are whats important to the oh so precious swing voters but since the GOP seems to think they can win with their base it was fine and dandy to gloss right over them
Gay marriage is coming. It is inevitable. Me, I see nothing wrong with it anyway but just from a purely startegic political view there is little point in opposing something that is A-inevitable, B-makes life easier for a segment of the population, C-harms nobody else, D-gains the party little for the opposition to it.
Jerome, I actually agree with you. Gay marriage is definitely coming. I actually predicted it ten years ago when everyone thought I was crazy. (They still think I'm crazy, but at least I was right).
That said, I'm still against gay marriage. It's kind of like giving a hypochondriac woman a prostate exam. It may make her feel better, but it serves no real purpose. Despite the blather, this isn't a civil rights issue. That's crap. If it was, it wouldn't, or at least shouldn't, matter whether a person is married or not.. Also, civil unions, which many people DO agree with for gays, and which gives them the "rights" that they say they don't have. Third, as I've said before on the subject, neither marriage nor having a child is a "right". They are privileges. If they were "rights", no one could turn you down when you asked them to marry you or have your child or they would be denying you a "civil right" and therefore commiting a crime.
Fourth, and this is the one that scares me the most and ties into the last point. What happens if a church denies you the "right" to marry in their church by one of their ministers? I don't doubt that the Supreme Court, at least, will side with the churches, but I have two words for everyone to remember.... "Boy Scouts".
EClark,
First, I think you were responding to me, not Jerome. At any rate, I think that marriage IS a right--"pursuit of happiness" and all.. Your argument that turning down someone would violate the right is clever but I think that by "marriage is a right" one means that an adult should have the right to enter into a MUTUAL contact of marriage with someone. I mean, I have the right to own property but that doesn't imply that you HAVE to sell me your house.
Churches already have the ability to turn down requests by people to be married if they don't conform to certain requirements. If neither I nor my bride to be convert to judaism it is highly unlikely that we could be married in an orthodox ceremony and we can't sue over it. So I don't see allowing gays to marry as much of a threat to the churches.
Even if one thinks that homosexuality is a perversion or a sin or whatever...it seems to me that there is a lot of good to be gained by all if gays can enter into marriage. better that then they pretend to be straight, get married to my brother or sister and make EVERYBODY miserable in the end.
Me, I like pretty much all of the gay folks I have known. I have some great friends who are gay and if they find someone to love, more power to them, I say. But even if you just don't like gay people,I still say you should be for gay marriage--just imagine all the hassles you will be visiting upon them--annoying relatives asking when Steve will make an honest man out of Fred, for example, not to mention the very inevitable gay divorces.
So there really is something for everyone.
'Third, as I've said before on the subject, neither marriage nor having a child is a "right". They are privileges. If they were "rights", no one could turn you down when you asked them to marry you or have your child or they would be denying you a "civil right" and therefore commiting a crime."
You can't split apart "right" and "privilege" and then try to disenfranchise gay marriage on that basis.
Marriage is two people exercising their right to enter into a contract. Any contract, for it to be binding, must be entered into willingly. You postulate the equivalent of a rape situation and try to argue that it's analogous when it's not.
You could just as easily that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness aren't rights either. That they are privileges as well. After all, if you DO rape someone, then you can lose your liberty. If a right is immutable and a privilege is something that can be taken away from you, then no one should ever be able to be jailed. But that's not the case. We recognize that right to liberty. But it's ALSO a privilege. Same as marriage. So why deprive a certain segment of the right and the privilege?
Because they're gay, that's why. It's prejudice and discrimination, pure and simple. Worried about the institution of marriage crumbling? Divorce is doing far more to damage marriage than gays. Let's outlaw divorce. Marriage is for the purpose of supporting children? Let's revoke the marriage license of any childless couple. Clearly they've abused the privilege.
I would contend the opposite of what you're saying. That the moment the government takes it upon itself to forbid one segment of the population to get married, they set precedent to forbid ANY segment of the population to get married. Any of those "keep the government out of the bedroom" folks really believe giving the government that kind of power is a good thing?
PAD
Me, I like pretty much all of the gay folks I have known. I have some great friends who are gay and if they find someone to love, more power to them, I say. But even if you just don't like gay people,I still say you should be for gay marriage--just imagine all the hassles you will be visiting upon them--annoying relatives asking when Steve will make an honest man out of Fred, for example, not to mention the very inevitable gay divorces.
Bill, sorry about mixing you up with Jerome. My bad.
But what makes you think I don't like gay people? What because I think it's a sin? Big deal. I know lots of people who sin, I don't hate them either. Heck, I'm sure I'm doing SOMETHING that can be considered a sin. My deal on sins is this, I only have to take responsibility for my own. Unless what you're doing affects me somehow, I really don't care. But you don't get around a sin by making it legal. You can steal and kill legally, but it doesn't make it right.
PAD--
I get back with you later. Gotta go now.
EClark:
>But what makes you think I don't like gay people? What because I think it's a sin? Big deal. I know lots of people who sin, I don't hate them either. Heck, I'm sure I'm doing SOMETHING that can be considered a sin. My deal on sins is this, I only have to take responsibility for my own. Unless what you're doing affects me somehow, I really don't care. But you don't get around a sin by making it legal. You can steal and kill legally, but it doesn't make it right.
Which is exactly why there is supposed to be separation of church and state. What you call sin is subjective, infringes on your rights in no way, and "sin" should not be a consideration when looking at legislature. Stealing and killing takes away from others and so the fact that they are a sin per say, is really a moot point.
I become very concerned when this type of talk occurs as there is an assumption that our nation functions under a religion. You stated that you can't get around a sin by making it legal. I'd counter that I get around sin simply by not believing in its existance. One needs to be spiritual to even engage in the thinking that you are talking of.... and that is problematic and dangerous when we our talking about this country, the values of freedom or the guy in the White House who is publicly discussing our international policy as being dictated by God giving him instructions.
Derek! (I love the exclamation point) said (and I don't necessarily disagree with):
"I thought it seemed like more of a first time office seekers speech than an incumbents. There was an inordinate amount of "I wills" as opposed to "I haves" in the speech. As a sitting president you would think that a major point of your reelection campaign would center around the things that you accomplished."
I can't say I really noticed that, so I certainly won't dispute it. The only reason I mention this is because this morning in the Arizona Republic a letter noted something similar to yours...Kerry's speech said "I will" over and over again, and Bush said "We will" over and over again. I'm curious as to your reaction to that...
I will say that I caught Bush's rally in Arizona a couple weeks back, and the theme was "There's more for us to do" and he listed the things he still wanted to accomplish. I would interpret that as he doesn't need to brag about what he's accomplished, but wants to focus on what he needs to accomplish. I can easily see Kerry supporters responding with what they think Bush has accomplished, though...but believe me, Bush ain't talking to them.
As an aside to this topic, former president Clinton is in surgery right now, having bypass surgery. let our thoughts ( and for those who are so inclned, prayers) go out to him and wish him well.
Which is exactly why there is supposed to be separation of church and state. What you call sin is subjective, infringes on your rights in no way, and "sin" should not be a consideration when looking at legislature.
Fred, you're assuming things about my argument. My argument has never been about the fact that I consider homosexuality to be a sin. My argument has been solely about the purpose of marriage. That I also consider it to be a sin is irrelevant to my argument. But I admit it makes a nice distraction because if people say that it is the core of my argument enough times, no matter how many times I deny it people will start believing it.
EClarke,
"But what makes you think I don't like gay people?"
My apologies if it came out that way. My purpose was not to cast aspersions on you but to make clear my own views--I was talking about gay rights from a purely strategic political point of view and I didn't want anyone to think that this was my only point of view on the subject.
But anyway, what do you think IS the "purpose of marriage". If only for procreation that would invalidate many marriages, not just gay ones. Not all marriages result in a "family" beyond the two people involved. I wouldn't dare presume to tell them that their marriage is less valid than my own.
You can't split apart "right" and "privilege" and then try to disenfranchise gay marriage on that basis.
Come on, Peter. While synonymus, a "right" is not interchangeable with a "privilege" . A "right " is something due to you by tradition or law. A "privilege" is something that's allowed or earned through merit or eligibility. Neither of which fits the gay marriage debate without some "friendly" persuasion.
Marriage is two people exercising their right to enter into a contract. Any contract, for it to be binding, must be entered into willingly.
Marriage also has rules that say people must meet certain criteria to be eligible to enter into this particular type of contract.
You postulate the equivalent of a rape situation and try to argue that it's analogous when it's not.
Uh-huh. When the hell did I postulate that?
You could just as easily that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness aren't rights either. That they are privileges as well. After all, if you DO rape someone, then you can lose your liberty. If a right is immutable and a privilege is something that can be taken away from you, then no one should ever be able to be jailed. But that's not the case. We recognize that right to liberty. But it's ALSO a privilege. Same as marriage. So why deprive a certain segment of the right and the privilege?
Nice try, but as I already pointed out , you don't have to do anything to have a right. Most of them are spelled out for us somewhere in the law or Constitution. Privileges are generally earned through merit or eligibility. Since marriage isn't "merit-based", and gays don't meet the eligibilty requirements, I.e. one of each gender, it's hard to call it disenfrachisement or discrimination. After all, it's not that they can't abide by the requirements, they just don't want to.
Because they're gay, that's why. It's prejudice and discrimination, pure and simple. Worried about the institution of marriage crumbling? Divorce is doing far more to damage marriage than gays. Let's outlaw divorce.
That's just as stupid as saying let's legalize everything and we'll get rid of all crime.
Marriage is for the purpose of supporting children? Let's revoke the marriage license of any childless couple. Clearly they've abused the privilege.
All right. How long should we give them to procreate? Could they get an extension if they need more time? Do miscarriages and abortions count, like "hanging chads"? And since we're so fearful of disenfranchisement what do we do with couples who find out later that they can't reproduce . What if they were married and their child dies or was kidnapped? How about instead of revoking the license, we make them adopt?
I would contend the opposite of what you're saying. That the moment the government takes it upon itself to forbid one segment of the population to get married, they set precedent to forbid ANY segment of the population to get married. Any of those "keep the government out of the bedroom" folks really believe giving the government that kind of power is a good thing?
So you're saying there should be NO requirements to marriage, including age, mental condition or ability, relationship, or even numbers?
My apologies if it came out that way. My purpose was not to cast aspersions on you but to make clear my own views--I was talking about gay rights from a purely strategic political point of view and I didn't want anyone to think that this was my only point of view on the subject.
No problem. I have the same problem. People want to try and tie me to the "discrimination and sin" aspects instead of just debating the points.
But anyway, what do you think IS the "purpose of marriage". If only for procreation that would invalidate many marriages, not just gay ones. Not all marriages result in a "family" beyond the two people involved. I wouldn't dare presume to tell them that their marriage is less valid than my own.
Actually, I don't think people should get married until they're ready to 'have a family", preferably by natural means. As a result, I may never marry myself because I feel I'm getting too old to raise a family. But no, I'm not advocating ripping a couple apart because they find out that they can't have kids, but I do think those couples should be "encouraged", but not required, to adopt. Preferably, more than once.
To be honest, I actually like the idea of "domestic partnerships", and civil unions as a sort of "go between" position. Couples should enter a domestic partnership first, and I'd include gays in that group. Male/female domestic partners could opt for marriage if and when they thought they were ready to have kids and wanted the benefits/ detriments that come with that status, including women changing their last names, automatic inheritance/ and shared debts, and even divorce. Domestic Partners would have to file public notice that the union was over.
BTW, I DO think a childless couple has a less valid claim to marriage, otherwise to me, it really IS just a partnership.
How about instead of revoking the license, we make them adopt?
How about we let gay couples do that? Or single parents?
For you, is marriage about procreation or child-rearing?
You say childless couples have a "less valid" claim to marriage; what does that mean, exactly?
So you're saying there should be NO requirements to marriage, including age, mental condition or ability, relationship, or even numbers?
One who is not mentally capable of assenting to marriage (i.e., a young child, or a mentally retarded person) has by definition not assented and therefore could not marry.
And I don't think numbers matter, no.
The fifth paragraph of the above should be italicized. Sorry.
My sister and her partner went through 2 years of artificial insemination so they could have a child. By your definition they should be allowed to marry. Though they didn't procreate with each other biologically, they will love and raise a child together. If a heterosexual couple does the same it's OK? Since my sister and sister-in-law are a homosexual couple it's not? Talk about your double standard. By the way, they did have a wonderful religious ceremony several years ago. It's the US government that is keeping them from any rights and benefits that go along with a legal marriage. Legally speaking, keeping them from marrying is discrimination. Religion, which our constitution guarantees to be separate from our government is, and should be, a separate issue. That goes the same for "faith-based initiatives".
How about we let gay couples do that? Or single parents?
I'm not in favor of either one. Although I have no qualms about gays becoming parents through natural means. Single parents rarely WANT to BE single parents.
For you, is marriage about procreation or child-rearing?
One usually follows the other, doesn't it?
You say childless couples have a "less valid" claim to marriage; what does that mean, exactly?
Only that I consider marriage to mean a "blending" where two become one, and to me that means in the form of a child. BTW, I didn't state that as a FACT as you suggest. I specifically said that I think of it that way, meaning it's my opinion.
One who is not mentally capable of assenting to marriage (i.e., a young child, or a mentally retarded person) has by definition not assented and therefore could not marry.
I'm going to assume that by "assent" you really mean "consent", otherwise I don't know how to respond to you. You're wrong, by the way, both CAN consent. The question is whether they know what they're consenting to. The LAW (you know, the one that PAD says shouldn't forbid ANYBODY from getting married) says that children and the mentally incompetent cannot legally consent on their own to enter into a contract.
And while 12 is the youngest anyone can legally get married in the US, special permission must be granted from the parents, or a judge, or both.
And I don't think numbers matter, no.
Why, I am shocked and appalled, sir! Simply shocked and appalled! 8^)
Eclarke
Part of the problem here is that you seem to think that there is a clear definition of marriage. It's undeniably true that marriage in this country has heretofore been between a man and a woman. I don't deny that allowing gays to marry is a significant alteration of traditional customs and, as such, I don't judge those who oppose it harshly.
However, approaching this from a purely reasonable point of view, it is also undeniable that traditional marriage was once also reserved, by law and custom, for men and women of the same race. When attitudes and social norms had sufficiantly shifted, the definition of who was allowed to get married changed. Nobody can rationally claim now that interracial marriages are harming anyone. I have yet to see a good argument that gay marriages will cause great harm and I can see many scenarios where it will result in an overall social good
Indded, it seems to me that the approach you prefer--a strengthening of the concept of domestic partnerships--could weaken traditional marriages far more than allowing a small segment of the population the same rights or privilages that the rest of us have.
Generally I'd prefer government to avoid creating seperate classes of people unless it is for the purpose of avoiding harm. So where's the harm here?
>I'm not in favor of either one. Although I have no qualms about gays becoming parents through natural means.
So why should childless heterosexual couples get to? Please expand on this position.
>Single parents rarely WANT to BE single parents.
Maybe not, but I'm sure some single men and women do want to (and are financially capable of) raising children on their own.
>One usually follows the other, doesn't it?
Not in cases of adoption, which you yourself brought up.
>BTW, I didn't state that as a FACT as you suggest. I specifically said that I think of it that way, meaning it's my opinion.
Where did I imply that? You inferred otherwise, but I understood it to be a position. There's not much else it can be :)
>I'm going to assume that by "assent" you really mean "consent", otherwise I don't know how to respond to you.
By recognizing that they're synonyms, as any good thesaurus will tell you. :)
>You're wrong, by the way, both CAN consent. The question is whether they know what they're consenting to.
A technicality. Don't mince words. You can't consent to something when you don't know what it is.
>The LAW (you know, the one that PAD says shouldn't forbid ANYBODY from getting married) says that children and the mentally incompetent cannot legally consent on their own to enter into a contract.
Which is good. Never mind what PAD said for right now.
>And while 12 is the youngest anyone can legally get married in the US, special permission must be granted from the parents, or a judge, or both.
Thanks for the tidbit. But how does this follow?
My larger point was that, with the exception of those who can't assent (or consent, or agree, or accede), I believe all people should be allowed to marry.
What I was looking for from you is an explanation of why this is not a wise position. You brought up the idea that marriage is primarily for reproductive purposes. The problem is that this interpretation has nothing to do with long-standing legal definitions of marriage, or for that matter, with societal ones.
And what about infertile couples? Can they not get married? Or (I asked above, but I'll repeat it here), if they can adopt, why can't gay couples?
"For you, is marriage about procreation or child-rearing?"
"One usually follows the other, doesn't it?"
An estimated 24 million married couples in the United States don’t have children, according to American Demographics magazine.
It's hard to argue that a childless marriage is in any way less valid than one with kids when we have allowed so many to occur. And again, since the argument has been that allowing gay marriages will somehow weaken the traditional marriage, it seems starnge to me that it is the opponents of gay marriage that are proposing things like strengthening civil unions, domestic partnerships, and calling into question the validity of childless couples, all of which seem far more damaging to the concept of marriage than letting a couple of guys get hitched.
Just my 2 cents. I know that I'm currently in the minority with this opinion but I'll bet taht will change in afew years and the political party that embraces the future yields the rewards.
My sister and her partner went through 2 years of artificial insemination so they could have a child. By your definition they should be allowed to marry.
If you're sister's partner is male, sure.
If a heterosexual couple does the same it's OK? Since my sister and sister-in-law are a homosexual couple it's not? Talk about your double standard.
How can it be a double standard? You said yourself that your sister and her partner had to procreate this way. Men and women don't have to procreate artificially unless something is medically wrong with one or both of them, and they shouldn't be penalized for that. So unless you're claiming that homosexuality is a medical illness or deformity of some sort, there's no double standard.
"For you, is marriage about procreation or child-rearing?"
"One usually follows the other, doesn't it?"
An estimated 24 million married couples in the United States don’t have children, according to American Demographics magazine.
Which is not what I was refering to. Generally, when one procreates, one usually expects to rear the child.
I'll be more direct then, since my comments are being dissected for analyzing. The main purpose of marriage ideally is for the procreation and rearing of children in a loving environment by the two people who created the children. Stuff happens, and situations change, of course, and PAD's right people do abuse the system, but usually the way you fix things is to refine the system not overburden it by adding more innocuous stuff.
It's hard to argue that a childless marriage is in any way less valid than one with kids when we have allowed so many to occur. And again, since the argument has been that allowing gay marriages will somehow weaken the traditional marriage, it seems starnge to me that it is the opponents of gay marriage that are proposing things like strengthening civil unions, domestic partnerships, and calling into question the validity of childless couples, all of which seem far more damaging to the concept of marriage than letting a couple of guys get hitched.
Umm, I've explained this once before. I am the ONLY person I know of questioning the marital validity of childless couples, and I've quite clearly stated that it is MY OWN OPINION. Please stop trying to infer that EVERYONE who opposes gay marriage holds that same opinion. I'm not speaking for everyone. I'm giving you the reasons I hold my views.
No, it is your position that marriage is for procreation. I think that's a bunch of hooey. I am simply pointing out that my sister procreated, sso she should, by your argument, be allowed to marry. Not a male, but the person of her choice. Forcing someone to enter into a relationship by your standards, be they religious or otherwise is not the American way. Historically we have embraced multi-culturalism. Of course, sometimes we have to be dragged into it kicking and screaming, but in the end freedom will win out. By the way, it is NOT activist judges that are deciding to change the laws. There is no such thing. The judges are ruling on existing laws. They do not make the laws, the state legislature does that.
Karen,
By your post, I realize the issue of gay marriage may hit home harder with you than many. I just want to make it clear that do not:
1.) See anything wrong with civil unions
2.) believe the only reason for marriage is to have children
I simply feel the push for gay marriage - regardless of potential political consequences - will result in a severe backlash. I simply don't feel a majority of the population are ready to accept the term "marriage" as beng applicable to homosexual couples.
I could be wrong, but I feel if i am we should let states - citizens and the legislatures - decide. if this gets shoved down everybody's throat, I truly fear the consequences.
When you have basically the same thing with civil unions, I just don't feel gaining this "longest yard" is worth it.
Jerome,
I truly believe that this is a fight that will be won sometime in the future. I also think we need to leave this up to the states. I am upset that this administration wants a constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriage. They have no business legislating this into the constitution. They are the ones trying to shove this issue down our throats. It is also one big distraction because they will never get enough states to ratify it. Smoke and mirrors to get our minds off the economy, environment, education, etc....
So why should childless heterosexual couples get to? Please expand on this position.
Most experts say that is the ideal situation for a child for one thing, and I favor putting as many children in that situation as possible. And childless heterosexual couples would most likely opt for natural means if they could.
Not in cases of adoption, which you yourself brought up.
See above.
By recognizing that they're synonyms, as any good thesaurus will tell you. :)
My bad. I wrongfully assumed that you had simply misspelled "ascent", which is why it threw me.
A technicality. Don't mince words. You can't consent to something when you don't know what it is.
Another technicality. You can agree to something and not know what it is you're agreeing to. UNDER THE LAW, the question is will you be held accountable?
Which is good. Never mind what PAD said for right now.
So the law is only good if you agree with it?
Without repeating myself, (besides which I'm getting tired) I think I've answered most of your questions. Now why don't you enumerate your reasons for allowing gay marriage and or adoption?
Karen,
I look at it this way: if there are enough votes (which I doubt) to pass the amendment, then obviously a majority of states do not want it.
As for "being a fight that will be won sometime in the future"...possibly. But I do not feel it s nearly as inevitable as you and Bill Mulligan (gee, politics does make strange bedfellows:)) claim. If it were, the mayor of San Francisco would not have had to defy the law to marry couples in a state as liberal as California. If it were, Kerry and Edwards would be ripping Bush a new one, but they know they would get killed on it. One thing the law will do is make the House, the Senate and state legislatures take a position on it, and I feel many who vote against the amendment will lose their seats as a result. I just feel that's the political makeup of the electorate right now. Like I said, by forcing this at this paricular time, I feel gay activists have overreached.
And before you take this as just an opportunty to bash Bush for using "smoke and mirrors", let me just say...I don't think so. There are many Log Cabin (gay) Republicans who supported Bush last time. I don't think he would alienate them for the hell of it. From what I've read, he knew the move could be politically risky, but it s something he truly believes in. mean, if this was just a "distraction", why wouldn't Cheney have kept toeing the party line, at least until after the election? Please give the man credit for having convictions, even if you disagree with them vehemently. Also, why was similar vitriol not directed at Bill Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996? t completely blows my mind that so many liberals still idolize Clinton when he signed and enacted more conservative policies than most conservative politicians could imagine in their wildest wet dreams.
I am simply pointing out that my sister procreated, sso she should, by your argument, be allowed to marry.
My argument included the point that to marry, the parties involved must be one of both genders. I never said that procreation alone was a reason to allow one to marry. I don't even think that of heterosexual couples.
Forcing someone to enter into a relationship by your standards, be they religious or otherwise is not the American way.
We force people to prove they can drive a car before we give them a license. We force them to get insurance. Don't tell me it's not the American way.
>Most experts say that is the ideal situation for a child for one thing, and I favor putting as many children in that situation as possible.
Ah, yes; "most experts" does an awful lot of talking.
>And childless heterosexual couples would most likely opt for natural means if they could.
I'm sure many homosexual couples wish they didn't have to use surrogates or cut through red tape.
>My bad. I wrongfully assumed that you had simply misspelled "ascent", which is why it threw me.
Oh, ok. Sorry for the confusion.
>Another technicality. You can agree to something and not know what it is you're agreeing to. UNDER THE LAW, the question is will you be held accountable?
I would hope not. What does this have to do with the current discussion?
>So the law is only good if you agree with it?
Well, yeah; I think the long history of bad laws in the world makes that obvious. Well, not just "if I agree with it," but if it serves a valid purpose based on my philosophy.
This does not mean that I encourage the breaking of laws, but the tradition of civil disobedience is a long one.
>Without repeating myself, (besides which I'm getting tired) I think I've answered most of your questions.
If you want to stop, just say so; having this discussion isn't live-or-die for me. Besides, classes start tomorrow, and I really should sleep. :)
>Now why don't you enumerate your reasons for allowing gay marriage and or adoption?
I believe that "marriage," as modern society understands it, is more an expression of love and commitment than a means to the end of child-rearing.
Consequently, it should be open to allow who desire it, regardless of whether they can bear children, or want to do so.
As for adoption, I believe that any two (or one, or three) individuals who wish to adopt a child, and can prove themselves emotionally and financially able to do so, ought to have that right. I don't mind giving preference to married couples, but in my (liberal dreamworld) scenario, couples might be gay or straight.
>>Forcing someone to enter into a relationship by your standards, be they religious or otherwise is not the American way.
>We force people to prove they can drive a car before we give them a license. We force them to get insurance. Don't tell me it's not the American way.
Because otherwise, they represent a serious danger to themselves and to others. Is that true here?
Jerome,
Yes, that Bill Mulligan and I agree on something is strange. But it also proves that no party can be all things to all people. I wish they would stop trying. I would love instant run-off so we could all really vote for the person we really want to win. Maybe someday...
Social changes may be slow, but inevitable. At one point in time no politician would come out for equal rights for African Americans. And the only way to get change is to "overreach".
I like Bill CLinton, but was against many of the things he signed into law. I've said that before and will likely say it again. The bill you cited, NAFTA, welfare reform, dropping healthcare... well, he certainly wasn't perfect.
EClark,
(Me)Forcing someone to enter into a relationship by your standards, be they religious or otherwise is not the American way.
(You)We force people to prove they can drive a car before we give them a license. We force them to get insurance. Don't tell me it's not the American way.
ME We do not force people to drive. If they choose to drive, there are laws in place to make sure they do not harm others by learning to drive. There are also laws in place to take care of people and property (insurance) in case of an accident.
Are you seriously comparing love between two people to driving a car?
There isn't enough love in this world. If two people wish to commit to each other, it should be no ones business but their own. Laws are in place to prevent harm to others, whether physical, mental, or financial. This is an unneccessary attempt to legislate something that harms no one.
eclark:
>>>But what makes you think I don't like gay people? What because I think it's a sin? Big deal. I know lots of people who sin, I don't hate them either. Heck, I'm sure I'm doing SOMETHING that can be considered a sin. My deal on sins is this, I only have to take responsibility for my own. Unless what you're doing affects me somehow, I really don't care. But you don't get around a sin by making it legal. You can steal and kill legally, but it doesn't make it right.
>>Which is exactly why there is supposed to be separation of church and state. What you call sin is subjective, infringes on your rights in no way, and "sin" should not be a consideration when looking at legislature. Stealing and killing takes away from others and so the fact that they are a sin per say, is really a moot point.
>Fred, you're assuming things about my argument. My argument has never been about the fact that I consider homosexuality to be a sin. My argument has been solely about the purpose of marriage. That I also consider it to be a sin is irrelevant to my argument. But I admit it makes a nice distraction because if people say that it is the core of my argument enough times, no matter how many times I deny it people will start believing it.
I made no assumptions as I responded directly to your statement. Comparing it to stealing and killing may have thrown a few of us off. It certainly was a nice distraction for me. *Not unlike that shiny icicles that mom used to hang on the Christmas tree.* :)
"Come on, Peter. While synonymus, a "right" is not interchangeable with a "privilege" . A "right " is something due to you by tradition or law. A "privilege" is something that's allowed or earned through merit or eligibility. Neither of which fits the gay marriage debate without some "friendly" persuasion."
I didn't say they were interchangeable. I said a right is something to which you are entitled. What makes it a privilege is if someone can take it away from you because you've abused it. If gays are willing to make the exact same promises, take the same vows, as heteros, then they are de facto not abusing the right of marriage and therefore cannot and should not be denied it. As opposed to, say, a driver's license, which you have a right to possess but can be revoked if you abuse it.
But privileges can be revoked only because of actions a person takes, not because of what the person is.
"Marriage also has rules that say people must meet certain criteria to be eligible to enter into this particular type of contract."
Rules are made by humans. Rules can and should change. And marriage has been a constantly changing institution since its inception. Unless you think that the rules of marriage indicating that women became their husband's property and that blacks couldn't marry whites should still be in force.
"You postulate the equivalent of a rape situation and try to argue that it's analogous when it's not.
Uh-huh. When the hell did I postulate that?"
When you put forward the theory that if marriage was a right, then no one could refuse it. They were obligated to marry someone whether they wanted to or not.
"Nice try, but as I already pointed out , you don't have to do anything to have a right. Most of them are spelled out for us somewhere in the law or Constitution. Privileges are generally earned through merit or eligibility. Since marriage isn't "merit-based", and gays don't meet the eligibilty requirements, I.e. one of each gender, it's hard to call it disenfrachisement or discrimination. After all, it's not that they can't abide by the requirements, they just don't want to."
You don't have to do anything to earn a right? I cannot believe you said something so easily blown to hell and gone. Blacks needed to do nothing to earn civil rights? Women needed to do nothing to get the right to vote? These rights have always been around and were just automatically accorded? You do, however, underscore your fundamental lack of comprehension about homosexuality. "They just don't want to." You refuse to believe that people are gay because of their genetic wiring. They just decided to be gay. Your attitude appears to be that since they made this "decision" that's out of line with your belief of what marriage should be, they shouldn't be rewarded for making the decision. Instead, if they want to get married, they should find a nice person of the opposite sex, just as if they want to own a house, they should find something affordable.
You're wrong.
"Because they're gay, that's why. It's prejudice and discrimination, pure and simple. Worried about the institution of marriage crumbling? Divorce is doing far more to damage marriage than gays. Let's outlaw divorce.
That's just as stupid as saying let's legalize everything and we'll get rid of all crime."
Bingo. Yes. Exactly. It is stupid. And I said it to underscore the stupidity of those who claim that gay marriage is going to ruin matrimony in this country.
"So you're saying there should be NO requirements to marriage, including age, mental condition or ability, relationship, or even numbers?"
No, but I'm willing to say that you have zero comprehension of contract law. Either that or you're just providing deliberately obtuse arguments. Contracts must be agreed to by parties who have reached the legal age of consent or else it's not binding. So age is a factor. Parties agreeing to a contract must possess the faculties to understand the contract they're entering into. So mental condition or ability to understand what's going on is a factor. Number? Contracts are generally between two parties. If it could be made to work for multiple partners, sure, I guess. Why not? As for relationships...sure, you'd have to allow it. After all, if first cousins couldn't marry and produce kids, where would little George Bush voters come from?
Heh.
PAD
Karen,
I think "instant runoff" is NOT the way to go. A true movement to create a new party that truly challenges the duopoly we have now takes time and commitment. As Michael Moore says in "Stupid White Men", the Democrats have essentially been D.O.A. for a long time. But as long as the mentality exists that, "Well, know my candidate is full of shit and is basically going to screw me, but the other guy is worse, and I don't want to waste my vote" nothing will change.
For example, a huge reason conservatives were angry at Bush the Father was because they felt he lied to them, not only about taxes but on abortion. he did the whole "I believe in a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion" thng in front of pro-life crowds, and then, when he got in, he did not appoint justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Many pro-lifers stayed home in '92 as a result, or decided to vote for Perot in protest. Combine that with breakng his "no new taxes" pledge and not doing anything about entitlements, he really left an openng for someone like Perot to sound fiscaly conservative in comparison and entice conservatives by stressing the need to balance the budget and reduce the national deficit. As a result, 2/3 of Perot's impressive (19%) vote total were people who would normally vote Republican. As a result of that realization that beng too "moderate" had cost them, and having Perot put the deficit issue in the spotlight, Republicans went back to their roots and ran on the Contract With America in 1994 and won the House for the first time in 40 years, something thought would never happen
What I'm saying, is that by votng for third-party candidates, if you really believe in them, you will help bring about change, and it may happen sooner than you think. If Nader were to get 10% of the vote, which definitely won't happen this time, then the democrats would be forced to go back to their liberal roots a bit. With IROs, chances are the second choice would be Democrats, so they wouldn't really give a damn because they would win anyway.
Vote FOR somebody Karen. I am.
Very nice dig. I'm sure you'll catch hell for it, but I was highly amused...
My last comment was directed toward PAD.
Jerome,
I AM voting for someone. I believe in Kerry and want very much for him to win. I also think the 2 parties have a stranglehold on the elections and many voices are drowned out with all the money that gets thrown at the Dems and Reps. Don't assume that because I think we need to shake up the system that my vote is for the lesser of two evils. I saw John Kerry speak in person in Everett, WA. My daughter got to shake his hand. For the record, KERRY FOR PRESIDENT!
Oh yes, damn, took me a bit to get back to this. It was snotrag Karen, I got so hepped up about people messing with PAD's family. I don't agree with his politics but when I found out I was going to see him at Dreamcon back in June (jeez, was it that long ago?!), I had to cull all my stuff, I originally put together a huge Tupperware storage tub (the size you could wash a good-sized dog in) and 2 short boxes of comics to get signed. So, instead, I got my King Arthur, my fave Hulk comics and most of my Treks signed. Forget Bush, Kerry, vote for Peter David and buy more books! : D
"As for relationships...sure, you'd have to allow it. After all, if first cousins couldn't marry and produce kids, where would little George Bush voters come from?"
See, THIS is why your mom and I don't want you hanging out with that Ellison boy...
Bill:
>>"As for relationships...sure, you'd have to allow it. After all, if first cousins couldn't marry and produce kids, where would little George Bush voters come from?"
>See, THIS is why your mom and I don't want you hanging out with that Ellison boy...
Ellison's parents are first cousins?!?!?!
"After all, if first cousins couldn't marry and produce kids, where would little George Bush voters come from?"
See, you beg for sympathy from all of the attacks you get and then you go and make attacks on those who disagree with you.
To suggest that those of us who vote for Bush are in-bred is harshly insulting.
And let's be honest, those into in-breeding are going to vote for the left because the left is all for not 'regulating the bedroom.'
Oh thanks Fred, sic harlan on me. Watch me wake up in bed with the severed head of me.
Bill>
>Oh thanks Fred, sic harlan on me. Watch me wake up in bed with the severed head of me.
Well Bill, as I originally hail from Vermont, I had to do something to distract from my own lineage. ;)
"After all, if first cousins couldn't marry and produce kids, where would little George Bush voters come from?"
So you're saying we have the West Virginia vote locked up? Booyah!
You don't have to do anything to earn a right? I cannot believe you said something so easily blown to hell and gone. Blacks needed to do nothing to earn civil rights? Women needed to do nothing to get the right to vote? These rights have always been around and were just automatically accorded?
That's a bogus argument. By your argument, most of the people in this country who haven't either served in the army, or immigrated to this country have done nothing to earn the rights they have. Sure, Blacks and women had to fight ro have their rights honored, but those rights were due to them by the Constitution. But yes, they were being denied those rights.
You do, however, underscore your fundamental lack of comprehension about homosexuality. "They just don't want to." You refuse to believe that people are gay because of their genetic wiring. They just decided to be gay.
I never said they made a decision of any kind. I merely said that gay people don't want to marry someone of of the opposite gender. I would think that would be pretty much obvious. How you make the leap from that statement to "fundamental lack of homosexuality" is a feat the Hulk would envy.
Your attitude appears to be that since they made this "decision" that's out of line with your belief of what marriage should be, they shouldn't be rewarded for making the decision. Instead, if they want to get married, they should find a nice person of the opposite sex, just as if they want to own a house, they should find something affordable.
Come on PAD, stop making stuff up. I know you're a good writer, but geez man! What was that a post or two back you said? Oh yeah, "I respect people who don't fabricate positions for me and attack them... I suggest you follow your own advice.
No, but I'm willing to say that you have zero comprehension of contract law.
And as usual, when you make assumptions about me, you're wrong.
Either that or you're just providing deliberately obtuse arguments.
People are asking me for MY opinion and what I believe and what I would like to happen, If you don't want to know don't ask me. If you want to know what the law says, you can pose a direct question and I'll answer it to the best of my ability, or I know where I can find the answer.
Hell, if my opinon shaped reality, the human race would be about one year from extinction right now. I think God made a mistake letting Noah in on his plans.
Contracts must be agreed to by parties who have reached the legal age of consent or else it's not binding. So age is a factor.
Overall, maybe, but individual maturity would be less arbitrary. Even so, you're still going to disenfranchise someone or discriminate against someone. Just because you agree with the reason it's done weakens your whole argument. of "we shouldn't discriminate".
To be honest, I find the whole pro -gay marriage side hypocritical. On one hand you're saying the goverment shouldn't tell you who to marry and should stay out of your bedroom, but then you run TO the government to try and get the government to INCLUDE you.
To be consistent the argument should be government should get out of the marriage business all together.
I still believe that it's just a matter of time before gay marriage is allowed. Most people will just tire of the argument and agree to allow gay marriage just to stop the debate.
I also predict that immediately after that, probably within the first year, you WILL see a lawsuit against a church or religious organization based on discrimination. The argument will be that when ministers perform weddings they are essentially acting as agents of the government and so marriage should be recognized as a secular event and not religious. They will argue seperation of church and state and either ask that churches and ministers no longer be allowed to perform marriages OR that churches MUST perform marriage ceremonies for anyone who requests the service.
As for relationships...sure, you'd have to allow it. After all, if first cousins couldn't marry and produce kids, where would little George Bush voters come from?"
Democrats who've gain the ability to think for themselves?
Karen,
Re: PAD's "dig". I actually chuckled. His little "heh" definitely meant he was joking, and not everyone here has lost their sense of humor:)
I also predict that immediately after that, probably within the first year, you WILL see a lawsuit against a church or religious organization based on discrimination. The argument will be that when ministers perform weddings they are essentially acting as agents of the government and so marriage should be recognized as a secular event and not religious. They will argue seperation of church and state and either ask that churches and ministers no longer be allowed to perform marriages OR that churches MUST perform marriage ceremonies for anyone who requests the service.
I predict that such a lawsuit would be about as successful as a non-Catholic heterosexual couple suing the Catholic church for refusing to marry them. There is whole truckload of caselaw on the side of churches giving them the right to set whatever standards of belief they choose and the right to exclude (yes, discriminate) those who do not share their beliefs from participating in their religious rites.
The fact is, the law today already recognizes unions that are not recognized by certain religious orders. The Catholic Church does not recognized any marriages that are not performed by a priest, but ministers, rabbis, and justices of the peace perform marriages every day that are legally valid. The idea that legalizing gay marriage will open a flood gate of lawsuites against churches that don't want to perform them is bogus on his face.
I predict that such a lawsuit would be about as successful as a non-Catholic heterosexual couple suing the Catholic church for refusing to marry them. There is whole truckload of caselaw on the side of churches giving them the right to set whatever standards of belief they choose and the right to exclude (yes, discriminate) those who do not share their beliefs from participating in their religious rites.
Yes, the Boy Scouts won that case, but look at what's happening to them now. They have problems reserving park sites on public grounds and school rooms for meeting in.
In the fast-growing suburb I live in, several churches temporarily meet at area schools until they get enough money/land to start building. If these churches were to start getting the "Boy Scout treatment" for refusing to allow gay clergy, refusing gay marriage (in accordance with their own beliefs), then many of them might not get off the ground.
The legal challenges to gay marriage will go on for years even after its legalized.
And hopefully, like the Boy Scouts, churches won't buckle under that unfair treatment and will remain true to their beliefs and doctrines.
Yes, the Boy Scouts won that case, but look at what's happening to them now. They have problems reserving park sites on public grounds and school rooms for meeting in.
You'll have to show me where in the Constitution the boy scouts have the right to free meeting space on public land and in public buildings. The boy scouts have the right to require a conformity of belief for their members and people who don't agree with them have the right to refuse to associate with them.
What's that called again? Oh yeah, freedom of speech and freedom of association. Ain't America great?
In the fast-growing suburb I live in, several churches temporarily meet at area schools until they get enough money/land to start building. If these churches were to start getting the "Boy Scout treatment" for refusing to allow gay clergy, refusing gay marriage (in accordance with their own beliefs), then many of them might not get off the ground.
Doubtful. I've seen many new churches getting their start by meeting in the basement of existing church buildings or even rent a conference room in a hotel. If the members of the church are sincere in creating a new building, then pass the collection plate! Or maybe we should just have government subsidies for new churches. Yeah! Let's put our taxes to work supporting churches that promote certain values. Oh wait, that's why my ancestors left Europe.
Nevermind.
You'll have to show me where in the Constitution the boy scouts have the right to free meeting space on public land and in public buildings. The boy scouts have the right to require a conformity of belief for their members and people who don't agree with them have the right to refuse to associate with them.
Agreed, but when cities issue leases and permits to other religious and non-profits, but refuse them for the scouts, then they are guilty of violation their own non-discrimination rules.
For those of you who missed it, here is an example John Kerry's shining moment where he was right the first time. This article by Bill Kristol says it all:
Kerry vs. Kerry
What does "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" mean?
by William Kristol
09/07/2004 12:20:00 PM
JOHN KERRY said yesterday that Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." Translation: We would be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power.
Not an unheard of point of view. Indeed, as President Bush pointed out today, it was Howard Dean's position during the primary season. On December 15, 2003, in a speech at the Pacific Council on International Policy in Los Angeles, Dean said that "the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer." Dean also said, "The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at the extraordinary cost, so far, of $166 billion."
But who challenged Dean immediately? John Kerry. On December 16, at Drake University in Iowa, Kerry asserted that "those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."
Kerry was right then.
Man, I sure would hate to be running Kerry's camgaign right now. But then again, I doubt ABC, NBC, CBS, or CNN will even mention how Kerry has contradicted himself. There is no (sane) way to reconcile his two statements. He has clearly flip flopped yet again.
Jim in Iowa.
^
Believing that the world is better and safer without Saddam Hussein and believing we should not have gone to war as we did are not mutually exclusive.
It's how I feel, actually.
The Boy Scouts declared themselves in court to be a religious organization, in justifying the expulsion of an athiest Scoutmaster. Thus, they are no more entitled to preferential treatment in the use of public property than, say, the Episcopalian Church. Not sure what this has to do with the subject at hand, but...
Incidentally, the Worldwide Church of the Creator, federally recognized as a religious institution, will not acknowledge my marriage, as they regard my wife as a subhuman "mud person". According to their rules, our marriage is an offense against God, for which we shall spend eternity in Hell. Does that mean I can sue them for discrimination?
(For those who have trouble with the concept of rhetorical questions, the answer is "no". Religious organizations have a pretty firmly established legal authority to discriminate against anybody they want - that's why the infamous Dr. Laura had to convert to Judaism in order to get married in a synagogue.)
Rulan,
I understand your last post. Really, I do. But how do you defend Kerry stating he "would have voted exactly the same way" - when the war is going well - for the use of force against Iraq, and now reversing his position on THAT.
How do you explain his telling a Jewish group that their "wall" is necessary for security, and then reversing his position in front of Palestinians.
The man has no core, and it is reflected and exemplified not by different positions he has from what he might have said/done 30 years ago (though he really shot himself in the foot with that as well, which I relish), but that he cannot and has not given a consistent position on Iraq in the past SEVEN MONTHS.
He believes in nothing, except that he wants to be President.
Just out of curiosity, now that we've all had time to more fully digest what Kerry is like and how he's been (so far) relating to the people, how many of the Democrats here still prefer him being the Democratic candidate over Dean?
Agreed, but when cities issue leases and permits to other religious and non-profits, but refuse them for the scouts, then they are guilty of violation their own non-discrimination rules.
But allowing a group that openly discriminates against gays and atheists to use their facilities may also violate their non-discrimination rules. Some people in this forum love to tell PAD that freedom of speech has consequences, but so does freedom of association. If the boy scouts want to separate themselves from one segment of society, then they'll have to just accept that it will put them at odds with people who disagree with them.
Some people in this forum love to tell PAD that freedom of speech has consequences, but so does freedom of association. If the boy scouts want to separate themselves from one segment of society, then they'll have to just accept that it will put them at odds with people who disagree with them.
Again, I think that's a given, and I don't think the scouts have a problem with it - until Catholic/Jewish organizations (who are religious and discriminatory) and the Girl Scouts continue to get preferential treatment from city councils and school boards. How can a city be violating anti-discrimination policy for the Boy Scouts but not be doing so for the Catholic Church?
The real answer is to stop such preferential treatment and allow equal access to public facilities to all groups.
Gorginfoogle:
>Just out of curiosity, now that we've all had time to more fully digest what Kerry is like and how he's been (so far) relating to the people, how many of the Democrats here still prefer him being the Democratic candidate over Dean?
I was living in Vermont during a portion of his time as governor and appreciated the way in which he handled crtics. The man has always come across to me as a man who honestly believes in what he says and is willing to stand up and open dialogue with those who argue against his thoughts, policies, etc.
It was an amazing experience to see the role he played throughout the civil union implementation and fallout from it.
I would have loved to see him up as the presidential candidate for the Democratic Party.
Fred
Translation: We would be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power.
Wow. Talk about twisting somebody's words to suit your own purposes.
"Just out of curiosity, now that we've all had time to more fully digest what Kerry is like and how he's been (so far) relating to the people, how many of the Democrats here still prefer him being the Democratic candidate over Dean?"
If--and it's still very much an if--kerry goes down to defeat, I hope that at least some Democrats will recognize that passing over Dean, the guy who clearly had energized the base, for Kerry, whose best quality was his supposed "electability", was a foolish and cynical choice.
I remind me of the posters taht started popping up during the nomination votes-- "Dated Dean, Married Kerry". To which someone added "Woke up with Bush".
At the very least, let's agree that these front loaded primaries, which are designed to get a nominee in as short a time as possible, are fraught with pril. The problems that kerry is facing now should have come out much much earlier. he would have either answered them and emerged stronger or flopped and dropped out, allowing a stronger candidate to emerge.
The one thing that does trouble me (among other things )is that Bush at least appears to have a
set plan on how to do things and is dedicated to it while at times Kerry seems not to and this may be a deciding for undecided voters.While I disagree with Bush's policies on several issues
I would like Kerry to come out and give a definitive plan for what he wants and to be more aggressive in his tactics.I forget who it was but someone once stated "republicans no matter how wrong or misguided have an opinion and stick with it"Too often the Democrats appear wimpy in their philosophy.Before everyone reacts ,I dont like Bush ,(though i find his misuse of the english language hysterical)and Dick Cheney scares the hell out of me,I dont want to vote for Kerry cause just cause hes not Bush.
I truly wish there was viable third option somewhwere.
As for Bush and the english language his latest statement about Doctors being being able to practice their love of women was godawful embarrasing.
RE Jerome :Okay i picked up issue 3 of Identity Crisis.This was a lot better than the previous issues ,and it did feature one of my favorites Slade Wilson.I think because Sue Dibny was a very likable character was why i was so disgusted with the first two.Dont like that Hawkman and GA 's history all comes down to the mind wiping incidents.I have my own theories on who the killer may be so I guess i gotta read now to find out if i am correct.Unlike posters elsewhere the "rewrite "of history doesnt bother me as much as the graphic nature of the deaths so far.Which I guess is good cause if murder and rape ever stops bothering me something is wrong.
If--and it's still very much an if--kerry goes down to defeat, I hope that at least some Democrats will recognize that passing over Dean, the guy who clearly had energized the base, for Kerry, whose best quality was his supposed "electability", was a foolish and cynical choice.
This particular Democrat recognized that from the moment the Iowa caucuses ended. I support Kerry, I gave money to Kerry, I'll vote for Kerry -- but he's not got my passion and isn't likely to any time soon.
TWL
realizing that keeping fingers crossed for two months isn't good for the circulation, but doing it anyway
>TWL
realizing that keeping fingers crossed for two months isn't good for the circulation, but doing it anyway
This is one of the best sign-offs I've seen here in some time. Thanks for the smile!
"To be honest, I find the whole pro -gay marriage side hypocritical. On one hand you're saying the goverment shouldn't tell you who to marry and should stay out of your bedroom, but then you run TO the government to try and get the government to INCLUDE you."
I believe the term is "seeking redress of grievances," it's a fundamental aspect of Democracy, and further, that's not what gays are doing. They're not running to the government and saying they should be included. They're going to the government that has singled them out and said they should not be EXcluded.
PAD
>I understand your last post. Really, I do. But how do you defend Kerry stating he "would have voted exactly the same way" - when the war is going well - for the use of force against Iraq, and now reversing his position on THAT.
What Kerry has been saying is that he did, and still would, give the President the authority to go to war, but would not have gone to war in that manner himself. It's not about whether Kerry wanted to go to war, but about whether any President should have such authority.
And besides, as a general rule, it's possible he supported the war then, but came to believe that President Bush misled us.
>How do you explain his telling a Jewish group that their "wall" is necessary for security, and then reversing his position in front of Palestinians.
I can't, yet; let me look for coverage of it and return later with my impressions.
How do you explain President Bush saying that "by far the vast majority [of his tax cuts] go to the people at the bottom" when the bottom 60% of the population got something like 17% of the cuts?
PAD wrote: "I believe the term is "seeking redress of grievances," it's a fundamental aspect of Democracy, and further, that's not what gays are doing. They're not running to the government and saying they should be included. They're going to the government that has singled them out and said they should not be EXcluded."
I have one question: When and where in at least 5,000 years of human history has "gay marriage" been accepted as equivalent to marriage between a man a woman? Unlike slavery, apartheid, etc., there has either been a universal exclusion of "gay marriage," or in my opinion, a universal understanding that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is only in the last 100 years that there has been any change in this feeling, and as the vote in Misourri (sp?) shows, it is still a very small minority.
Bottom line, there is no conspiracy to exclude gays from the "benefits" of marriage. Whether there was a legal recognition of marriage or benefits associated, marriage is a concept that has been defined for thousands of years as a man and a woman, and for good reason.
Does that mean we have to "persecute" gay people? No. But neither does that mean we have to fundamentally change the definition and purpose of marriage to accomodate the whims of a few. It is not hateful to say marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
Jim in Iowa
On the "Kerry and the wall brouhaha:
"Asked about the seeming contradiction between the statements made to the Arab-American and Jewish groups, Mr. Kerry’s campaign spokesman, David Wade, said the candidate’s objections to the fence, which he voiced in Michigan, were based on its proposed location in Judea and Samaria, not on Israel’s right to build it."
(Quoted from a NewsMax article)
From his comments to the Arab-American group:
Last October, he told members of the Arab American Institute, an advocacy group, that he understood how “disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government’s decision to build the barrier off of the green line—cutting deep into Palestinian areas.”
(Quoted from same NewsMax article; emphasis mine)
>I have one question: When and where in at least 5,000 years of human history has "gay marriage" been accepted as equivalent to marriage between a man a woman?
Well, among some American Indian groups, men could marry other men and essentially be recognized as their wives, and I'm sure there are other examples from throughout history.
And the lack of precedent is not an argument; unprecedentedness is value-neutral.
>marriage is a concept that has been defined for thousands of years as a man and a woman, and for good reason.
What good reasons?
>But neither does that mean we have to fundamentally change the definition and purpose of marriage to accomodate the whims of a few
Whims, huh? Britney Spears aside, how often do people get married on a whim?
I have one question: When and where in at least 5,000 years of human history has "gay marriage" been accepted as equivalent to marriage between a man a woman?
100 years ago, couldn't the exact same question have been asked about interracial marriage?
Wasn't right then. Doesn't make it right now.
I'd like to think that several generations down the line, people will be looking back at this and asking just what the hell the big fuss was about. Perhaps that's overly optimistic.
TWL
>Well, among some American Indian groups, men >could marry other men and essentially be >recognized as their wives, and I'm sure there >are other examples from throughout history.
It is true that homosexual behavior has been tolerated at times, but it has never been made equivalent. When you look at how universal marriage between a man and a woman is, this is not a "religious" or "governmental" construct. This is a human activty from the beginning of human history.
>And the lack of precedent is not an argument; >unprecedentedness is value-neutral.
Why is it not an argument? Those for gay marriage say their rights are being denied. If true, they have been denied in virtually universally for thousands of years. If true, where is the historical outrage?
I fully admit this does not prove marriage should be between a man and a woman. But that is not my point. My point here is that if there is a fundamental human right, it has been hidden and unrecognized for virually all of recorded human history. I would suggest that means it is not a fundamental right (which is a different point than whether it is wrong to do so).
>>marriage is a concept that has been defined >>for thousands of years as a man and a woman, >>and for good reason.
>What good reasons?
I will give you the most important reason: the stability of the family. Hundreds of studies have all shown that a father and a mother provide the best atmosphere to raise a healthy child. There are few things that are so overwhelmingly attested to by the research.
Can a gay couple raise a healthy child? Of course. But the studies show that they would be fighting the odds, just as a divorced couple or single parent would as well.
More fundamentally, marriage is not about benefits. It is not about satisfying my need to have sex. It is about the continuation of the human race through having children. This selfish focus undermines the true value of the family.
We no longer have laws against gay sex (nor against adultery). I believe anyone who physically harms a gay person should be punished to the full extent of the law. But saying marriage should only be between a man and a woman does not harm a gay person. It is preserving the fundamental reason for marriage in the first place.
You doubt this? Go look at the studies of Scandanavian countries where gay marriages are in basically in effect. Marriages in general have declined drastically. There is no point to them anymore.
>>But neither does that mean we have to >>fundamentally change the definition and >>purpose of marriage to accomodate the whims of >>a few
>Whims, huh? Britney Spears aside, how often do >people get married on a whim?
Give me a break. I am not talking about getting married on a whim. I am talking about changing the fundamental definition of marriage based on the objections of a few. Whether intentional or not (and I believe it is the intention), the result is that marriage loses its purpose.
Marriage is NOT a contract. Marriage is not simply an acknowledgment of the love between two people. It is more than just a commitment to each other. Marriage, as defined by thousands of years of practice, is a COVENANT. It is a dedication between two people that provides the stability that is needed to raise a healthy family.
I am also tired of all of the absurd argments about divorce and how gay marriages provide an alternative to this problem. First, many of the same arguing for gay marriages were for no fault divorce. History clearly shows the acceleration of divorce and broken families following the adoption of no fault laws. Second, gay marriages do nothing to correct the fundamental problem that happens in a divorce: the foundation of unconditional love from a mother and a father. A child needs both. A gay couple can be very loving (and I believe most are), but by definition they are of one gender. And there is a fundamental difference in the genders, even if a male of female is gay.
I also believe gay marriages will be no more stable than heterosexual marriages. That is not to say all will fail, but there is absolutely no reason why they will not fail in at least as equal a number as heterosexual marriages. There is NOTHING about a gay relationship that makes it superior to a heterosexual marriage (and some things that might make it more prone to failure -- but that is another matter).
Bottom line, to return to my original point: There is no fundamental human right for gay marriage. None. You can argue that there is no harm in it, you can argue that we should allow it, but when you argue it is a fundamental right, you need to prove that to be the case. You cannot do so.
Jim in Iowa
>>I have one question: When and where in at >>least 5,000 years of human history has "gay >>marriage" been accepted as equivalent to >>marriage between a man a woman?
>>100 years ago, couldn't the exact same >>question have been asked about interracial >>marriage?
Nice try, but actually no, it cannot. You can find an overwhelming number of examples throughout human history of interracial marriage. Yes, some many have opposed it, often to protect the integrity of their race. But it comes no where near to the universal of marriage being a man and a woman.
If gay marriage does become the norm, I think people will look back at it as a pivotal moment in history (either for good or bad). It will fundamentally change the nature of marriage. It will change to focus solely on the "benefits" and "happiness" of two people rather than on the good of society. (My opinion, but I think based on good facts.)
I am not surprised, but the press has said very little about the landslide defeat of gay marriage in Missouri. Take out the 4 largest Republican counties and it was still defeated by over 60% of the voters. They had an enourmous turnout to vote against gay marriage. The average american does not want to see a gay person murdered or even made fun of, but they understand that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. They may tolerate gays (as they should), but that does not mean they have to embrace the gay lifestyle as healthy or equal to marriage. This issue is no where near to being accepted by the average person, and I suspect it never will be overwhelmingly embraced. Time will tell.
Jim in Iowa
Sorry for the obvious typos and errors. I should have proofread it better before posting.
Jim in Iowa
>marriage is a concept that has been defined for thousands of years as a man and a woman, and for good reason.
What good reasons?
I've restrained from weighing in, but I will. I'm very torn on this topic - and I'm sure I'll get people attacking me on it, but keep in mind that I'm not really set one way or the other.
On the one hand, I am hesitant to have government define marriage and who can/can't. It's a precedent of control that disturbs the "keep-the-government-out" person in me. The more control the government has over decisions, the more potential there is they I don't get to make them.
On the other hand, there's a societal issue: that of recognizing that continuuing the species is important. If you have a man and a woman of child-bearing years together in a marriage, then you will have kids probably 90% of the time (I know there are exceptions, but they are that - exceptions). If you have male/male or female/female of child-nbearing years the probability is 0%. So, the question is, do we want to make a homosexual marriage - which is a long-term dead-end relationship for a society - given the same rights/priveleges/etc?
I think this is what many people struggle with. They want independence from government for themselves, but there's just a gut-level reaction of "Maybe this just isn't the best idea".
Now, as far as government control/incentives go, the government dictates a lot of behavior through various means. The tax code being an example. We give tax breaks for charitable donations and home mortgage interest. The first is to encourage free giving, the latter to encourage property ownership. Marriage is an incentive program as well: the legal protection of not testifying against a spouse, of insurance, of default legal status in wills, etc. are all built into a marriage so that society encourages it. So, is it in the government's greater interest to encourage heterosexual marriage over other relationships? Since one is a societal dead-end, there's an argument for government to "incent" it.
I see good and bad to both sides. One person's incentive is another person's penalty (that's the semantic difference of PAD's "should include" vs. "should not exclude" - legally the same, but different in appearance). Look at the "marriage penalty". A married couple typically has fewer household expenses than a single person because they share the burden, so there was a good argument for having a higher tax on marriage, but the counter argument was why "penalize" married couples?
Is heterosexual marriage an incentive for society or a penalty against homsexual individuals? That's the question to answer - and I don't have a good one.
So, if you read my entire ramble on this, thanks. I hope it doesn't offend anyone - I'm trying to muddle through this like a lot of people these days.
The idea that society perceives marriage as about continuation of the species is, to be blunt, just stupid. It's not why people get married.
You may think it is, and believe it should be, but unless you're willing to deny rights to couples who don't want to have children, your position is inconsistent.
And "Where's the historical outrage?"
Homosexuality has not been tolerated at all until relatively recently. There was no way to broadcast outrage over "We can't get married" when the dominant concern was "They'll put us in prison or kill us."
Besides, I think anyone will agree that lots of outrageous things went on in the sweep of history with little or no expression of remorse.
And by the way, while survival of the species is a broad prerogative for humanity, encouraging it is not the province of a government.
>My point here is that if there is a fundamental human right, it has been hidden and unrecognized for virually all of recorded human history. I would suggest that means it is not a fundamental right
I am willing to accept the argument that marriage is not a fundamental right if and only if a consistent explanation of how one gets the right is offered and applied.
>You doubt this? Go look at the studies of Scandanavian countries where gay marriages are in basically in effect. Marriages in general have declined drastically. There is no point to them anymore.
>Cohabitation and marriage among young adults in Sweden: Attitudes, expectations and plans
Eva M. Bernhardt
Department of Sociology, Stockholm University
Non-marital coresidential relationships are more widespread in Sweden than in almost all other countries. More than half of all births are extra-marital. Yet, people do continue to get married. Lifelong cohabitation, especially in the presence of children, probably remains a relatively rare phenomenon. Young adults in Sweden overwhelmingly approve of childbearing and childrearing within cohabiting unions. Nevertheless, a majority of those currently living with a partner expect to marry within the next five years. Sending a signal to others that the relationship is a seriously committed one seems to be the most important aspect of getting married. Thus, despite the existence of widespread and widely accepted non-marital cohabitation among young adults in Sweden, there is no indication that marriage will disappear as a social institution. The motivations for marriage may have changed, but the future of marriage does not seem to be in danger.
Reference: In Carling, J., ed. (2002) Nordic demography: Trends and differentials. Scandinavian Population Studies, Vol. 13. Oslo: Unipub forlag / Nordic Demographic Society.
A link on the "gay parents don't do as well" issue:
http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2097048
And a further one on the Scandinavian issues:
And by the way, while survival of the species is a broad prerogative for humanity, encouraging it is not the province of a government.
A government shouldn't be interested in the survival of the species and its citizens? I guess we should cancel all of the social welfare programs then. After all, if the government is not interested in having their citizens "be" then they certainly shouldn't be interested in having their citizens "be healthy", "be educated", "be fed", or "be productive".
A government by its nature must be interested in such things, so by extension, must be interested in the long term survivability of its citizens.
^^
It does sound absurd. I may expand on what I mean at some point, but for now I retract that so it doesn't become a flashpoint.
Instead, focus on the fact that child-bearing and marriage need not be and are not related, and that our species is not in real danger of dying out.
One brief point, Mark L:
A government may be responsible (let's set that aside for now) for caring for the citizens who already exist. It should be neutral on the creation of new ones, which will happen anyway.
Generally, if government involvement in something is not necessary, it's a bad idea. Or so I believe.
If the only legitimate reason to be married is to raise kids, then I guess my wife and I (12 years this Oct and no kids) have been living a lie. Thanks for letting me know I have no legitimate reason to be with my wife. I'll file for divorce immediately. Too bad, we really are happy together, but since we don't plan on having kids we have no right to be together.
I really love the argument that legal recognition of gay unions is some kind of threat to heterosexual marriage. The fact is, marriage as institution has been in flux for at least the past 40 years as divorce has become more and more acceptable. There are many reasons for that, but since in 1964 no one was taking gay rights seriously at all, it really has nothing to do the acceptance of gay unions.
I'll tell you what, anyone care to make a wager? Can anyone find me one heterosexual couple in Vermont or Masschusetts who has decided to split up or not get married as a direct result of those states recognizing gay unions? C'mon. All it'll take is just one. Any takers?
Den W:
>I'll tell you what, anyone care to make a wager? Can anyone find me one heterosexual couple in Vermont or Masschusetts who has decided to split up or not get married as a direct result of those states recognizing gay unions? C'mon. All it'll take is just one. Any takers?
It would be interesting if someone did a study on the prevelance of successful, long-term, committed gay couples only to find that the percentage of those carried on successfully was higher than the 45% of marriages that are. It is fun to imagine someone doing so and using that info to argue how allowing homosexuals to marry would actually perserve the sanctity of marriage.
"Can a gay couple raise a healthy child? Of course. But the studies show that they would be fighting the odds, just as a divorced couple or single parent would as well."
This seems to suggest that the odds are that a child of gay parents (as well as divorced or single parents) will be unhealthy. Absolutely untrue.
All else being equal, the absolute best upbringing would be to have a mom and a dad who are geniuses in perfect health and with lots of money. While the average household probably misses this ideal, most kids end up ok.
"Go look at the studies of Scandanavian countries where gay marriages are in basically in effect. Marriages in general have declined drastically. There is no point to them anymore."
Nonsense. If the number of marriages has declined it has NOTHING to do with whatever gays are doing. It's because of things like domestic partnerships, civil unions and other choices for HERTEROSEXUALS. How letting two guys get married would make anyone think that there is no point to marriage is beyond me.
"I am talking about changing the fundamental definition of marriage based on the objections of a few. Whether intentional or not (and I believe it is the intention), the result is that marriage loses its purpose."
So this is not about gays wanting to get married, it's about them wanting to ruin things for the rest of us?
"You can find an overwhelming number of examples throughout human history of interracial marriage. Yes, some many have opposed it, often to protect the integrity of their race."
There is no such thing as "the integrity of a race" but that's a good discussion for another time. But take my word on it; the racial classification system we use is one of the sorriest bits of pseudoscience ever to make itself part of the human culture.
Instead, focus on the fact that child-bearing and marriage need not be and are not related,
I'm not going to disagree, except that (historically) marriage has provide the societal framework for it. That's my point in a nutshell - societal needs vs. invidual needs and which should we hold higher in this case. Like I said, I don't know that I have a good answer.
and that our species is not in real danger of dying out.
Actually, in the US, we are very close to a zero-growth society. I can't find the source now, but I saw recently that the USA is at 2.13 births per woman (it was at 2.8 several decades ago). 2.1 is considered the minimum to sustain (due to illness, death, etc.). So, the possibility of our society shrinking is very real.
>>Instead, focus on the fact that child-bearing and marriage need not be and are not related,
>I'm not going to disagree, except that (historically) marriage has provide the societal framework for it. That's my point in a nutshell - societal needs vs. invidual needs and which should we hold higher in this case. Like I said, I don't know that I have a good answer.
Well, again, I think we as a society need to test whether or not the historical linkage of the two is necessary, or merely the inevitable result of restrictive social frameworks.
And no one really has a good answer. :) That someone thinks so is the first sign of a poor debater on any topic.
>>and that our species is not in real danger of dying out.
>Actually, in the US, we are very close to a zero-growth society. I can't find the source now, but I saw recently that the USA is at 2.13 births per woman (it was at 2.8 several decades ago). 2.1 is considered the minimum to sustain (due to illness, death, etc.). So, the possibility of our society shrinking is very real.
I said "our species," not our society. According to the CIA World Factbook, in 2004 the U.S. estimate is actually below that threshold, at 2.07. The world estimate is at 2.62.
Actually, in the US, we are very close to a zero-growth society.
But, when you factor in immigration, the US population in fact continues to grow. In any event, the US isn't the entire world. Worldwide, we're past 6.5 billion and heading fast towards 7 billion. Not really any danger of there not being a replacement population being born.
What, the survival of the US doesn't matter to the two of you? :)
I didn't say that. :)
Besides, as Den W. pointed out, continuing immigration ups the population even when birth-rate declines.
The survival of the U.S. matters to me, yes, but only as long as its ideals remain intact. What makes a nation worthwhile is not that it exists but how it conducts itself.
And it is almost inevitable that the U.S. will cease to exist; it is what happens to nations. They rise, they grow, they peak, they fall.
The US will survive fine. We're not a zero-growth, as any glance at the census tables will immediately show you. The problem is, the question was about our species dying out and you turned it into a fear that America is going to suddenly not have a sustainable population.
Are you saying that people from other countries are a different species? :)
Let me ask you this: How many more gay couples do you think legalizing gay marriage will produce? Studies have indicated that homosexuals make up somewhere between one and ten percent of the population. Do you think that if two men are allowed to get married that hordes of currently straight men will leave their wives and shack up with their poker buddies?
Please. Legalizing gay marriage will increase the number of gay couples by exactly zero.
The US will survive fine. We're not a zero-growth, as any glance at the census tables will immediately show you. The problem is, the question was about our species dying out and you turned it into a fear that America is going to suddenly not have a sustainable population.
Are you saying that people from other countries are a different species? :)
Well we are talking about US government policy, so I think it's relevant, but I wouldn't take it to that conclusion... :)
Let me ask you this: How many more gay couples do you think legalizing gay marriage will produce? Studies have indicated that homosexuals make up somewhere between one and ten percent of the population. Do you think that if two men are allowed to get married that hordes of currently straight men will leave their wives and shack up with their poker buddies?
I'm not trying to discuss the individual sexual preferences, just what benefits our society should have for their relationships. Please note that I've never once said homosexuality is wrong or a sin - I don't think that way. This (to my mind) is all about what we choose to give as societal benefits. I think once you get rid of the religious extreme of people saying its a sin, this is what most people on the fence are unsure about.
Damn, how did this get from winning the war on terror to homosexual marriage rights?
Well, I certainly don't always agree with Bill Mulligan, but for once... I'm right there with ya, Bill, as far as I can tell.
I'm not trying to discuss the individual sexual preferences, just what benefits our society should have for their relationships.
And I'll reiterate that the government's issuing of marriage licenses can only be construed as a benefit if there are clear and defined ways one qualifies for it. And if those qualifications aren't reasonable, then the whole thing falls apart.
What I regret most is the prevailing belief among all concerned that government acknowledgment of a marriage even matters. Really, marriage is a state of mind.
What I regret most is the prevailing belief among all concerned that government acknowledgment of a marriage even matters. Really, marriage is a state of mind.
I agree. However, since we're discussing legal rights, it has to be somehow acknowledged as a right by the government. Free speech doesn't mean jacks*** if your government doesn't support it.
So, we're left with an ugly issue for everyone.
I agree. However, since we're discussing legal rights, it has to be somehow acknowledged as a right by the government.
Yeah, of course. I just regret the mingling of certain contractual decisions that a couple makes with the idea of being married. If not for that, civil unions would be enough.
>>Damn, how did this get from winning
>>the war on terror to homosexual
>>marriage rights?
I am not sure myself. But when PAD weighed in on the issue, I decided to add my two cents worth.
One point: You do not have to have kids to be married. That being said, it is absurd to not recognize that the institution of marriage has been in every culture of thousands of years not just to "bless" the union of a couple, but as a "home" for raising a family (i.e., having kids). It was only in this generation that there was a truly viable alternative to having kids without having actual sex. Another way of putting it, all things being equal, there should be dedicated parents who are committed to raising kids. Marriage, in part, is an instituion that provides this very framework. So while not having kids is now more than ever an option to a couple (with all of the forms of birth control at our disposal), a central purpose of marriage is to provide a place to raise a child. And I still argue that a home with a man and woman as parents is better than a single parent home, or a home with parents of the same gender.
This should be obvious. Which is why I find the following argment absurd:
>I'll tell you what, anyone care to make a >wager? Can anyone find me one heterosexual >couple in Vermont or Masschusetts who has >decided to split up or not get married as a >direct result of those states recognizing gay >unions? C'mon. All it'll take is just one. Any
No one is claiming that allowing a gay marriage will cause a heterosexual marriage to break up (unless, of course, a spouse is a closet gay). To raise the question is to throw up a red herring. The point is that allowing gay marriage fundamentally changes the purpose of marriage in the first place (as argued above).
Let me give you an example: Imagine you are a doctor. You have passed your medical exams. You can now put M.D. after your name. What if I suddenly decided to allow anyone who can spell their name on a piece of paper to call themself a doctor? What would your "M.D." now mean? You are still skilled as a doctor, but the term has become meaningless.
By marrying a gay couple, I believe you are making the very meaning of marriage meaningless. That does not mean my marriage will end, but it does have implications for others down the road (why bother going to school if you don't need to?). As the posts about Scandanvian countries actually show, marriage has lost its meaning there, not just because of gay marriage, but that is certainly a part of it. Will some still get married? Yes. But I am confident that when we check in 30 years down the road, we will find a lot of damaged children, just as we now are finding after 30 years of no fault divorce (which I never said was because of gay marriage -- my point was that anything that weakens marriage has an impact on kids).
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa:
>One point: You do not have to have kids to be married. That being said, it is absurd to not recognize that the institution of marriage has been in every culture of thousands of years not just to "bless" the union of a couple, but as a "home" for raising a family (i.e., having kids). It was only in this generation that there was a truly viable alternative to having kids without having actual sex. Another way of putting it, all things being equal, there should be dedicated parents who are committed to raising kids. Marriage, in part, is an instituion that provides this very framework. So while not having kids is now more than ever an option to a couple (with all of the forms of birth control at our disposal), a central purpose of marriage is to provide a place to raise a child.
While I won't argue this point, I would toss in that one of the earliest rationales for ceremonies of couples was a public acknowledgement/recognition of the couple's union. This was not only a celebration worth noting, but also an official "hand's off" notice to other tribe or community members, etc.
>And I still argue that a home with a man and woman as parents is better than a single parent home, or a home with parents of the same gender.
I'm still not fully able to grasp the basis of your argument. Is your point focused on the abilities of a same gender couple or on a society's treatment towards said child? Are there actual longitudinal statistics for this?
>Let me give you an example: Imagine you are a doctor. You have passed your medical exams. You can now put M.D. after your name. What if I suddenly decided to allow anyone who can spell their name on a piece of paper to call themself a doctor? What would your "M.D." now mean? You are still skilled as a doctor, but the term has become meaningless.
The main difference between gay marriage and your m.d. analogy is that the gay relationships require just as much, sometimes more, effort than straight relationships. The doctoral work is just that. A person either works towards gaining a certain level of knowledge or doesn't. The degree is recognition of work completed. The marriage is legal recognition of a union, nothing more, nothing less.
As the posts about Scandanvian countries actually show, marriage has lost its meaning there, not just because of gay marriage, but that is certainly a part of it.
Er, the Scandinavian countries haven't changed any faster than others, so in the absence of other evidence, it's not part of it.
And I still argue that a home with a man and woman as parents is better than a single parent home, or a home with parents of the same gender.
And I still argue that it isn't.
That being said, it is absurd to not recognize that the institution of marriage has been in every culture of thousands of years not just to "bless" the union of a couple, but as a "home" for raising a family (i.e., having kids).
Oh, I recognize that. It's just immaterial.
Another way of putting it, all things being equal, there should be dedicated parents who are committed to raising kids. Marriage, in part, is an instituion that provides this very framework.
Very true. Which is why gay couples should be allowed to get married.
It is about the continuation of the human race through having children
Well shit, I guess I better go start the divorce proceedings tomorrow, as my wife and I have no intention of having kids.
Thankfully, we don't live in your idea of a perfect little world.
Maybe you've lived in Iowa too long, where half a dozen kids to work on the farm is the norm. :P
Craig:
>>It is about the continuation of the human race through having children
>Well shit, I guess I better go start the divorce proceedings tomorrow, as my wife and I have no intention of having kids.
Meanwhile, I'm going to go out and begin doing my part for the human race, without the hassle of that pesky marriage license. ;)
No one is claiming that allowing a gay marriage will cause a heterosexual marriage to break up (unless, of course, a spouse is a closet gay).
Then again, I don't understand what the "threat" to marriage is that needs to be "defended." If Adam and Steve down the block decide to get together and Steve wants to put Adam on his health insurance. That does nothing to weaken the bounds of my marriage or to make it meaningless.
Or maybe I'm just more secure in my relationship that you are in yours.:)
As the posts about Scandanvian countries actually show, marriage has lost its meaning there, not just because of gay marriage, but that is certainly a part of it.
Actually, you have yet to provide any proof that gay marriage is a "part of it." You're using false logic. Saying that a) Sweden has gay marriage and b) straight couples in Sweden are cohabitating for a few years before deciding to get marriage is proof that a) causes b) without any correlation is bogus logic. Has anyone interviewed any of these straight couples to see why they are delaying marriage? Have any of them said that they feel marriage has "lost all meaning" since Sweden started recognizing gay couples?
I can make just such as specious argument with comics: a) In the 1950s, a lot of kids read comics, b) In the 1950s juvenile delinquency was on the rise, therefore, comics caused juvenile delinquency.
You'll have to show me where in the Constitution the boy scouts have the right to free meeting space on public land and in public buildings. The boy scouts have the right to require a conformity of belief for their members and people who don't agree with them have the right to refuse to associate with them.
You already cited it. The First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I know what you're going to say, "separation of church and state", but the Constitution doesn't say that, nor does it cite an exception to the rule. The clause "separation of church and state" is by most accounts "legal fiction". The clause comes from a letter Thomas Jeffersn wrote to a Danbury Church Baptist who was asking Jefferson to side with them in having public officials take religious oaths of office.
Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802).
Jefferson would have considered the idea of prohibiting the Boy Scouts from meeting in public buildings as a form of government coerscion, as do I. It's a blatant attempt to force the Boy Scouts to behave in a way contrary to their stated religious beliefs. while at the same time violating the First amendment not just once but twice.
Therefore, the Boy Scouts have the same right to free use of public buildings that ANY group has.
I find it rather frightening and somewhat hypocritical that groups like the ACLU find it MORE acceptable to allow a group of hate-filled nazis and KKK to march in Skokie, IL to ADVOCATE hate and discrimination on public lands but are against the idea of the Boy Scouts meeting in a school.
I know what you're going to say, "separation of church and state".
Actually, you don't know what I'm going to say. :)
I find it rather frightening and somewhat hypocritical that groups like the ACLU find it MORE acceptable to allow a group of hate-filled nazis and KKK to march in Skokie, IL to ADVOCATE hate and discrimination on public lands but are against the idea of the Boy Scouts meeting in a school.
Really? So a group that openly advocates discrimination should not be allowed to meet on public lands? Great! Let's kick the boy scouts out then.
Actually, you don't know what I'm going to say. :)
See? I knew you were going to say that.
Really? So a group that openly advocates discrimination should not be allowed to meet on public lands? Great! Let's kick the boy scouts out then.
Actually, I didn't say either group should not be allowed. I merely called it hypocritical to support one group over the other when you claim they're both doing the same thing.
If you want to claim that the Boy Scouts are equal to the Nazis and KKK go right ahead. If you want to kick them out of public bulidings for expressing those beliefs then you're being just as bad as you claim they are. You going to kick everybody out who doesn't agree with you?
Yeah, it's FOX, but it's exactly on point with parts of this discussion.
Posted by: Den W.:
"Really? So a group that openly advocates discrimination should not be allowed to meet on public lands? Great! Let's kick the boy scouts out then."
Major league differences here. The KKK wants to discriminate against non-whites (and people that don't follow their brand of religion) totally. The KKK wants these people dead.
The Boy Scouts wants to keep out people that won't agree with the established rules of that organization. Seriously folks, why would someone, anyone, want to join an organization they don't agree with???
And if full disclosure, I am not, nor have I ever been a member of the KKK. I was, however, a very active member of the Boy Scouts, and even an Eagle Scout. As I grew to adulthood, I lost many of my Christian beliefs and withdrew from the organization. This wasn't the only reason I left the group, but it's one of the major reasons I haven't rejoined as an adult leader.
check out the band Suicide's song Terror Preached Lyrics...
It's kind of a summary of this topic.
www.suicidepact.net