[About BTJ]
Name: BLT - E-mail me
Age: 28
Why BTJ:"I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways; I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice. Things refuse to be mismanaged long."
-- Theodore Parker
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
-- Martin Luther King Jr.
"No people is wholly civilized where a distinction is drawn between stealing an office and stealing a purse."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
"No longer do we take the sword against any nation, nor do we learn war any more, since we have become sons of peace."
--Origen
[Links]
BTJ RSS Feed
Blogroll Me!
Donate to blackboxvoting.org
Conscientious Objection
« # Pacific Northwest Blogs ? »
[Archives]
Current Entries
01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004
02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004
03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004
04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004
05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004
06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004
07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004
08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004
09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004
10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004
[Credits]
- Blogger
Bush reiterates his position
Bush today declared that he was in favor of a constitutional amendment because "the job of the president is to drive policy toward the ideal."
I would have hoped that he would say that the job of the president is to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and (will) to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Preserve, protect, and defend - funny, I don't really see the word "rewrite" in that sentence. In fact, Article II is completely devoid of any mention of policy-making, except for treaties and appointments* - which still have to be approved by Congress.
*Whoops. Guess he fudged Article II a little on that one, too.
I would have hoped that he would say that the job of the president is to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and (will) to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Preserve, protect, and defend - funny, I don't really see the word "rewrite" in that sentence. In fact, Article II is completely devoid of any mention of policy-making, except for treaties and appointments* - which still have to be approved by Congress.
*Whoops. Guess he fudged Article II a little on that one, too.
Thursday, February 26, 2004
No posts today
I will be back with pithy liberal hogwash tomorrow. Until then, enjoy the spongmonkeys one more time.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Bush the candidate is still President Bush's best critic
Atrios has a Larry King transcript from 2000 putting Bush squarely in the States' Rights camp.
KING: So if a state were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it?
BUSH: The state can do what they want to do.
Do we need any more evidence that President Bush doesn't even believe the things that come out of his own mouth?
And caveat from yesterday: I should point out that when I espouse States' Rights, it comes with the caveat that the Equal Protection clause or any other current Constitutional right must be protected. So when I say that States' Rights should apply to gay marriage, that doesn't mean that I think states should be able to outlaw gay civil unions.See also this post.
KING: So if a state were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it?
BUSH: The state can do what they want to do.
Do we need any more evidence that President Bush doesn't even believe the things that come out of his own mouth?
And caveat from yesterday: I should point out that when I espouse States' Rights, it comes with the caveat that the Equal Protection clause or any other current Constitutional right must be protected. So when I say that States' Rights should apply to gay marriage, that doesn't mean that I think states should be able to outlaw gay civil unions.See also this post.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Speaking of Bush and Sex...
Salon has a absolutely scathing criticism of abstinence-only sexual education program. It's worth watching the ad to get the free day pass, people.
States' rights are vital - as long as we agree with the states
Andrew Sullivan posts some letters in response to his unhappiness with the President. My favorite is this short but sweet message:
"Seriously, when they have to hit you with the speech equivalent of a two by four to get your attention as to how they feel about you, you might want to rethink your party affiliation."
Not to pile on, but I too have to wonder what gay Republicans have been thinking all these years. Considering the rhetoric coming from the far right - the same far right that Bush pandered to by speaking at Bob Jones University during the first election - is it any surprise that the Log Cabin Republicans are the first agains the wall now that his poll numbers are plummeting?
But I don't want to be flippant - this amendment would be a travesty. Wasn't conservatives' argument against the ERA that the Constitution shouldn't be used for such specific, unilateral purposes? Wasn't the Republican party the party of "States' Rights"? Shouldn't we get the government out of marriage altogether?
(And shouldn't Bush be banned from using the term "activist judge" ever again?)
I was brought up a Democrat, but I was brought up to respect Republicans because they were the party of fiscal responsibility and states' rights. I'm not feeling quite so respectful anymore.
"Seriously, when they have to hit you with the speech equivalent of a two by four to get your attention as to how they feel about you, you might want to rethink your party affiliation."
Not to pile on, but I too have to wonder what gay Republicans have been thinking all these years. Considering the rhetoric coming from the far right - the same far right that Bush pandered to by speaking at Bob Jones University during the first election - is it any surprise that the Log Cabin Republicans are the first agains the wall now that his poll numbers are plummeting?
But I don't want to be flippant - this amendment would be a travesty. Wasn't conservatives' argument against the ERA that the Constitution shouldn't be used for such specific, unilateral purposes? Wasn't the Republican party the party of "States' Rights"? Shouldn't we get the government out of marriage altogether?
(And shouldn't Bush be banned from using the term "activist judge" ever again?)
I was brought up a Democrat, but I was brought up to respect Republicans because they were the party of fiscal responsibility and states' rights. I'm not feeling quite so respectful anymore.
Monday, February 23, 2004
WE LOVE THE SUBS!!!
Finally someone explained it!
They're called spongmonkeys. In the past, they've apparently loved "the moon, marmots, cheese, dirigibles, and several other nouns." And now they love Quizno's subs.
I, for one, am firmly in the "these ads are genius" camp. They never fail to make me laugh uncomfortably, and the images of the subs sell themselves once my eyes are locked on them. If we have to see advertising - and short of killing our televisions, we do- it's refreshing to see a company taking chances on abstract fun rather than the numbing, focus-grouped, "safe" junk most companies regurgitate onto TVs. (And if the spongmonkeys make you regurgitate, I'm sorry. My wife is in this group, but she'll come around).
They're called spongmonkeys. In the past, they've apparently loved "the moon, marmots, cheese, dirigibles, and several other nouns." And now they love Quizno's subs.
I, for one, am firmly in the "these ads are genius" camp. They never fail to make me laugh uncomfortably, and the images of the subs sell themselves once my eyes are locked on them. If we have to see advertising - and short of killing our televisions, we do- it's refreshing to see a company taking chances on abstract fun rather than the numbing, focus-grouped, "safe" junk most companies regurgitate onto TVs. (And if the spongmonkeys make you regurgitate, I'm sorry. My wife is in this group, but she'll come around).
Send your money to Wil Wheaton...for a good cause, that is
Wil Wheaton and - let's give credit where credit is due - especially his wife, Anne, are raising money for leukemia and lymphoma and are halfway to their goal of $25,000. Everyone within the sound of my voice should go here and strongly consider sponsoring them if you can afford it - or at least sending kind thoughts and words to them and their friend Kris.
Wil's got a big heart, as seen both in this kind of work and the rest of his blogging missives. Reading his blog has inspired me many times over. Plus he named his blog after a Pixies song, and the Pixies, as everyone know are the greatest band ever - so if you haven't already checked out WWDN, do so now. Really. You won't regret it.
Wil's got a big heart, as seen both in this kind of work and the rest of his blogging missives. Reading his blog has inspired me many times over. Plus he named his blog after a Pixies song, and the Pixies, as everyone know are the greatest band ever - so if you haven't already checked out WWDN, do so now. Really. You won't regret it.
Sunday, February 22, 2004
Movable Type can eat it
Thanks to Atrios, whose fine, fine Eschaton blog informed me about it: We've got trackback now! Now read the entry below, suckers.
There are people - and I freely admit there was a brief time when I was one of them - who root for things to get worse. Ralph Nader is another one. In this article, from early 2001, Nader saw the bright side of Bush's environmental policy, a "bright side" which the president of the League of Conservation Voters described bitterly as the idea that "the fact that we have a series of environmental catastrophes on our hands is good for the environmental community."
So: No, it's not your imagination. Nader, in a very real way, was celebrating environmental disaster for its polarizing quality. Now, apparently, he sees all kinds of benefit from American deaths in Iraq or civil rights abuses at home. How do I know this? Because he's running again. He's running again because he truly does not see a difference between the candidates. The last four years have done nothing to convince him that there is a crucial difference between the policies of Democrats and Republicans.
The sad thing is, I agree with him in many ways, just as I did in 2000. The Democrats are tied up with special interests. Our nation does need to break out of this rigid two-party system. We do need spirited liberals working for change like the ones Dean mobilized this year with his "outsider" candidacy.
But Nader and his diehard supporters don't think that's enough. They want to see the earth scorched. Most of them would deny it, of course, but in an earlier post I quoted a Deaniac who was considering supporting Nader: "I have decided that perhaps America must lose everything to value something." Anyone who votes for Nader in 2004 is in implicit agreement.
Four more years of Bush means four more years of skyrocketing deficits, four more years of shadowy, destructive energy policies, four more years of No Child Left Behind - and don't forget those two to three retiring Supreme Court justices.
Do Democrats have the magic touch? Absolutely not. But they are our only alternative in 2004. Our only alternative. And let's work towards a different alternative in future elections - but to force our hand, Nader and his supporters would have our children, our environment, our nation rot and fester until the suffering is overwhelming and universal. And that is cynicism bordering on nihilism.
"The arc of the moral universe is long" - and cannot be made shorter. Just as peace cannot be bought with war, the justice Nader claims to be looking for cannot be hastened with injustice.
Update: Tom Tomorrow weighs in on this topic, too, and he nails in one paragraph exactly what I was trying to say:
Nader's critique is, essentially, that there is a cancer on the body politic--and he's right about that. The problem in the year 2004 is that the body politic is also suffering from multiple wounds and blunt force trauma, we're in the emergency room and it's a damn mess and there's blood everywhere and the doctors are working furiously but it's anybody's guess how things are gonna turn out. We are in triage, and we have to deal with the immediate problems, or the long-term ones won't matter anyway.
So: No, it's not your imagination. Nader, in a very real way, was celebrating environmental disaster for its polarizing quality. Now, apparently, he sees all kinds of benefit from American deaths in Iraq or civil rights abuses at home. How do I know this? Because he's running again. He's running again because he truly does not see a difference between the candidates. The last four years have done nothing to convince him that there is a crucial difference between the policies of Democrats and Republicans.
The sad thing is, I agree with him in many ways, just as I did in 2000. The Democrats are tied up with special interests. Our nation does need to break out of this rigid two-party system. We do need spirited liberals working for change like the ones Dean mobilized this year with his "outsider" candidacy.
But Nader and his diehard supporters don't think that's enough. They want to see the earth scorched. Most of them would deny it, of course, but in an earlier post I quoted a Deaniac who was considering supporting Nader: "I have decided that perhaps America must lose everything to value something." Anyone who votes for Nader in 2004 is in implicit agreement.
Four more years of Bush means four more years of skyrocketing deficits, four more years of shadowy, destructive energy policies, four more years of No Child Left Behind - and don't forget those two to three retiring Supreme Court justices.
Do Democrats have the magic touch? Absolutely not. But they are our only alternative in 2004. Our only alternative. And let's work towards a different alternative in future elections - but to force our hand, Nader and his supporters would have our children, our environment, our nation rot and fester until the suffering is overwhelming and universal. And that is cynicism bordering on nihilism.
"The arc of the moral universe is long" - and cannot be made shorter. Just as peace cannot be bought with war, the justice Nader claims to be looking for cannot be hastened with injustice.
Update: Tom Tomorrow weighs in on this topic, too, and he nails in one paragraph exactly what I was trying to say:
Nader's critique is, essentially, that there is a cancer on the body politic--and he's right about that. The problem in the year 2004 is that the body politic is also suffering from multiple wounds and blunt force trauma, we're in the emergency room and it's a damn mess and there's blood everywhere and the doctors are working furiously but it's anybody's guess how things are gonna turn out. We are in triage, and we have to deal with the immediate problems, or the long-term ones won't matter anyway.
Saturday, February 21, 2004
They just want to get it right
Israel has begun pulling down a section of the "security barrier" - because it deviates from the 1967 borders. Fantastic.
When I think about the barrier, I can't help thinking of the phrase "politically unacceptable and grossly simplistic." That's what the Soviet government said for nine years when the East German authorities asked permission to build the Berlin Wall. The Soviets instead suggested adopting "more accommodating policies" - in this case, to keep their citizens from fleeing to the West.
No one but a hubristic idealogue would suggest that the problems which face Israel are as mild as that of East Germany - people tired of Communist rule mostly tried to escape, and their eventual revolution was peaceful and successful, a lesson I wish the Palestinians would learn - but in adopting the same tactics, the Israelis show themselves to have learned nothing from history. The Berlin Wall was a humanitarian travesty and a public relations nightmare - and the Israeli security barrier will be more of the same.
Even if you can only think about terrorism and this wall as practical matters rather than moral ones, it's a bad idea. "Security" taken to abstraction is like trying to play whack-a-mole with one mallet and a million holes - and every time a mole is whacked, three more holes open up.
When I think about the barrier, I can't help thinking of the phrase "politically unacceptable and grossly simplistic." That's what the Soviet government said for nine years when the East German authorities asked permission to build the Berlin Wall. The Soviets instead suggested adopting "more accommodating policies" - in this case, to keep their citizens from fleeing to the West.
No one but a hubristic idealogue would suggest that the problems which face Israel are as mild as that of East Germany - people tired of Communist rule mostly tried to escape, and their eventual revolution was peaceful and successful, a lesson I wish the Palestinians would learn - but in adopting the same tactics, the Israelis show themselves to have learned nothing from history. The Berlin Wall was a humanitarian travesty and a public relations nightmare - and the Israeli security barrier will be more of the same.
Even if you can only think about terrorism and this wall as practical matters rather than moral ones, it's a bad idea. "Security" taken to abstraction is like trying to play whack-a-mole with one mallet and a million holes - and every time a mole is whacked, three more holes open up.
I almost didn't post this, because it's a little bit dark and weakened by exaggeration, but then I remembered the joy conservatives took in the Dean Yeaaargh! remixes and my reluctance vanished.
The real State of the Union
The real State of the Union
Friday, February 20, 2004
Bush installs second judge due to "unprecedented obstructionist tactics" by Democrats
By "unprecedented", of course, he really means "having an obvious precedent" - one set by Republicans.
After the Pickering appointment, Bryan Wildenthal, of the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, posted the following to a UCLA Con Law listserv:
In modern times, it was REPUBLICANS who pioneered the use of a filibuster to block a vote on a judicial nominee -- LBJ's nomination of Abe Fortas for CJ in 1968! Republicans have now pioneered the use of presidential recess appointment to attempt to ride roughshod over the considered rejection by the Senate of a judicial nominee as too extreme, under Senate rules designed precisely to enable a large minority to prevent an outcome they honestly view as unacceptably extreme.
After the Pickering appointment, Bryan Wildenthal, of the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, posted the following to a UCLA Con Law listserv:
In modern times, it was REPUBLICANS who pioneered the use of a filibuster to block a vote on a judicial nominee -- LBJ's nomination of Abe Fortas for CJ in 1968! Republicans have now pioneered the use of presidential recess appointment to attempt to ride roughshod over the considered rejection by the Senate of a judicial nominee as too extreme, under Senate rules designed precisely to enable a large minority to prevent an outcome they honestly view as unacceptably extreme.
Thursday, February 19, 2004
See?
Dean will probably give his endorsement to Edwards. Even more importantly, he'll probably give the Senator access to his fundraising machine, too.
Having said that, the AFL-CIO is going to endorse Kerry, which may be just as important to Kerry as Dean is to Edwards. Then again, AFSCME supported Dean, and it didn't do him much good.
Also, it rained in Los Angeles yesterday. Kucinich says that's an endorsement for him by mother nature.
Having said that, the AFL-CIO is going to endorse Kerry, which may be just as important to Kerry as Dean is to Edwards. Then again, AFSCME supported Dean, and it didn't do him much good.
Also, it rained in Los Angeles yesterday. Kucinich says that's an endorsement for him by mother nature.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
He had a good run
So that's that. Howard Dean, the man so nice they put him on the cover of Newsweek twice, has left the race. I'm both saddened and relieved. I didn't support Dean, but I think the reason I didn't support him is because I'm a repentant Nader supporter (not voter - I came to my senses in time). I certainly agree with most of Dean's views, and I like his idea of continuing his grassroots initiative to attempt to influence the public debate in this country.
I would someday like to see an America in which a Dean could have a chance, but Jerry Brown pointed out on NPR today that he ran a very similarly progressive campaign in 1980. (The $100 per person concept was apparently Brown's.) There was early interest in the outsider, but establishment types Jimmy Carter and Teddy Kennedy ended up in a two-way battle with each other down the stretch. Brown even made his last stand in Wisconsin - he said today that it turned out to be just as bad an idea this year as in 1980.
But even as I am saddened that the progressives have not made any real gains on the national stage in 24 years, I am also happy that it has become a two-man race. Many pundits have suggested, and I agree, that a two-man race gives Edwards a boost, especially since a lot of Dean supporters seem to prefer the Senator from North Carolina. As mentioned previously, I'm not particularly enthused about Edwards' previous occupation, but I like many of his ideas and I have a suspicion that he's more electable, in the long run, than Kerry.
From buying Nader's idea that there is no lesser of two evils to playing the electability game...how far the mighty* has fallen.
*Yes, I'm talking about me. Don't snicker, it's impolite.
I would someday like to see an America in which a Dean could have a chance, but Jerry Brown pointed out on NPR today that he ran a very similarly progressive campaign in 1980. (The $100 per person concept was apparently Brown's.) There was early interest in the outsider, but establishment types Jimmy Carter and Teddy Kennedy ended up in a two-way battle with each other down the stretch. Brown even made his last stand in Wisconsin - he said today that it turned out to be just as bad an idea this year as in 1980.
But even as I am saddened that the progressives have not made any real gains on the national stage in 24 years, I am also happy that it has become a two-man race. Many pundits have suggested, and I agree, that a two-man race gives Edwards a boost, especially since a lot of Dean supporters seem to prefer the Senator from North Carolina. As mentioned previously, I'm not particularly enthused about Edwards' previous occupation, but I like many of his ideas and I have a suspicion that he's more electable, in the long run, than Kerry.
From buying Nader's idea that there is no lesser of two evils to playing the electability game...how far the mighty* has fallen.
*Yes, I'm talking about me. Don't snicker, it's impolite.
Monday, February 16, 2004
DeLay under investigation
Hesiod at Counterspin Central notes that Tom DeLay and his PAC Texans for a Republican Majority are under investigation for breaking campaign finance laws while gaining said majority. Hesiod points out: "unlike the Kerry affair rumor, this one is actually backed up by witness interviews and documents!"
If evidence of widespread wrongdoing is found, I don't know what recourse is called for, but considering the nastiness of the redistricting fight down there, I would hate to see the turmoil caused if anyone resigns or is recalled. I say "hate", of course, meaning "love".
If evidence of widespread wrongdoing is found, I don't know what recourse is called for, but considering the nastiness of the redistricting fight down there, I would hate to see the turmoil caused if anyone resigns or is recalled. I say "hate", of course, meaning "love".
Sunday, February 15, 2004
"Evidence of bleaching will disqualify applicants"
So some school no one has ever heard of is having a little problem with their College Republicans club, who have offered a $250 scholarship available only to white people. They say it's a protest against affirmative action.
Like so many conservatives, the mastermind of this operation is a raging hypocrite:
Jason Mattera, 20, who is president of the College Republicans, said the group is parodying minority scholarships...Mattera, who is of Puerto Rican descent, is himself a recipient of a $5,000 scholarship open only to a minority group.
It's true that minority scholarships should not be necessary in this day and age, which is why it's even sadder that they are necessary. I hope that someday, when they are not needed, we will be able to let them go with a minimum of fuss and name-calling. However, pretending that racism is only a memory does no one any good.
One of the requirements for the scholarship is to write an essay on "why you are proud of your white heritage". I might have more sympathy for the cause if they had enough sense of history to know why "white pride" is an offensive concept. It's not the words themselves, you idiots. It's the way those words have been used in the past. Our racist forefathers screwed it up for all of us.
Like so many conservatives, the mastermind of this operation is a raging hypocrite:
Jason Mattera, 20, who is president of the College Republicans, said the group is parodying minority scholarships...Mattera, who is of Puerto Rican descent, is himself a recipient of a $5,000 scholarship open only to a minority group.
It's true that minority scholarships should not be necessary in this day and age, which is why it's even sadder that they are necessary. I hope that someday, when they are not needed, we will be able to let them go with a minimum of fuss and name-calling. However, pretending that racism is only a memory does no one any good.
One of the requirements for the scholarship is to write an essay on "why you are proud of your white heritage". I might have more sympathy for the cause if they had enough sense of history to know why "white pride" is an offensive concept. It's not the words themselves, you idiots. It's the way those words have been used in the past. Our racist forefathers screwed it up for all of us.
Friday, February 13, 2004
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Snort. Snuffle.
Bush and Tony Blair were nominated for promoting world peace. That's like nominating Yasser...Arafat. Oh. Still, peace is not a zero-sum game, or maybe it is a zero-sum game, I can never remember which is which. If someone attacks you, you may feel the need to fight back, but doing so is not promoting peace. Saddam was an evil, evil man who perpetrated many horrible acts on his people and others, and did constitute a threat to world peace. The way Blair and Bush went about ousting him, however justified they may have felt in their actions, was not a promotion of peace; it was a violent solution to a problem of violence. And the continuing violence in Iraq is the sadly inevitable result of that policy.
The only solution to violence is justice. Any other tactic is not a solution, just a brand new problem.
Bush and Tony Blair were nominated for promoting world peace. That's like nominating Yasser...Arafat. Oh. Still, peace is not a zero-sum game, or maybe it is a zero-sum game, I can never remember which is which. If someone attacks you, you may feel the need to fight back, but doing so is not promoting peace. Saddam was an evil, evil man who perpetrated many horrible acts on his people and others, and did constitute a threat to world peace. The way Blair and Bush went about ousting him, however justified they may have felt in their actions, was not a promotion of peace; it was a violent solution to a problem of violence. And the continuing violence in Iraq is the sadly inevitable result of that policy.
The only solution to violence is justice. Any other tactic is not a solution, just a brand new problem.
Projection ain't just a river in Egypt
Democrats are running "the dirtiest campaign in modern presidential politics", sez Ed Gillespie (in Salon - membership or free day pass required).
Republicans think Americans are deaf and blind amnesiacs, sez I.
Republicans think Americans are deaf and blind amnesiacs, sez I.
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Is it too late to change our minds?
Well, there's an intern scandal brewing about John Kerry, although so far it's only Drudge and the bloggers that are talking about it. Even Fox News doesn't have it - although let's hope that's because there's nothing behind it and not because they're saving it until he wins the nomination - because if there is any truth in this, it's better to find out now, while there's still the possibility for a Super Tuesday win by Edwards.
I don't particularly like what Edwards used to do for a living, but I like his campaign and most of his politics. I'm a pragmatist, and of the remaining candidates I'll take whoever can beat Bush.
I don't particularly like what Edwards used to do for a living, but I like his campaign and most of his politics. I'm a pragmatist, and of the remaining candidates I'll take whoever can beat Bush.
The solution to the same-sex marriage hullabaloo
"Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage." -- you know who
Actually, I happen to believe that our nation doesn't have any business defending the sanctity of anything except the freedom of religion itself. In other words, the government should get out of marriage altogether. If marriage is such an important part of religion to conservative Christians, then the government has no business regulating it in any way - neither forbidding nor allowing. Earthly law should be toothless in marriage and marriage should be toothless in Earthly law.
So this is how we protect Bush's and others' vision of a sacred institution not to be trifled with: Confine it only to church. Allow the churches to marry whoever they want, and refuse anyone they don't. Allow the churches to make divorce impossible - because as everyone else has said ad nauseum, Britney Spears is doing more to ruin the sanctity of marriage than any gay man ever dreamed of. Meanwhile, we'll be over here doing the civil union thing.
Don't get me wrong, I think most churches, if not all, would require that there be a civil union to go along with the marriage, but if the synonymity of the two is actually causing our government to wring their hands about possibly going to the time and expense of passing a constitutional amendment - and isn't this the same party that was opposed to the ERA as being an unnecessary addition to the Constitution? - then it's time to cut these zealots off at the knees.
Remove marriage from civil unions, and the right-wingers can't complain about the sanctity of marriage. Remove civil unions from marriage, and the left-wingers can't complain about discrimination. It's a win-win and we can go back to important things.
Next: I solve the morning-after pill brouhaha.
Actually, I happen to believe that our nation doesn't have any business defending the sanctity of anything except the freedom of religion itself. In other words, the government should get out of marriage altogether. If marriage is such an important part of religion to conservative Christians, then the government has no business regulating it in any way - neither forbidding nor allowing. Earthly law should be toothless in marriage and marriage should be toothless in Earthly law.
So this is how we protect Bush's and others' vision of a sacred institution not to be trifled with: Confine it only to church. Allow the churches to marry whoever they want, and refuse anyone they don't. Allow the churches to make divorce impossible - because as everyone else has said ad nauseum, Britney Spears is doing more to ruin the sanctity of marriage than any gay man ever dreamed of. Meanwhile, we'll be over here doing the civil union thing.
Don't get me wrong, I think most churches, if not all, would require that there be a civil union to go along with the marriage, but if the synonymity of the two is actually causing our government to wring their hands about possibly going to the time and expense of passing a constitutional amendment - and isn't this the same party that was opposed to the ERA as being an unnecessary addition to the Constitution? - then it's time to cut these zealots off at the knees.
Remove marriage from civil unions, and the right-wingers can't complain about the sanctity of marriage. Remove civil unions from marriage, and the left-wingers can't complain about discrimination. It's a win-win and we can go back to important things.
Next: I solve the morning-after pill brouhaha.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Not a dead blog...
...just sleeping, George. Was out of town for a longish weekend and then on Monday my wife had minor surgery (she's just fine, thanks for asking). I hope that I haven't let my reader twist in the wind too much. Will be back with more hopefully semi-literate whining about the current state of affairs soon.
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
To better leadership...and beyond!
Salon (Membership or free day pass required) says that some Dean supporters are considering reviving the old "Democrats and Republicans are both equally corrupt" argument that worked so swimmingly in 2000.
Anonymous Dean supporter:I have decided that perhaps America must lose everything to value something. That may be what it takes to actually get our country back if Dean goes down.
I was watching Toy Story with my son today - as every day - and we got to the part where Woody and Buzz are prisoners in the evil neighbor Sid's house. Buzz is strapped to a rocket, and has just realized he is, in fact, a toy. Woody is desperate to return home, and tells Buzz that they have to figure out a way to get back to Andy's room.
Buzz: Sid's room, Andy's room, what's the difference?
What's the difference?! Sid's room has you strapped to a rocket waiting to be blasted into outer space or, worse, North Korea! Sid's room is filled with melted toys, lost jobs, evil spiders, and, probably, hidden WMD's! Even if Andy's room isn't toy paradise (think Wheezy's inability to get his voicebox replaced in Toy Story 2), it's still infinitely better than the alternative.
Even Santa's Workshop wouldn't be worth it if you have to get fed to the dog to get there.
Did we not prove in 2000 that one choice was not the same as the other? The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. If you decide to shortcut it by bringing about ruin, you show that you don't actually care what happens to other people - which is what Dean supporters claim to stand for.
Okay, perhaps I'm being a little alarmist. And I'm in favor of reform, just like tax opponents say they are. But it's hard to reform a program that has already been cut - so hard, in fact, that it's clear to me that "system reformers" are just "system destroyers" in sheep's clothing.
A household with the state's median $41,000 annual income and filing a joint return would have paid about $36 a year more in taxes.
And the average federal tax cut is something like what - $300? $1000? It depends on who you listen to, of course. But Oregonians are very susceptible to suspect arguments, such as the one above. They're also susceptible to the argument that Oregon's tax system is inhospitable to business, which is the reason for our high unemployment, and therefore any new taxes are a bad idea.
Never mind that one of the main expenses for business is the rising cost of health care, which only gets higher when things like the Oregon Health Plan get cut and more people rely on ER-based medicine. Never mind that small business starts in Oregon rank tenth in the nation. Never mind that the Oregon Business Association were in favor of the tax increase. Never mind that business owners who do move their businesses - Louisiana Pacific, for example - adamantly insist that it's not Oregon's tax structure that is the cause.
Nonetheless, we as Oregonians love to cut our own taxes. Great. And maybe they're right - maybe the services will find funding somewhere, and the reform will be sped along by this kick in the rear. But more likely, we'll all settle into our comfortable lives $36 richer - which is about 1/10 of the average monthly premium for a family for health insurance.
Anonymous Dean supporter:I have decided that perhaps America must lose everything to value something. That may be what it takes to actually get our country back if Dean goes down.
I was watching Toy Story with my son today - as every day - and we got to the part where Woody and Buzz are prisoners in the evil neighbor Sid's house. Buzz is strapped to a rocket, and has just realized he is, in fact, a toy. Woody is desperate to return home, and tells Buzz that they have to figure out a way to get back to Andy's room.
Buzz: Sid's room, Andy's room, what's the difference?
What's the difference?! Sid's room has you strapped to a rocket waiting to be blasted into outer space or, worse, North Korea! Sid's room is filled with melted toys, lost jobs, evil spiders, and, probably, hidden WMD's! Even if Andy's room isn't toy paradise (think Wheezy's inability to get his voicebox replaced in Toy Story 2), it's still infinitely better than the alternative.
Even Santa's Workshop wouldn't be worth it if you have to get fed to the dog to get there.
Did we not prove in 2000 that one choice was not the same as the other? The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. If you decide to shortcut it by bringing about ruin, you show that you don't actually care what happens to other people - which is what Dean supporters claim to stand for.
Yay! Our kids will starve and our seniors will die!
Okay, perhaps I'm being a little alarmist. And I'm in favor of reform, just like tax opponents say they are. But it's hard to reform a program that has already been cut - so hard, in fact, that it's clear to me that "system reformers" are just "system destroyers" in sheep's clothing.
A household with the state's median $41,000 annual income and filing a joint return would have paid about $36 a year more in taxes.
And the average federal tax cut is something like what - $300? $1000? It depends on who you listen to, of course. But Oregonians are very susceptible to suspect arguments, such as the one above. They're also susceptible to the argument that Oregon's tax system is inhospitable to business, which is the reason for our high unemployment, and therefore any new taxes are a bad idea.
Never mind that one of the main expenses for business is the rising cost of health care, which only gets higher when things like the Oregon Health Plan get cut and more people rely on ER-based medicine. Never mind that small business starts in Oregon rank tenth in the nation. Never mind that the Oregon Business Association were in favor of the tax increase. Never mind that business owners who do move their businesses - Louisiana Pacific, for example - adamantly insist that it's not Oregon's tax structure that is the cause.
Nonetheless, we as Oregonians love to cut our own taxes. Great. And maybe they're right - maybe the services will find funding somewhere, and the reform will be sped along by this kick in the rear. But more likely, we'll all settle into our comfortable lives $36 richer - which is about 1/10 of the average monthly premium for a family for health insurance.
Monday, February 02, 2004
And don't get me started on "abstinence-only" sex ed
Well, I tried the one-minute boycott (see previous post). Missed the commercial both times. Oh well, I (and you) can still see it here.
There's something else you can no doubt see by now on the internet, and it's inspiring a lot more than a one-minute boycott. You know, after Janet's costume was ripped off, I thought she just had flesh-colored clothing on underneath, because it was a long shot which cut away immediately. I thought it was just a jokey tease, in other words. Apparently not.
Sure enough, I got a call from my sister soon after who said that her conservative friend called her shaken, saying she was going to write a letter to CBS and maybe boycott over the brief flash (and the unbleeped "f" word that apparently only she heard, but that's another story). Now, I realize there's little kids watching the halftime show, including my son, but a) you couldn't really see anything and b) it's just a breast, after all.
Can we not get past this utter horror about people's bodies - especially since it was apparently an accident? I mean, it's been said before, and by smarter people than me, but we gain absolutely nothing by puritanism except higher teen pregnancy rates and STD transmission. If kids think sex is something to be embarrassed about, they'll still have it - they'll just be too embarrassed to make sure they do it safely.
There's something else you can no doubt see by now on the internet, and it's inspiring a lot more than a one-minute boycott. You know, after Janet's costume was ripped off, I thought she just had flesh-colored clothing on underneath, because it was a long shot which cut away immediately. I thought it was just a jokey tease, in other words. Apparently not.
Sure enough, I got a call from my sister soon after who said that her conservative friend called her shaken, saying she was going to write a letter to CBS and maybe boycott over the brief flash (and the unbleeped "f" word that apparently only she heard, but that's another story). Now, I realize there's little kids watching the halftime show, including my son, but a) you couldn't really see anything and b) it's just a breast, after all.
Can we not get past this utter horror about people's bodies - especially since it was apparently an accident? I mean, it's been said before, and by smarter people than me, but we gain absolutely nothing by puritanism except higher teen pregnancy rates and STD transmission. If kids think sex is something to be embarrassed about, they'll still have it - they'll just be too embarrassed to make sure they do it safely.
