Today California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger elevated conservative morals over freedom of association by his veto of a bill that would have legalized same sex marriage. I don't see what the whole fuss is about this issue. There is absolutely no justification for not allowing gay people to marry other than "I hate gays and want to see them treated as second class citizens."
The argument basically boils down to "Gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because of their lifestyle choices, they are in the minority and I think that by them having normal families it will have a negative impact on our culture. If they became straight, it would be OK for them to marry someone of the opposite sex."
What if the word gay was replaced by Jew and there were a few other changes to the above paragraph:
"Jews shouldn't be allowed to marry because of their lifestyle choices, they are in the minority and I think that by them having normal families it will have a negative impact on our culture. If they became Christian, it would be OK for them to marry someone of a different religion."
While the top one is accepted in our society, the bottom one certainly isn't. I don't believe that either type of thought should be incorporated into the laws of a civilized society that values freedom.
People like to say, "well the voters in x number of states voted against gay marriage." Well, the voters in x number of districts voted for Hitler, Slavery, Jim-Crow laws, and many other things. Does that make it right to legislate morality? No.
I understand that some laws, such as abortion, can have a negative impact on society since someone (the unborn fetus) is actually harmed by the law mandating legal abortions. This would be a case in which the freedoms of two people (the mother and the child) have to be weighed against each other, because with either decision, one person's freedom is taken away. However, legalizing gay marriage does not take away anyone's freedoms, it extends freedom to more people. Shouldn't the "land of the free" support a situation such as this, regardless of what the majority thinks?
2005-09-29
Roberts Confirmed
Judge John Roberts was confirmed today as the United States' 17th Chief Justice of the United States. The vote was 78-22. States whose senators voted unanimously against Judge Roberts include the usual liberal enclaves: California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York.
Possibly the most damaging nay vote was by Senator Clinton. If she intends on running for president in '08, which is almost a sure thing, it looks foolish for her to vote no on a candidate that many see as moderate, intelligent, and an overall good pick. Her vote slides her farther to the left and alienates some centrist voters who may have thought she was something else.
Possibly the most damaging nay vote was by Senator Clinton. If she intends on running for president in '08, which is almost a sure thing, it looks foolish for her to vote no on a candidate that many see as moderate, intelligent, and an overall good pick. Her vote slides her farther to the left and alienates some centrist voters who may have thought she was something else.
2005-09-27
The Grand Dragon of the Donkeys
Today, Robert Byrd announced his run for re-election to the senate next year. Senator Byrd has served in the senate for over 46 years. In June he will eclipse Strom Thurmond as the record holder for longest tenure in the senate.
Byrd is a democrat, the senior democrat of the senate. Here's where the hypocrisy begins.
In December 2002 then Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott said the following during Thurmond's birthday:
"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
He was demonized by the democrats and the press as a racist, since Thurmond had advocated segregation. Trent Lott had only said a few words to honor his colleague during his birthday and lost his position. Was what he said that bad? That's for others to decide, but it's certain that the democrats have someone worse on their side.
Mr. Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
He joined the KKK around 1941 and was so successful in recruiting members, he was granted the titles of Exalted Cyclops and Kleagle (recruiter). He recruited people into this racist group.
I understand that West Virginia is a lot different from the other 49, but electing someone such as this just demeans the whole state.
Back to the main issue: Trent Lott (who has never done anything overtly racist) was attacked by the left as a racist and almost run out of the senate. Meanwhile, the Democrats support a former KKK member, Robert Byrd?
I urge all of my readers to call the Democrats at 202-863-8000 and tell them to end the hypocrisy and NOT support Robert Byrd in his re-election campaign.
Byrd is a democrat, the senior democrat of the senate. Here's where the hypocrisy begins.
In December 2002 then Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott said the following during Thurmond's birthday:
"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
He was demonized by the democrats and the press as a racist, since Thurmond had advocated segregation. Trent Lott had only said a few words to honor his colleague during his birthday and lost his position. Was what he said that bad? That's for others to decide, but it's certain that the democrats have someone worse on their side.
Mr. Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
He joined the KKK around 1941 and was so successful in recruiting members, he was granted the titles of Exalted Cyclops and Kleagle (recruiter). He recruited people into this racist group.
I understand that West Virginia is a lot different from the other 49, but electing someone such as this just demeans the whole state.
Back to the main issue: Trent Lott (who has never done anything overtly racist) was attacked by the left as a racist and almost run out of the senate. Meanwhile, the Democrats support a former KKK member, Robert Byrd?
I urge all of my readers to call the Democrats at 202-863-8000 and tell them to end the hypocrisy and NOT support Robert Byrd in his re-election campaign.
Blame LA
Today Michael Brown, the former head of FEMA, laid down blame on the State of Louisiana and the City of New Orleans for the problems that plagued the evacuation from the city before Hurricane Katrina arrived. As I've thought from the get-go, the true problems were most likely at the local level. As Brown points out, Mississippi and Alabama did not have problems with evacuating, especially since they chose to do so much earlier than the New Orleans area (where it was only made a mandatory order hours before Katrina made landfall). Mayor Nagin of New Orleans dragged his feet for days not knowing what to do. City buses sat empty, instead of ferrying the poor people out of the city. The Superdome, described as a "refuge of last resort" seemed to be the first place they wanted people to go. Responding to critics that say Brown should have done more to get people out of New Orleans, he said,
"I guess you want me to be the superhero that is going to step in there and suddenly take everybody out of New Orleans."
The Governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco, took quite a long time to request federal assistance and also did not declare a state of emergency until it was too late to get the National Guard in before the hurricane struck. It was a coordinated failure by the people who should be in charge during this situation, state and local government. The federal government does not and should not have the power to micro-manage every disaster before or after it happens.
As I've made abundantly clear, if Americans want a federal government who will take care of them from birth until death, micro-managing everything down to the appropriate desk to put in your home office, move to a socialist country. In America, we live in a Federal Republic, meaning that States exist and have a degree of independence. If you would prefer a stronger federal government, move to France.
"I guess you want me to be the superhero that is going to step in there and suddenly take everybody out of New Orleans."
The Governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco, took quite a long time to request federal assistance and also did not declare a state of emergency until it was too late to get the National Guard in before the hurricane struck. It was a coordinated failure by the people who should be in charge during this situation, state and local government. The federal government does not and should not have the power to micro-manage every disaster before or after it happens.
As I've made abundantly clear, if Americans want a federal government who will take care of them from birth until death, micro-managing everything down to the appropriate desk to put in your home office, move to a socialist country. In America, we live in a Federal Republic, meaning that States exist and have a degree of independence. If you would prefer a stronger federal government, move to France.
2005-09-26
Sheehan Arrested
Cindy Sheehan, formerly a grieving mother and currently an Iraq War protester was arrested today in Washington DC along with several of her cohorts for "demonstrating without a permit." What kind of a bullshit charge is that? It seems to go against something... something that most American's forget:
"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."
It seems to me that these people were doing just this. Peaceably assembling and petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. And they were arrested for it.
"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."
It seems to me that these people were doing just this. Peaceably assembling and petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. And they were arrested for it.
2005-09-25
Choice & Personal Responsiblity
There seems to be a big push for personal responsibility in this country. Politicians frequently say that people should responsible for the choices that they make, but how can this happen when governments make choices for them?
A good example are the recent hurricanes. Though Rita was much less disastrous than Katrina, many people lost their homes during both storms, or were burned to death in a bus. In both cases, although people lost their homes, almost all are being compensated in one way or another by the federal government, in effect removing the responsiblity of the victims. They aren't all victims. Thousands of people chose to not evacuate or were not able to due to lack of reliable transportation. These same people chose to live on a coastal city that is prone to hurricanes. By living in an area like that without the means to leave quickly, they sealed their own fates. They could have prepared by either planning for such a disaster in advance or moving to an area that would not require evacuations from hurricanes.
Now I probably lost most of my readers. You are probably thinking that we shouldn't be so hard on these people, since they are poor, immobile, etc. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. I shouldn't be responsible to bail them out for it. We're going to soon bail out Trent Lott, the Mississippi senator. He lost his beach front house during Hurricane Katrina. Most people would argue that he doesn't deserve the federal aid and I agree. But I go a step further in saying that nobody deserves federal aid, except for people who have been fucked over by the federal government.
And for all of you who were too cheap to give to the Red Cross... don't worry, the federal government has made a non-transparent, non-accountable (i.e. subject to corruption, like the oil for food program), $600 (and climbing) donation to the Hurricane Victims on your behalf. This money will be used for wholesome services like lap-dances. Although, if the federal government gave me free money, I think that would be quite a suitable thing to spend it on...
Back to the main point. If you want personal responsiblity to actually exist, then let it. Don't bail anybody out. Send them a bumper sticker letting them know what happens, and tell them don't come crying because your coastal city got flooded. Build again with your own money or move.
A good example are the recent hurricanes. Though Rita was much less disastrous than Katrina, many people lost their homes during both storms, or were burned to death in a bus. In both cases, although people lost their homes, almost all are being compensated in one way or another by the federal government, in effect removing the responsiblity of the victims. They aren't all victims. Thousands of people chose to not evacuate or were not able to due to lack of reliable transportation. These same people chose to live on a coastal city that is prone to hurricanes. By living in an area like that without the means to leave quickly, they sealed their own fates. They could have prepared by either planning for such a disaster in advance or moving to an area that would not require evacuations from hurricanes.
Now I probably lost most of my readers. You are probably thinking that we shouldn't be so hard on these people, since they are poor, immobile, etc. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. I shouldn't be responsible to bail them out for it. We're going to soon bail out Trent Lott, the Mississippi senator. He lost his beach front house during Hurricane Katrina. Most people would argue that he doesn't deserve the federal aid and I agree. But I go a step further in saying that nobody deserves federal aid, except for people who have been fucked over by the federal government.
And for all of you who were too cheap to give to the Red Cross... don't worry, the federal government has made a non-transparent, non-accountable (i.e. subject to corruption, like the oil for food program), $600 (and climbing) donation to the Hurricane Victims on your behalf. This money will be used for wholesome services like lap-dances. Although, if the federal government gave me free money, I think that would be quite a suitable thing to spend it on...
Back to the main point. If you want personal responsiblity to actually exist, then let it. Don't bail anybody out. Send them a bumper sticker letting them know what happens, and tell them don't come crying because your coastal city got flooded. Build again with your own money or move.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)