Letters to the Editor
-
K
It's not about the word, it's about the reality. That bigots oppose the use of the word is childish, at best, but that's what it's called. If squabbling over the word is stupid, then, by all means, let the bigots stop squabbling.
If the word is meaningless, then let's force all heterosexuals into civil unions. If the word isn't meaningless, then let's open the meaning to all. I'm not playing games, I'm stating the obvious: marriage equality is a necessary component of a society of equals.
As far as the idea that sexuality is an obstacle to social advancement, I guess that's true if you confine yourself to bigoted social circles, but why would anyone do that? If you are unavoidably involved with bigots who would impede your social advancement, however, a marriage license would give you all the legal protection you need against them. Further, anti-gay bigotry decreases with each new generation and the day-to-day reality of marriage equality with its complete lack of consequences for heterosexual couples will only hasten its marginalization.
What I can't seem to understand from your point of view is why you think having 'civil unions' that confer the exact same rights and privileges under government as 'marriage' does, is unequal?
It's a fundamental tenet of our society that separate but equal is wrong. If it's not, then let's force all heterosexual couples to have civil unions and all homosexual couples to have marriages. After all, it's only words, right?
-
Gore/Obama
Wishful thinking, but that's the ticket I'd love to see. Please come back, Al Gore! It would be great timing with all of the attention he and his movie have been getting lately. He has the experience and Obama has the charisma.
The idealist in me wants to believe that President Obama could save us all, that his lack of political "experience", connections, etc. won't matter. As an avowed fence-sitter, I like his "Can't we all just get along?" approach, which I suppose could account for his lack of a concrete position on a lot of issues. He's definitely one to sit down and thoughtfully look at an issue from all sides. I'm a couple of chapters into his Audacity of Hope book and he talks a lot about the average person just wanting affordable healthcare, a decent job with a fair wage, clean air and water and old-age security. I haven't read further to find out how he plans to address these and other issues, but Dawggone's post re:LBJ reality-checked me. I hope Obama shows us that he has a big can of whup-ass up his sleeve, and that he's not afraid to use it.
I like Clinton, but I don't think she can win. She's too divisive, and her past will be rehashed ad-nauseum if she officially enters the race. Plus, she doesn't come across as a very likable person. Something about Edwards bothers me, but I'm not sure what.
-
Free Market
I wasn't talking about the free market exactly, though perhaps Ron Paul is. I was talking about the world's current (and artificial) economic arrangements, which involve free markets for the poor and welfare for the rich (such as agricultural subsidies.)
So, how about Senator Sherrod Brown running in 2008? "Get the Rick off Welfare!" How could he lose? Save the world by pandering to selfishness... why not?
-
You're right
We need racial and religious tests to qualify for political office in the USA. I'd recommend name screening as well. There, would that make you happy? Shades of Nuremberg Race Laws. No really, in all seriousness, it is. Which is actually fine by me, as long as that's what we here this merry band of liberals calls it. I mean, the state I live in didn't allow Jews to vote, run for office or own realestate until 1868, fully 3 years AFTER they passed the 13, 14, 15th ammendments. So maybe it's just a factor of political inexperience.
-
Experience...
Experience also takes into account what Barack Obama hasn't done. And...
- Barack Obama has NOT run an oil company into the ground
- Barack Obama has NOT mismanaged a baseball team
- Barack Obama has NOT mismanaged a huge American state
- Barack Obama has NOT been an alcoholic
- Barack Obama has NOT stolen an election
- Barack Obama has NOT mispronounced the word "nuclear"
- Barack Obama has NOT been handed entry -- and later, a degree-- to an Ivy League school without the necessary intellect
- Barack Obama has NOT been born into wealth, and made more wealthy due to nothing he himself accomplished
- Barack Obama has NOT turned into a born-again wingnut
- Barack Obama has NOT put his fate in the hands of decrepit old vampires like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld
- Barack Obama has NOT allied himself with someone like Karl Rove
- Barack Obama has NOT claimed to have messages from God
- Barack Obama has NOT taken America to war on false pretenses
- Barack Obama has NOT tried to get Osama Bin Laden and failed miserably
- Barack Obama has NOT lied to members of Congress and his own cabinet about nonexistent WMDs and a nonexistent Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection
- Barack Obama didn't sit there with a stupid idiot look on his face, reading "My Pet Goat" while our country was being attacked
- Barack Obama has NOT landed on an aircraft carrier, wearing a flight suit, and declaring "Mission Accomplished" years before the mission was even close to being done
- Barack Obama has NOT said "Heckuva good job, Brownie"
- Barack Obama has NOT tried to take away a woman's right to choose
- Barack Obama has NOT given tax cuts to the rich, and made sure that the poor got poorer
- Barack Obama has NOT suggested that Christianity should be a national religion
- Barack Obama has NOT supported war in Iraq, and never did
- Barack Obama has NOT sold his soul to the devil - at least we don't think so, yet...
-
Obama and race
...Let's think it through. Gore and Kerry got about 50 million votes or so in their races. Would Obama lose any of that vote because of his race?
I have to say yes. Would it be a significant loss? It might be enough to matter in a close race, and in close states like Ohio or Florida.
However, he might also gain votes from the other side. Tolerance is an appealing position and not every Republican or conservative is a benighted racist, particularly among the younger people. As a moderate politician and as an appealing person, Obama might gain enough cross over votes to counter any losses due to racism.
Tolerance is definitely the future in this country and racism is the past. That is just a fact of life in this free and mobile country, where fewer and fewer people know or care or even think about who their neighbors are. Younger people simply don't care about race as the older generations did. A lot of young people don't even seem to understand what the fuss is about.
If the Republicans try to play the race card against Obama they will risk alienating the younger generation and could end up being in the minority for decades. For the Democrats, running Obama could be seen as a great investment in the future, even if he loses.
All of the above applies equally well to Hillary and gender.
My conclusion: Democrats shouldn't worry about race or sex at all. We should sort out the candidates based on their positions and let race and gender issues take care of themselves.
OTOH, if Democrats are seen as having rejected any of the candidates because of their race or sex, that would be a disaster worse than losing the presidency to any Republican. It would be selling out the future of the Democratic party for short term gain.