Letters to the Editor
-
"Lucky" Girl
Yes, you are. Billary and Barack would bring out the bigots in white-hooded droves. They'd bring out the worst in each other. Edwards, Obama, Gore, in any combination, would suit me fine. Biden: boredom in a box. Dodd: a good man, but he's been a Senator forever. Why not Teddy K? My personal peference is Edwards/Obama.
-
Ktwdawg
Students or student groups have the right to pray in schools today. Tht is not a problem. BUT, if that prayer is in a classroom or over the PA system, then we have imposed religion. Obama said he would allow some prayer in classrooms and by public address. That is flat out unacceptable. You pray at my child, I punch your lights out, period.
With regard to gay marriage, yes, the words are precisely what's important. Equal means equal - it doesn't mean sort of equal or quasi equal - it means equal. Equal means there are no semantic distinctions between or among classes of people. This semantic approach reminds me of the apartheid practice of making distinction between 'blacks' and 'coloreds'. Those distinctions are the essence of bigotry regardless of the class of people that we're discussing.
-
SR
No, there shouldn't be racial or religious tests of any kind for public office in the U.S. BUT, de facto if not de jure, there are. There is, however, no apparent discrimination in the elctoral marketplace against Jews. Jews are 2% of the population but are represented at far higher percentages than that in the Congress. Atheists, OTOH, are 4-5% of the population but are not represented at all in the Congress. Blacks are 14% of the population but do not have anywhere near that representation in Congress. Hispanics are even worse off even though they are 15% of the population. Americans do make distinctions on the basis of race and religion whether or they should.
-
I Still Don't Know...
If I were King all 'marriages' would be Civil Unions, and if you wanted to get 'Married' in a church that's fine, but it's not official without a Civil Union. I'm still not sure about some of the arguments on both sides of the 'marriage vs. civil unions' argument- i guess that's why I like to argue about it- but That last one from DZ was pretty good. I think coming from the Christian side of the argument skews my sympathy towards their intangible claim on the word and the ceremony of it all. I suppose judges perform marriages- but really, couldn't Civil Unions be accomplished by some lawyers and a public notary? I dunno.
-
Generic Prayer
I don't know what Obama's quote is regarding "PA" prayer. Any prayer generic enough to pass the "no establishment of religion" clause is useless. Regarding marriage, and the "sanctity" thereof: sanctity means holiness, and no public official has ANY business deciding issues based on his or her perception of what is and is not holy. As a Christian, I sure don't want Ashcroft, Bush, or their ilk dediding my theology. Thus: I believe the term marriage should apply to unions sanctioned by and performed in churches; anything else is a civil union. All matters of equity, including property rights, adoption, probate, or any other matter of public business should be entirely and completely legal, based on treating marriage, a religious term, and civil union, a legal term, as equal under the law. Many "marriages" are business deals. What is a prenuptual agreement if not a contract? Marriage is NOT the concern of the American government at any level, be it national, state, or local. No disctinction should be made in any legal setting between actual marriages and civil unions. I would draw the line within the species; other than that, freedom should mean just that: freedom. Marry a man. Marry a woman. Form a civil union between one of each. The government should butt the hell out of the marriage business. With a divorce rate well over fifty percent, Americans have a boatload of nerve talking about sanctity. Who wants to marry a millionaire/midget/mutant? Who cares.
-
The Democrats' Long-Term Advantage
One thing that strikes me about the current policitcal landscape is how, to use a sports metaphor, the Democrats have an incredibly deep bench compared to previous years. Obama, Gore, Clinton, Edwards, even Kerry - a group of people with name recognition and some measure of buzz.
Comparatively, the Republicans have...who? Rudy Guliani? John McCain? George "Macacca" Allen? Rather sad, pathetic looking relics of an earlier time, inseparably tethered to the disaster that is the Bush White House. Line up the current Democratic front runners with the Repugs, and it would looke like Kennedy debating Nixon all over again.
I don't know if this particular group of Senators has it within themselves to swallow a little pride and work together, but if they do do they could lock up the White House for the next 20 years.
-
"Hussein Obama" President ? What are You Smoking ?
Yes , race may play some part in it .
Ignoring his name , and the fact he was raised as a Muslim until he was 10 years old, Makes the Reptiles very Happy.
They know he is a Guaranteed "Kiss of death" to the Democratic ticket.
How Dumb are the Dims ?
Many people already corrupt his Name into "Hussein Obama Osama Bin Laden."
I am sick of "Body Bag Bush" and his evil New England Pride ---- but this makes it look like 4 more years of "Hooray for the Wealthy ".
-
Obama has IT
He spoke where I worked in 1999, and was really impressive -- he filled the room with his presence. I told coworkers "He's going to be President someday." You could just feel the vibe, the intelligence, the charisma, and, yes, him working it -- like (Bill) Clinton, he's entirely aware of his talents, and puts them to full use. He's shrewd, he's confident, he's compassionate, he's ambitious, even noble. He's the real deal.
Although he's moderated his stances some since I heard him, and that's maybe a little disappointing, I think he's still going to be the most interesting candidate we've had in years.
Maybe the Republicans will try to draft Colin Powell against him, hoping that the tarnish of Powell's association with the Bush administration will have rubbed off by then. That would be an ironic battle, there, should it happen.
Rather than pinning our audacious hopes on one man, however, we need to have many, many more stars among progressives and liberals. Instead of one star, how about a whole sky full of them? That's what we need to work for.