I wonder if I should just go ahead and create a new entry category called, "Reasons Why George Bush and His Entire Administration Should Be Mulched"?
Today's reason: In cajoling / misleading Tony Blair into providing British backing for the invasion of Iraq, a process that included urging his Administration to through means that may or may not have been in violation of international law, Bush may well have helped destroy Blair's career as Prime Minister.
Blair is one of the best leaders Britain has had in modern history, and one of the most intelligent and competant heads of state in the world today. Now, because he supported the U.S. even in defiance of many members of his own party when we asked it of him, based on information that even our own intelligence sources now admit was flawed, he might be forced to relinquish office amidst controversy and condemnation from both sides of the House of Commons. With friends like George Bush, who needs enemies?
Alan Greenspan is suggesting that, in order to compensate for the massive deficit that's accrued over the course of the Bush administration, the government should cut benefits for future Social Security recipients.
I always figured that by the time my generation got to retirment age, there would be no way we could count on Social Security being there to support us in any substantial way... But it still makes me very angry to think that I'm paying money into a system that I will in all likelihood reap very few benefits from.
Basically, what I appear to be doing instead is providing free capital to help offset the damage that Bush has done to our economy with things such as his incredibly misguided tax policies (did anyone's lives change substantially for getting that one $300 check?), and a full-scale war against a sovereign nation that didn't represent an imminent threat to our national security but with which Pappy Bush had a score to settle.
Between his bungling of the nation's economy and his increasingly extremist right-wing social policies, I fear for what will happen to our country if this man gets elected for another four years.
Rob has written a great entry about the same-sex marriage thing, and has linked to another one at John Scalzi's site. Definitely worth a read.
So check out Indy's Dogster profile.
Well, people have Orkut... why shouldn't dogs be able to network, too? heh Some of the other dog profiles are pretty cute too... although Indy's clearly the most beautiful of them all.
The day that our government succeeds with enacting a Constitutional Amendment forbidding same-sex marriage will be a dark one for American civil liberties.
When the debate first came up, I thought that civil unions were the best option for providing gay couples with binding legal rights equal to those of married couples – things like rights of inheritance, medical benefits, power of attorney, joint tax-filing and adoption, etc.
The more I listen in on the debates and think about the difference between a civil union and a marriage, though, the more I feel like the defense-of-marriage people just don't have a logical base upon which to justify their opposition to gays being married instead of trying to come up with a "separate but equal" solution to address their civil rights. The Massachusetts Supreme Court apparently agrees, per this quote from a recent Time article:
"The Massachusetts decision laid out the case for why, in the majority's opinion, everything but marriage is not enough. The state senate had asked the court if it could establish civil unions to meet the constitutional requirement of equality for gay couples set forth in an earlier ruling. "The answer," the court replied, "is 'No.'" Why not? "Because the proposed law [establishing civil unions] by its express terms forbids same-sex couples entry into civil marriage [and therefore] continues to relegate same-sex couples to a different status ... The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.""
So. Either we're a nation committed to equal rights for all citizens, or we hitch ourselves up onto our back trotters like Orwell's pigs and declare, 'All are equal… but some are more equal than others." Currently, it seems to be hog heaven here in the States; but I'd like to think that could change...
Another point, this one more social than legal, is the failure of even a single argument against gay marriage to convince me that it cannot be equally applicable to a significant percentage of straight married couples as well - a condition that pretty much renders them self-defeating. Let's take a look at a couple of these angles:
"Marriage is a religiously sanctified union between a man and a woman". Really? So anyone who's gotten married in a non-religious ceremony – by a judge or a ship's captain or Elvis in a Vegas drive-thru – must not actually be married under that definition, right? Or how about couples like Bill and I who were "sanctified" in a church (pretty much to please our parents), but have no religious beliefs? Is our union invalidated by the fact that we don't actually have faith in a God? I won't even get into the crop of reality TV shows that get people to agree to marry each other for fucking entertainment and cash prizes. And yet the law says that all of us are as just married as the pious...
"Marriage is a biologically-based union that can only exist between two people who can procreate and raise children together." OK, what about couples who have absolutely no interest in having children, or for medical reasons cannot conceive? Is their union invalid because there will be no progeny issuing from it? What about those parents who adopt – how can their marital and parental rights be equal to those parents who conceived their children as nature (and/or a Higher Power) intended? Shouldn't the term for their relationship to the child be something different - "civil dependent and civil guardians", perhaps? No? As for biology, gay couples can conceive through artifical insemination or surrogates so that at least one of them shares a biological link with the child. The genetic link could even be mutual, in cases where the egg/sperm donor was a relative of the second partner. Regardless of whether the origin of a parent-child relationship is biological or psychological, though, the desired result is the same - two people partnering as parents to raise a child. By that logic, doesn't a gay couple fulfill the defined purpose of a marriage in this context by raising a child together as wholly as the straight couple who adopts does?
(FYI, anyone who chimes in here with "gays shouldn't be allowed to have children at all!" may as well just stop reading right now; in fact I'd invite you just to never come back to this site, period).
"Heterosexual marriage is the foundation of our society; gay marriage will destroy that foundation and the institution of marriage." What? So somehow it's wrong for countless thousands of competent adult American citizens to want to formally commit to stable, loving relationships with a sense of comprehensively binding responsibility to each other and any children they bring into their family? Isn't that the same reason the Bush administration has committed $1.5 billion to encouraging straight people to marry instead of just shack up? How is society's stability served by forcing these people to exist in a limbo where they have all of the emotional attachment of a straight couple but absolutely no right to commit themselves to that person in any societally-sanctioned way, just because they have the same kind of genitalia?
I know many people would love to see our society at large fit a nice, uncomplicated Stepford profile that exactly synches with their own value systems – but, thankfully, the reality of American society is much more complex; it was intended to be from the first day a group of refugees hit the eastern shores and declared this land to be a haven for all people seeking the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sure, that effort hasn't been without contradiction and barriers... but all told we've done pretty well so far in progressing beyond those limits, and the effort needs to continue.
The point is, society evolves. 40 years ago many states were still banning interracial marriage, until the Supreme Court declared doing so to be unconstitutional in 1967. 100 years ago, women weren't entrusted with the ability to vote. 200 years ago most folks in the South had no problem with enslaving black people and forcing them to labor for white people or die. 300 years ago folks in New England thought it was OK to strap nonconformist women to poles and burn them alive as witches. All of these positions seemed perfectly rational, even God-ordained to the people embracing them in their day…
Anyway. In light of logic, in light of the law, in light of all the gay people and couples I know who are successful, loving, reasonable, contributing members of our society and just want to be able to share their lives with someone they love and have the same rights as anyone else in doing so... There's no way I can be anything but completely supportive of legalizing gay marriage. I hope that increasing numbers of Americans consider the issue and come to the same conclusion for themselves.
OK, I've been pretty unfazed by all the stories/pictures of conjoined twins in the news lately, but this one about the is kinda freaking my shit out.
I can't help wondering... does the second brain think?
Eww.