Friday, January 23, 2004

Interesting insight by a fellow blogger today (on daily kos) regarding the phenomenon known as Kucinich. The mathematical formula is as follows: Jerry Brown+Ross Perot=Kucinich. Throw in Gollum for extra credit.

I must really be a fuckin' sheep because now I'm realizing that I'm undecided on who to go with. I know my preferences: Clark, Dean, Edwards, Kerry in that order. I also think that having Kucinich and Sharpton present at the debates is a good thing, because it gives the national audience a flavor of some alternative viewpoints. Kucinich is not the best messenger in that regard, but when was the last time you saw someone on national tv (since the telecom act of '96 and subsequent fallout) say that he wants to roll back the wto, roll back nafta, eliminate private health insurance and replace it with public insurance, create a "department of peace" and give free college tuition "for all?" The point in all of this: there are people out there who believe these things, and their viewpoint should at least be heard as part of the debate. Same with Sharpton. I liked his rebut in reference to the "Defense of Marriage act," especially in light of Edwards' comment that it should be left up to the states. No it shouldn't. Because that is what opponents of civil rights argued.

While I'm on that subject: "Defense of Marriage Act." As if the institution of marriage is in jeopardy. Ever read "The Starter Marriage?" I haven't, but I know a friend who has and three more friends who got married when they shouldn't have and are now divorced. I've been married since 2001, but my wife and I have been dating for almost 8 years and living together for almost 7. Those who support DOMA would like to see us return to the 18th Century, where people never have sex until they get married and then are forced to live with each other for the rest of their lives no matter how incompatible they are with one another. As my wife words it, "honey, you take that car for a test drive!"

Admittedly, I know next to nothing about the wording in the actual act, but I am reacting to the wording of the title. I'll read up on it. But it makes me sick. If two men want to join together in a committed relationship, what is the harm to society? There is no harm in the promotion of committed love. These people who refuse to believe anything other than a literal reading of the current version of the Bible fail to realize that the Bible's been a work in progress, written (and revised, and translated numerous times) by men and not whispered by the breath of God.

Now as far as the debate goes vis a vis terrorism, the dems should frame it simply like this:

"We need to pursue and capture terrorists, but the way the Bush administration is going about the task will only make the terrorist problem WORSE in the long run."

They ARE making it worse. And we're stooping down to the terrorists' level by suspending the right to a fair trial, among other things. This attitude may help us win battles along the way, but we will ultimately lose the "war" of ideas, alienate our friends who could one day use our hypocrisy to justify the belief that a free and open society was a pipe dream, a failed experiment that only lasted for 225 years (note that I left out the last three). Fighting THAT is worth fighting for. Nothing less.

No comments:

Watch this space

If FB decides to reinstate the account of the former "president" tomorrow, I expect an uptick of activity here for random updates ...