Maher & Miller
Lately, Darby and I have been watching HBO at weird times.. We've really enjoyed watching Real Time with Bill Maher lately.. He's a political ranter.. I watched the Dennis Miller show a lot - and really agreed with several things he said.. Plus the fact both he and Bill are passionate comedians.. Dennis changed his way of thinking after 9/11.. He's representing a more conservative agenda - which I can't blame him for after the terrorist attacks..
9/11 definitely changed life as we know it.. And everyone certainly wanted to kick someone's ass after 9/11 - and we went over to Afghanistan to do it.. Unfortunately, I feel this administration lost its focus for whatever reason.. I think this is where I like Bill Maher because he feels much of the same way Darby and I feel about many of these issues..
One of Bill Maher's quotables from the installment we watched last night had to do with Haiti.. With the country in collapse, Bill said that we weren't really interested because there was no oil down there.. And why can't we say that?? I'm pretty sure the Haitians didn't have WMD either, but we shouldn't wait just because of that..... *shrugs*
If Dennis was still on HBO, I'd still watch him.. Who knows, if I can catch him on MSNBC, I just might have to see how he's doing..
Sunday, February 29, 2004
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Kerry and the rest of the gang
I don't know what to think about him..
He's obviously the top contender for the Democrat party, but parts of me just don't think he'd make a good President.. He's waffling really bad without any real strong sense of direction in the areas of concern that I have for the next 4 years:
1.) War on Terror
2.) Economy
3.) Social issues
I simply do not subscribe to the conservative machine that is painting Dubya as a war time president.. He went into Afghanistan, he went into Iraq.. The CIA says another 9/11 attack is very possible if not eminent.. While we're over in Saddam's sandbox looking for weapons of mass destruction, another attack could well be underway even as we speak.. So, I don't think Bush is doing a very good job at snuffing out the war on terror when it's apparent to his intelligence sources that Al-Qaeda is far from squashed..
The economy continues a very delicate recovery.. While I may not be completely subscribing to the whole plan, the reports and indicators coming from a lot of analysts are saying: good for short term, bad for long range.. Ouch..
Social issues will apparently be the forefront for a little ways this election.. While I feel the gay/lesbian marriage issue will eventually be defeated, I do not think it will be going down silently.. I also feel the immigration debate will get fueled up again..
So, what do I think of the candidates right now?? *blech*
I really don't have to comment much on Bush since it's apparent that I don't like the things he's doing.. So I won't spend a lot of time there..
I don't like the current strategy that the Democrats have to find someone "electable" so that person can beat Bush.. That makes about as much sense as betting on the dog the pees just before the race because he's going to be that much quicker......
I personally like Edwards.. He does have a very charismatic side that I think is appealing.. He's calm, cool and rational.. And all of the conservative talk shows stress the point that he's a lawyer that got a big cash settlement from one of his trials.. My question is: "yeah, so what??" That means he's a good lawyer.. Does that mean that we have to let go of Bush because he happened to have good luck at driving oil prices up for his profit?? Yeah, find another argument please..
I was never a Dean fan - but then he really killed much of his campaign on his own... I give the guy credit: he's very passionate and that really rattled the conservative circuit..
Last election I voted for Nader - not because I really believed in what he had to say, but I really disliked Gore and Bush that much.. I realize that a lot of people don't like Nader because of the profound impact he made to the elections of 2000.. Did the Democrats really change their position as a result of Nader's emergence?? Nope.. If anything, Bush has reached out more to alot of us more than any democrat hopeful..
That still doesn't mean I'm going to be voting for Dubya in the fall..
What it does mean is that I'm in the same position as I was back then.. I don't like either emerging candidate - but I know I'm not going to through my vote away like I did last time..
I wonder if Gary Coleman is running.........
I don't know what to think about him..
He's obviously the top contender for the Democrat party, but parts of me just don't think he'd make a good President.. He's waffling really bad without any real strong sense of direction in the areas of concern that I have for the next 4 years:
1.) War on Terror
2.) Economy
3.) Social issues
I simply do not subscribe to the conservative machine that is painting Dubya as a war time president.. He went into Afghanistan, he went into Iraq.. The CIA says another 9/11 attack is very possible if not eminent.. While we're over in Saddam's sandbox looking for weapons of mass destruction, another attack could well be underway even as we speak.. So, I don't think Bush is doing a very good job at snuffing out the war on terror when it's apparent to his intelligence sources that Al-Qaeda is far from squashed..
The economy continues a very delicate recovery.. While I may not be completely subscribing to the whole plan, the reports and indicators coming from a lot of analysts are saying: good for short term, bad for long range.. Ouch..
Social issues will apparently be the forefront for a little ways this election.. While I feel the gay/lesbian marriage issue will eventually be defeated, I do not think it will be going down silently.. I also feel the immigration debate will get fueled up again..
So, what do I think of the candidates right now?? *blech*
I really don't have to comment much on Bush since it's apparent that I don't like the things he's doing.. So I won't spend a lot of time there..
I don't like the current strategy that the Democrats have to find someone "electable" so that person can beat Bush.. That makes about as much sense as betting on the dog the pees just before the race because he's going to be that much quicker......
I personally like Edwards.. He does have a very charismatic side that I think is appealing.. He's calm, cool and rational.. And all of the conservative talk shows stress the point that he's a lawyer that got a big cash settlement from one of his trials.. My question is: "yeah, so what??" That means he's a good lawyer.. Does that mean that we have to let go of Bush because he happened to have good luck at driving oil prices up for his profit?? Yeah, find another argument please..
I was never a Dean fan - but then he really killed much of his campaign on his own... I give the guy credit: he's very passionate and that really rattled the conservative circuit..
Last election I voted for Nader - not because I really believed in what he had to say, but I really disliked Gore and Bush that much.. I realize that a lot of people don't like Nader because of the profound impact he made to the elections of 2000.. Did the Democrats really change their position as a result of Nader's emergence?? Nope.. If anything, Bush has reached out more to alot of us more than any democrat hopeful..
That still doesn't mean I'm going to be voting for Dubya in the fall..
What it does mean is that I'm in the same position as I was back then.. I don't like either emerging candidate - but I know I'm not going to through my vote away like I did last time..
I wonder if Gary Coleman is running.........
Hypocrisy Defined
My rant tonight rests in the recent events surrounding gay/lesbian marriages....
If gay and lesbian marriages will have *no* effect on heterosexual marriages then exactly how does a gay or lesbian couple interfere with the heterosexual community... Okay, the second prong to the argument is that it illegitimizes what marriage is supposed to mean....
Okay, according to whom??
The government?? Well, there is the California law that says that marriages are recognized as one man, one woman.. So I'll be the first to say that San Francisco is actually breaking the law.. Even though I do not agree with the law, the fact the city of SFO is breaking the law still cannot be forgotten about.. But.. Laws are broken all of the time, laws are changed, deleted, created because of one thing or another.. But let's address one point at a time:
"laws shouldn't be broken"
Yep.. I bet each of us violated a few of them today as a matter of fact.. Drive around town?? Passing within 100 feet of an intersection?? No blinker?? California stops?? Forgetting who goes first at a 4 way stop?? Flip someone off, cut them off, utter a cuss word?? Yeah, okay - everyone violated some law today.. "But it's different?? Traffic violations aren't as bad as violating a major law like marriage.. Um, are you sure?? If you drive and don't stop at an intersection which results in the killing a person walking across the street - doesn't that seem like a pretty horrific violation of the law?? Of course it is.. No matter what degree of the law, there are laws broken all the time.. Rush broke the law, but he's "just being singled out because of his political stance".. But let's use the Rush example for a second.. Who cares if he's doctor shopping?? Who cares if he has an addiction and doesn't do anything about it?? Who is he actually harming?? Well, back to the pedestrian accident - he could harm someone else.. But if he's not harming anyone - then who should care?? If the gays and lesbians aren't harming anyone, who should care??
"it'll undermine the institution of marriage"
This one is my favorite.. Because this is where the hypocrisy shines the most.. Let's look at this institution:
It's an institution based on theology and religion.. The same theology and religion that says: "it's okay to divorce," "it's okay for priests to molest children," "it's okay to not be responsible for children and other marriage responsibilities.." Think I'm wrong?? Look at what this institution has given us: a continual divorce rate, teenage pregnancy, teenage delinquency, domestic violence, neglect, abandonment and abuse.. Yeah, real strong institution folks.. After all, we can't really utter the words "absolute" with religion anymore.. Not after the continual scandals involving all of those priests.. Yep, we're looking at these people for some sort of moralistic center..
So if gays and lesbians are undermining a "less than stellar" institution - then what's all the fuss about?? It's not as though that religion is delivering us from evil.. Hardly.. Brittany Spears proved that you can marry and divorce in 55 hours without even blinking an eye.. When Nevada has made it so lucrative to elope, all it takes is $100 for a license and *wham* you're married.. Didn't really mean it?? No problem!! Sign off on an annulment and it'll be as though it didn't happen.. The ink hasn't dried on the marriage license and legally in most every state - we have that right to say "oops, didn't mean to.." Wow, what an institution!! Have kids?? No problem, we can actually structure schedules and privileges so that it can work out that one parent has the kids for Christmas, but on Thanksgiving it flips.. Have an abusive spouse?? Hey, don't sweat it - get yourself some treatment, do a little community service, and go back to your dysfunctional family as though nothing happened..
Whoever dreamt that every single family across America is based on Marion and Howard Cunningham from Happy Days, or Mike and Carol Brady from the Brady Bunch?? What drugs are these people on?? For pete's sake!! I have a whole rant saved up for reality TV, so I won't even get diverted on that tangent.. But people need to get the clue, buy the vowel and subscribe to the newsletter: wake up people!!
Has anyone considered that the youth of today really don't give a care about "Marriage as an Institution??" And to think that the gays and lesbians didn't have one damn thing to do or say about this view... The youth have done this because their parents have been divorced, re-married three or four times with children from 5-6 marriages....... Anyone figure out how the gays and lesbians are going to screw all of THIS up??
"but the law is the law"
Yeah, well - let's not forget all of those detainees down in Cuba that haven't gotten representation because "we're at war.." I can't stress this enough - LAWS CHANGE ALL THE TIME..... If it's not right, there are bills and laws passed to "make it right.." The justifications for some of these laws are vested in what happens to be going on at that present time.. The fact that Dubya is mandating it into our Constitution is -- unprecedented.. There's a huge argument to be made that gays and lesbians are a group that is being discriminated against.. If Dubya decides to ink into law - language that excludes gays and lesbians from marrying, then not only did he just admit the existence of the group - but it's a wanton act to discriminate against gays and lesbians.. It really does follow the lines of slavery when you think about it.. Back when white people thought it was their "right" and "law" to own black people.. One could actually argue that's what's happening today with Mexicans and Hispanics who work for $20 a day in a field somewhere.. (That'll be another Rant for some other day...)
Dubya wants to appoint Judges to the courts so that they will be more conservative.. Okay, the liberals do the exact same thing when they have a President on board.. So the fact that both sides of the aisle want to push their agenda and influence appointments is in complete defiance of what our forefathers wanted.. Structure was provided so that no one branch had unilateral control.. "Checks and Balances.." That's a bit skewed when you have a majority that can make those changes in one or more of the branches of government.. The "mandate" formula dictates that a President who has the majority rule of the House and Senate can basically do whatever he wants.. Democrats scream foul because it's not fair.. Point one: more conservative representatives were voted into government than liberals.. Simple mathematics.. Democrats can cry all they want, but until they start changing their views on things, I don't see the trend changing..
"but it's morally wrong"
First of all - we all know that the terms: morality and government never should be applied within the same thought process... (heheh) Secondly - why the conservatives want to raise the term morality is somewhat of a mystery especially when the Pope and Christians in general - usually condemn the whole idea of killing.. They have gone as far as to tell our country that our laws for putting someone to death is wrong, yet our President (when he was governor) sent a record number of prisoners to their deaths in Texas.. Killing is bad, Pope says so, Dubya says "pull the plug.." Hmm.. Okay, so what about the war in Iraq.. Remember how the Pope tried tell Dubya not to go into Iraq?? Dubya says "go.." 11,000 dead Iraqis soldiers, 642 US/Coalition Deaths, 8243 civilian deaths later - we have 6 times the amount of people killed in the attacks of 9/11.. If "killing is bad," doesn't that make Dubya almost as bad if not worst than Bin Laden?? Over 8000 civilians dead in Iraq since the war began.. 3000 people died in 9/11.. "oops?" Mr. President?? I really don't think he should be bringing up morality since his own personal record is a bit shady here..
Okay, I'll drop the war for a moment..
Or how about the whole Christian belief of helping out each other, when we have an administration that caters to and covets businesses designed to reward those few and provide little relief to the underclass?? So much for morality.. Oh wait - can morality and capitalism peacefully coexist?? Or does Christianity prescribe to a more socialist way of thinking (distributing wealth to everyone and not just to a few chosen few..) It doesn't make a lot of sense to Me how the knife can cut both ways where capitalism doesn't create the social strata that Christianity says is wrong..
But I've been saving one thing to the end.. The piece-all that really makes me shake my head..
I caught part of the review of the new Mel Gibson "Passion" movie coming out.. The reviewer spent a great deal of time saying how bloody, violent and graphic.. Mel apparently spent a great deal of time demonstrating exactly how brutal the Romans got with Jesus before the crucifixion.. The reviewer said that it was disturbing depiction of the last 12 hours of Christ's life.. Wow.. Amazing.. We have to "tone down" Jesus' death so that it can be tolerated a bit more?? I'll admit that I was not brought up in a Christian environment.. But I know enough about the story that the last few days of Christ's life was - how should I say - was probably pretty graphic.. How exactly do these people believe Christ died?? In a comfortable, satin lined casket, freshly pressed suit and some flowers?? If we need to "tone down" Jesus' death, then don't we lose the message?? It was a painful, excruciating, deplorable manner of death.. Anything less and people will still be convinced that Easter is a time for chocolate bunnies and hard boiled eggs..
That leads me to the following conclusion: reality is here, folks.. All of this time is spent on elaborately weaving a twisted sense of morality based on a failed institution, a corrupt morality base, and a consistent shift of laws that makes the St. Andreas Fault look like child's play.. Reality is: we are an evolution of ourselves.. Reality is: we are changing daily.. Reality is: we will continue to change daily.. Reality is: today's laws and morality cannot withstand tomorrow's growth.. Reality is: we need people of vision, regardless of sex, politics, color, sexual orientation without bias, prejudice, and can learn from the mistakes of the past to contribute to a better future for us and every generation to follow..
Oppression has a bad flavor in our country's history.. What Dubya is doing is reliving a bad chapter of our history.. Instead of taking the bold, courageous stance of moving forward - he's choosing his path according to a homophobic belief.. Yes, homophobic.. In his speech today, February 24th, 2004 - he never once mentioned gays or lesbians in a respectful light or even acknowledged the existence of gays and lesbians.. Instead he spent the majority of his speech un-confusing what the rule of law and morality says regarding marriage.. He blames the "activist courts for undermining what marriage really is.. (I still laugh at the fact that it's an "activist" court when it doesn't serve your best interests...) No problem, just encourage some senators to make a bill so he can sign off on it, appoint some Judges that agree with you, and then *wham* everything is fixed until the next President steps in and repeals it..
It's important to note that we don't just have a President of the United States anymore, we have a self-prescribed preacher.. Just after his Supreme Court made its landmark decision last year that identifies a gay couple having sex as not being an act of sodomy, Dubya is what all Americans should and shouldn't believe.. Think about it: if anyone out there believes in protecting gay and lesbian rights, then you've just been slammed into the "YOU ARE MORALLY WRONG" pigeon hole.. Because you're MORALLY WRONG, you're contributing to the dismantling of the institution of marriage.. By believing in the rights of gays and lesbian marriages, you will (if he has his way) be in direct violation of an Amendment to the Constitution - the highest document that outlines our highest laws.. Therefore, you're not just MORALLY WRONG but committing an illegal act.. By being MORALLY WRONG you are contributing to the fall of the United States of America.. Because you're MORALLY WRONG you are therefore not patriotic and support the war on terror.. Because you're MORALLY WRONG you are going to send every married person to a counselor because they can't handle the stress of gays and lesbians being married.. Because you're MORALLY WRONG you do not have a place in the society of America..
Last time I checked, I have freedom of choice, freedom of expression, and freedom of belief.. I don't care WHO you are, you do NOT tell me, my girl, my neighbor, my family, my fellow citizen - how they are supposed to think and believe.. Abide by rules to prevent chaos is one thing, but we are fully capable people who can make nice sound decisions for ourselves.. No thanks, Mr. Bush - you can practice your beliefs in your residence, add your voice to your church, or even write a column about it for others to read, but please don't infringe on what I choose to believe..
My rant tonight rests in the recent events surrounding gay/lesbian marriages....
If gay and lesbian marriages will have *no* effect on heterosexual marriages then exactly how does a gay or lesbian couple interfere with the heterosexual community... Okay, the second prong to the argument is that it illegitimizes what marriage is supposed to mean....
Okay, according to whom??
The government?? Well, there is the California law that says that marriages are recognized as one man, one woman.. So I'll be the first to say that San Francisco is actually breaking the law.. Even though I do not agree with the law, the fact the city of SFO is breaking the law still cannot be forgotten about.. But.. Laws are broken all of the time, laws are changed, deleted, created because of one thing or another.. But let's address one point at a time:
"laws shouldn't be broken"
Yep.. I bet each of us violated a few of them today as a matter of fact.. Drive around town?? Passing within 100 feet of an intersection?? No blinker?? California stops?? Forgetting who goes first at a 4 way stop?? Flip someone off, cut them off, utter a cuss word?? Yeah, okay - everyone violated some law today.. "But it's different?? Traffic violations aren't as bad as violating a major law like marriage.. Um, are you sure?? If you drive and don't stop at an intersection which results in the killing a person walking across the street - doesn't that seem like a pretty horrific violation of the law?? Of course it is.. No matter what degree of the law, there are laws broken all the time.. Rush broke the law, but he's "just being singled out because of his political stance".. But let's use the Rush example for a second.. Who cares if he's doctor shopping?? Who cares if he has an addiction and doesn't do anything about it?? Who is he actually harming?? Well, back to the pedestrian accident - he could harm someone else.. But if he's not harming anyone - then who should care?? If the gays and lesbians aren't harming anyone, who should care??
"it'll undermine the institution of marriage"
This one is my favorite.. Because this is where the hypocrisy shines the most.. Let's look at this institution:
It's an institution based on theology and religion.. The same theology and religion that says: "it's okay to divorce," "it's okay for priests to molest children," "it's okay to not be responsible for children and other marriage responsibilities.." Think I'm wrong?? Look at what this institution has given us: a continual divorce rate, teenage pregnancy, teenage delinquency, domestic violence, neglect, abandonment and abuse.. Yeah, real strong institution folks.. After all, we can't really utter the words "absolute" with religion anymore.. Not after the continual scandals involving all of those priests.. Yep, we're looking at these people for some sort of moralistic center..
So if gays and lesbians are undermining a "less than stellar" institution - then what's all the fuss about?? It's not as though that religion is delivering us from evil.. Hardly.. Brittany Spears proved that you can marry and divorce in 55 hours without even blinking an eye.. When Nevada has made it so lucrative to elope, all it takes is $100 for a license and *wham* you're married.. Didn't really mean it?? No problem!! Sign off on an annulment and it'll be as though it didn't happen.. The ink hasn't dried on the marriage license and legally in most every state - we have that right to say "oops, didn't mean to.." Wow, what an institution!! Have kids?? No problem, we can actually structure schedules and privileges so that it can work out that one parent has the kids for Christmas, but on Thanksgiving it flips.. Have an abusive spouse?? Hey, don't sweat it - get yourself some treatment, do a little community service, and go back to your dysfunctional family as though nothing happened..
Whoever dreamt that every single family across America is based on Marion and Howard Cunningham from Happy Days, or Mike and Carol Brady from the Brady Bunch?? What drugs are these people on?? For pete's sake!! I have a whole rant saved up for reality TV, so I won't even get diverted on that tangent.. But people need to get the clue, buy the vowel and subscribe to the newsletter: wake up people!!
Has anyone considered that the youth of today really don't give a care about "Marriage as an Institution??" And to think that the gays and lesbians didn't have one damn thing to do or say about this view... The youth have done this because their parents have been divorced, re-married three or four times with children from 5-6 marriages....... Anyone figure out how the gays and lesbians are going to screw all of THIS up??
"but the law is the law"
Yeah, well - let's not forget all of those detainees down in Cuba that haven't gotten representation because "we're at war.." I can't stress this enough - LAWS CHANGE ALL THE TIME..... If it's not right, there are bills and laws passed to "make it right.." The justifications for some of these laws are vested in what happens to be going on at that present time.. The fact that Dubya is mandating it into our Constitution is -- unprecedented.. There's a huge argument to be made that gays and lesbians are a group that is being discriminated against.. If Dubya decides to ink into law - language that excludes gays and lesbians from marrying, then not only did he just admit the existence of the group - but it's a wanton act to discriminate against gays and lesbians.. It really does follow the lines of slavery when you think about it.. Back when white people thought it was their "right" and "law" to own black people.. One could actually argue that's what's happening today with Mexicans and Hispanics who work for $20 a day in a field somewhere.. (That'll be another Rant for some other day...)
Dubya wants to appoint Judges to the courts so that they will be more conservative.. Okay, the liberals do the exact same thing when they have a President on board.. So the fact that both sides of the aisle want to push their agenda and influence appointments is in complete defiance of what our forefathers wanted.. Structure was provided so that no one branch had unilateral control.. "Checks and Balances.." That's a bit skewed when you have a majority that can make those changes in one or more of the branches of government.. The "mandate" formula dictates that a President who has the majority rule of the House and Senate can basically do whatever he wants.. Democrats scream foul because it's not fair.. Point one: more conservative representatives were voted into government than liberals.. Simple mathematics.. Democrats can cry all they want, but until they start changing their views on things, I don't see the trend changing..
"but it's morally wrong"
First of all - we all know that the terms: morality and government never should be applied within the same thought process... (heheh) Secondly - why the conservatives want to raise the term morality is somewhat of a mystery especially when the Pope and Christians in general - usually condemn the whole idea of killing.. They have gone as far as to tell our country that our laws for putting someone to death is wrong, yet our President (when he was governor) sent a record number of prisoners to their deaths in Texas.. Killing is bad, Pope says so, Dubya says "pull the plug.." Hmm.. Okay, so what about the war in Iraq.. Remember how the Pope tried tell Dubya not to go into Iraq?? Dubya says "go.." 11,000 dead Iraqis soldiers, 642 US/Coalition Deaths, 8243 civilian deaths later - we have 6 times the amount of people killed in the attacks of 9/11.. If "killing is bad," doesn't that make Dubya almost as bad if not worst than Bin Laden?? Over 8000 civilians dead in Iraq since the war began.. 3000 people died in 9/11.. "oops?" Mr. President?? I really don't think he should be bringing up morality since his own personal record is a bit shady here..
Okay, I'll drop the war for a moment..
Or how about the whole Christian belief of helping out each other, when we have an administration that caters to and covets businesses designed to reward those few and provide little relief to the underclass?? So much for morality.. Oh wait - can morality and capitalism peacefully coexist?? Or does Christianity prescribe to a more socialist way of thinking (distributing wealth to everyone and not just to a few chosen few..) It doesn't make a lot of sense to Me how the knife can cut both ways where capitalism doesn't create the social strata that Christianity says is wrong..
But I've been saving one thing to the end.. The piece-all that really makes me shake my head..
I caught part of the review of the new Mel Gibson "Passion" movie coming out.. The reviewer spent a great deal of time saying how bloody, violent and graphic.. Mel apparently spent a great deal of time demonstrating exactly how brutal the Romans got with Jesus before the crucifixion.. The reviewer said that it was disturbing depiction of the last 12 hours of Christ's life.. Wow.. Amazing.. We have to "tone down" Jesus' death so that it can be tolerated a bit more?? I'll admit that I was not brought up in a Christian environment.. But I know enough about the story that the last few days of Christ's life was - how should I say - was probably pretty graphic.. How exactly do these people believe Christ died?? In a comfortable, satin lined casket, freshly pressed suit and some flowers?? If we need to "tone down" Jesus' death, then don't we lose the message?? It was a painful, excruciating, deplorable manner of death.. Anything less and people will still be convinced that Easter is a time for chocolate bunnies and hard boiled eggs..
That leads me to the following conclusion: reality is here, folks.. All of this time is spent on elaborately weaving a twisted sense of morality based on a failed institution, a corrupt morality base, and a consistent shift of laws that makes the St. Andreas Fault look like child's play.. Reality is: we are an evolution of ourselves.. Reality is: we are changing daily.. Reality is: we will continue to change daily.. Reality is: today's laws and morality cannot withstand tomorrow's growth.. Reality is: we need people of vision, regardless of sex, politics, color, sexual orientation without bias, prejudice, and can learn from the mistakes of the past to contribute to a better future for us and every generation to follow..
Oppression has a bad flavor in our country's history.. What Dubya is doing is reliving a bad chapter of our history.. Instead of taking the bold, courageous stance of moving forward - he's choosing his path according to a homophobic belief.. Yes, homophobic.. In his speech today, February 24th, 2004 - he never once mentioned gays or lesbians in a respectful light or even acknowledged the existence of gays and lesbians.. Instead he spent the majority of his speech un-confusing what the rule of law and morality says regarding marriage.. He blames the "activist courts for undermining what marriage really is.. (I still laugh at the fact that it's an "activist" court when it doesn't serve your best interests...) No problem, just encourage some senators to make a bill so he can sign off on it, appoint some Judges that agree with you, and then *wham* everything is fixed until the next President steps in and repeals it..
It's important to note that we don't just have a President of the United States anymore, we have a self-prescribed preacher.. Just after his Supreme Court made its landmark decision last year that identifies a gay couple having sex as not being an act of sodomy, Dubya is what all Americans should and shouldn't believe.. Think about it: if anyone out there believes in protecting gay and lesbian rights, then you've just been slammed into the "YOU ARE MORALLY WRONG" pigeon hole.. Because you're MORALLY WRONG, you're contributing to the dismantling of the institution of marriage.. By believing in the rights of gays and lesbian marriages, you will (if he has his way) be in direct violation of an Amendment to the Constitution - the highest document that outlines our highest laws.. Therefore, you're not just MORALLY WRONG but committing an illegal act.. By being MORALLY WRONG you are contributing to the fall of the United States of America.. Because you're MORALLY WRONG you are therefore not patriotic and support the war on terror.. Because you're MORALLY WRONG you are going to send every married person to a counselor because they can't handle the stress of gays and lesbians being married.. Because you're MORALLY WRONG you do not have a place in the society of America..
Last time I checked, I have freedom of choice, freedom of expression, and freedom of belief.. I don't care WHO you are, you do NOT tell me, my girl, my neighbor, my family, my fellow citizen - how they are supposed to think and believe.. Abide by rules to prevent chaos is one thing, but we are fully capable people who can make nice sound decisions for ourselves.. No thanks, Mr. Bush - you can practice your beliefs in your residence, add your voice to your church, or even write a column about it for others to read, but please don't infringe on what I choose to believe..
Monday, February 23, 2004
The Transfer
So for now, this is my home.. I'm in the middle of redesigning the other site so that it meshes with our homepage..
I wanted to cover the Savage Idiot -- as he's just a knucklehead.. Instead of answering questions, he uses his "sophisticated intellect" to basically bad mouth and demean those that call his radio program.. What a coward.. Think about it - it's okay for him to spout - because he has the radio program, but the moment someone wants to challenge him: oh, I'm reverting back to grade school and going to call you a red diaper doper baby.. (rolls His eyes....) Yeah, real mature Savage Idiot..
Obviously with the primaries and current international strife happening, I do have but a question:
"since there's a revolution going on in Haiti, does this mean we have to go down there and try to overthrow the government??" Let's think about this: it's a bloody situation.. In some of the images today was a boy that was killed and left for dead in the middle of the street while other Haitians go on with their business.. Where's all of the conservative outcry?? Where's all of this concern for the Haitians?? *laughs* Yeah, EXACTLY...
nada, nil, nyet..
Anyways - that's my first post here.. I'll be back later on to cushy up the space here..
So for now, this is my home.. I'm in the middle of redesigning the other site so that it meshes with our homepage..
I wanted to cover the Savage Idiot -- as he's just a knucklehead.. Instead of answering questions, he uses his "sophisticated intellect" to basically bad mouth and demean those that call his radio program.. What a coward.. Think about it - it's okay for him to spout - because he has the radio program, but the moment someone wants to challenge him: oh, I'm reverting back to grade school and going to call you a red diaper doper baby.. (rolls His eyes....) Yeah, real mature Savage Idiot..
Obviously with the primaries and current international strife happening, I do have but a question:
"since there's a revolution going on in Haiti, does this mean we have to go down there and try to overthrow the government??" Let's think about this: it's a bloody situation.. In some of the images today was a boy that was killed and left for dead in the middle of the street while other Haitians go on with their business.. Where's all of the conservative outcry?? Where's all of this concern for the Haitians?? *laughs* Yeah, EXACTLY...
nada, nil, nyet..
Anyways - that's my first post here.. I'll be back later on to cushy up the space here..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
