are you aware that natural seepage puts more oil in the sea than oil spills? That there is actually an environmental group pushing drilling to reduce natural seepage by relieving subterranean pressure? That oil in the water has been written about in Santa Barbara harbor since the earliest European explorers landed their first SUVs there in the 1500s and the natives used it to waterproof their canoes? That Cuba is selling its offshore drilling rights to China so that Florida underwater oil will be drilled whether WE get the benefits or not.
Why is it racist when some whites won't vote for Obama because he is black but not racist when Obama polls 95% among blacks?
I personally do not believe that intelligence or even knowledge should be tested for voters but I do question the suitability of anyone who watches Jerry Springer or listens to Howard Stern. :P
Kuul, I recognize you are too young to remember but the south was uniformly Democrat until the early sixties (centuries ago when only dinosaus plus Kukla and I roamed the earth). The racists, Klanners, white supremacists and pro slavery govts in the south were overwhelmingly Democrat and the south as a voting block was solidly Democrat. It took "betrayal" by LBJ, a southern congressman most of his career, to turn that around. And in the fifties the Democrat block in the congress from the south was blocking effective civil rights legislation and it took a lifelong law and order Republican in Earl Warren, the chief justice of the Supreme Court to legislate from the bench and push through Brown vs Board of Education and use it to actually change the laws of the country from the bench, clearly unconstitutional but the only way it was going to get done. That by the way was the beginning of the whole "activist" Warren Court which leads us to today when conservatives do not want activist, but strict constructionist judges and liberal want legislation from the bench. Warren was the source of the famous Miranda rights we hear cited on every cop show and even the case that was the basis for Roe v. Wade.
That whole change of the south and the Warren court specifically is an incredibly interesting topic.
After reading the story in the SF Gate, I am no longer quite so sure that I say this is an innocent and right event. First, the argument used by the school administrator to make the case that this is living history and part of teaching civil rights, is fine on the surface but in light of the battle going for prop 8 in the city/state right now is not clearly an innocent statement. I am bothered that a child was wearing a "No on Prop 8" button. I am bothered that the story clearly says the teacher emphasized the word "wed" to make a political statement. Bothered to the point of thinking this was wrong? Not sure but as usual, the details muddy the waters. On the face of it, parents are OK, then I am OK. But I am not sure that it is all quite so straight forward. As usual.
can it be? Sure. There are many practical, as opposed to literary advantages. There is nothing more efficient than a monarchy or dictatorship. All of the jokes about a committee are based in truth. But what is th cost of this efficiency? The government is only as good as the one person is wise or their instincts are good or they are open enough to include the opinions of others in their decision making. Hereditary or military selection of heirs is rather hit or miss. So "good" is a rather nebulous issue here. Like any form of government it has its pluses and minuses.
Why should school resources be used to take kids to a marriage? Any marriage? Even the marriage of their teacher? And has the school system ever organized, in the respect that a field trip is "school system organizing" a field trip to a heterosexual marriage? Or was this trip planned specifically and exclusively BECAUSE this was a same sex marriage? I don't know this buit was the marriage during normal school hours? While the teacher would normally be teaching? Couldnt parents take their kids if the kids wanted to go? Why was the school involved? If so, isn't it possible that using the school system to organize this trip is what you say you are against? The government getting involved where it shouldn't, just as religion shouldn't? Is polygamy next to be accepted as a nontraditional family unit? arranged marriages? Like it or not, Religion, schools, government, families and morality all overlap.
What might make same sex marriage "wrong" differs for different opponents. Religiously the bible says it is an abomination. Socially, it furthers the destruction of a core of our nation's stability, the family which has been torn asunder by a constant onslaught since the forties. Scientifically it is an unnatural act as sex, coupling and family are about procreation and the survival of the species. So there are many arguments that can be made as to why it is wrong but it is up to each of us to decide if any of them hold water or are just sophistry or just interesting theories or arguments. Then, if we do come to the conclusion that it is "wrong", we still have the legal issue of whether it is wrong in a legal or constitutional sense, or a moral but not legal sense or just in an "icky" sense. And lastly, the decision as to whether those who do this "wrong" act are evil or criminals or just like drinkers. We agree that drinking too much is bad but we don't arrest anyone just for that. Way too complicated to just ask, is it good or bad, right or wrong, and leave it at that. It is also simplistic to assume that acts by a significant number of others has no effect on us. That was once believed about smoking and drunk driving. If we should not interfere with one man's pleasure if it doesn't hurt someone else, Why is it OK to say that how much Warren Buffett or Bill Gates makes is too much and he should have his income capped or pay more because of it? It doesn't hurt you for him to have 40B dollars, does it? and if so is it any different than how same sex marriage might hurt you?
I never demand anyone submit to the overpowering weight of my intellectual prowess :P
I offer my opinions and my reasons for them, evidence supporting my opinions and then let the crayons fly where they may.
and if that doesn't work, I throw a hissy fit!
second shot at answering this. Last night i wrote my reply but posting it was interrupted by system maintenance on the site so I lost all that work.
First, no exceptions for me. Terrorism is morally inexcusable. You excuse the 60s radicals, HGray excuses Palestinian suicide bombers. Reverend Wright says the 9/11 attacks were America's fault. If you use violence and target civilian populations there is no excuse, again and as always in my opinion. I won't pay attention to your sign so you bomb the Pentagon and Capital? Sorry, not in my book.
My box of crayons has 128 colors and a sharpener in the back. Whether I pull out the burnt sienna or the brick red, they are morally equivalent. They target civilian populations for murder for political gain.
I am sorry but as you know I immerse myself in the campaigns, probably beyond what is sane or healthy. I see what I term mischaracterizations on both sides. These are shading or coloring the truth. I find the term "palling around with" to be this type of thing. I would not say palling around with. I would say knowingly overlooking the unsuitability of this partner for blatant career advancement goals.
In my box of crayons, her shading of the message is HUGELY less offensive than Obama calling Ayers merely "a guy in the neighborhood" or the clear distraction of saying Ayers formed the Weathermen when Obama was eight. I do not see how you can criticize "palling around" without also criticizing "guy in the neighborhood".
Those are the kinds of things that don't bother me. I understand that campaigns will "straddle the line" when selling and packaging their candidates. I will admit to you that i listen to very little coming out of the McCain camp. He has been around, has a track record and I know who he is. I do not need to hear him. I do not need to relive the Keating mess that I lived through and know the result of. When I discount all the campaign rhetoric, I am left with tons to base my decision on. Not so with Obama. Obama's record appalls me. Radical Michelle Green at Columbia. Handpicked by radical client ACORN as a lawyer. Handpicked by radical terrorist Ayers as an organizer. Racist church for 20 years. So, I need to listen to a lot of Obama to feel comfy with him. And what do I hear when I listen to him? I hear him telling lefty liberals in SF that middle America is bitter, clinging to guns and religion, but then in middle America speaking to the very people he called bitter, he says he understands them and wants to help them. Now to me that is a despicable lie. He said he would meet McCain "anywhere, any time" when McCain called for town hall meetings, but after his staff got hold of him, he went back on his word again. But the single most undeniable lie told in this whole campaign is Obama signing and giving his word to use public campaign financing. He flat out broke his word, once again, to advance his career. Is the deed horrendous? No, he raised more cash and was entitled to use that advantage, but then don't make a promise you have no intention to keep.
None of that even gets to the fact I believe he has a radical agenda, admits he will raise less money and spend more, is a clear socialist and is going to literally shake this nation to its foundations, the very things that have made us America for the last 232 years. I have kept this to the arena you brought up. lies and trustworthiness. I think Palin's phrase is silly. I think Obama's are lies. He has intentionally mischaracterized his relationships with bad people. He has minimized the trend of associating with bad people when it can advance his career. If you think mere "palling around" rises to that level, I am afraid I will have to ask you for my lemon yellow crayon back.
