It’s the perennial debate. Should people be allowed to marry a member of their own sex? Should marriage be redefined to include male-male and female-female couplings? No one can seem to agree. In California, the passage of Proposition 8 struck down the California Supreme Court’s decision that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional and on par with discriminating against people based on gender or race. On the other side of things, Connecticut legalized gay marriage, making it only the second state in the union to allow same-sex couples to marry. To be fair, other states allow civil unions with varying degrees of benefits, however, the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 means that states without gay marriage are not obliged to recognize same-sex marriages from states that do allow them. So, it’s obvious the debate has a long way to go.
My opinion on the issue is mixed. I see no reason same-sex couples shouldn’t get the same benefits as heterosexual couples. I also don’t have anything against calling it marriage. Language is fluid. Definitions change as society changes. However, I am not willing to push to change that definition prematurely. People naturally resist sudden change. Subtle changes over a long period of time, however, usually go unnoticed. For that reason, I advocate civil unions with the same rights and benefits as marriage but under a different name.
Continue reading ‘A rose by any other name’
Can I just say: please, I don’t want to hear anything more about Sarah Palin. I already know she’s a horrible pick for McCain and I certainly know I won’t be voting for that ticket come November. Yet I’m still subjected to every detail about her life, from her religion to her children to her hunting hobby. Seriously. Stop focusing on the negatives of Sarah Palin and focus on the positives of the other candidates, namely Barack Obama. Or even third party candidates. They can’t get exposure if everyone’s too busy complaining about Palin and McCain.
Ugh, I can’t wait until this election is over. I doubt the country will be better off no matter what candidate, but at least I won’t have to endure the barrage of mudslinging that accompanies every major election.
There is a lot I don’t like about the world: slow walkers, erratic drivers, people who chew with their mouths open, txt-speak, and kittens. Okay, I don’t hate kittens. Kittens with spikes all over them (war kittens!), maybe, but not regular kittens.
Anyways, there’s one thing I hate above all else: the idea that there are only two kinds of people in politics. Everyone encounters it. You’re either a Democrat or a Republican. You’re a conservative or a liberal. You’re a crazy, left-wing, terrorist-loving moonbat or a war-mongering, right-wing, bible-thumping wingnut. You’re either with us or against us.
This is bunk and everyone knows it. The world isn’t black and white, people. There’s a hell of a lot of gray in there.
Continue reading ‘False dichotomy’
The Nevada Supreme Court sided with NBC in their decision to retract an invitation to Dennis Kucinich to the Democratic debate tonight. NBC had originally invited Kucinich, but then changed their criteria to only allow candidates who’d placed first, second, or third in the primaries. Kucinich sued and got a district judge to file an injunction against NBC. NBC complained to the state supreme court and it was decided that NBC didn’t need to include him–one hour before the debate was scheduled to start.
This is hardly surprising, actually. As unfortunate as it is, it’s typical of the mainstream media. Excluding and poking fun at the so-called “long shots” is what the media does best. NBC News correspondent Kevin Corke put it best: “We were expecting to have the three major candidates. Why? Well quite frankly, because those are the probable candidates. That pool is the most viable pool. And truthfully, most people want to hear what Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and Barack Obama have to say. After all, those are probably the three they’re going to be picking from.”
Most of what he says is true. Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are the frontrunners, and they’re the most likely to be nominated by the Democratic Party. However, the people of America still have a say. I, for instance, don’t want to hear Clinton and Obama bickering over race and gender and Edwards whining that he’s not getting enough attention. I want to hear from the candidates that I identify with. That means Kucinich and Mike Gravel. I don’t care if they’re long shots for the nomination. I happen to want to hear what they have to say.
It’s ironic that NBC invoked their First Amendment rights in keeping Kucinich out of the debates. What about Kucinich’s First Amendment rights? Doesn’t he have the right to appear in a debate he was originally invited to? Heck, don’t viewers have the right to hear from all the possible candidates? This situation actually reminds me of the midterm elections in 2006. During the race for senator in Washington State, the Libertarian candidate, Bruce Guthrie, actually made it into the debate between the Republican and Democrat candidates. He had to struggle like Kucinich and other long-shot presidential candidates, but it was worth it just to get recognition, even if he didn’t get that many votes (hey, 1.4% is a decent amount for a third party candidate).
If I were Dennis Kucinich, I’d strongly consider running as an independent. I know a lot of people who would vote for him. He’s the one candidate I like.
Good news is hard to come by these days. Flipping through the channels today, I came across a preview for “Britney in Crisis”…on CNN Headline News. Um, isn’t that something that belongs on E!, or maybe even Bravo? MSNBC was busy focusing on how Hilary Clinton put on a fake and calculated show of emotion (regular CNN was doing the same, minus the fake), and Fox News was doing their usual job of being bad at everything. Generally, I can count on Fox to at least being showing important things (as opposed to washed up celebrities), but Bill O’Reilly and this video kind of ruined that. A lot. Besides, I prefer pundits of the Colbert school of thought.
I eventually gave up on watching any news that wasn’t related to New Hampshire, so I settled on the Daily Show, which at least told me what I wanted to hear. It was also a good chance to see how Jon Stewart was getting along without any writers. Fortunately for him, the primaries and the accompanying news show clips provided enough laughs that he didn’t need to do much else. The strange metaphors everyone was using for the Clinton campaign were awesome (seriously, “a soufflé doesn’t rise twice”?) and his guest, John Zogby of Zogby International, was one of the better ones. And I learned what was going on in the world! Who knew a Comedy Central show without screenwriters could teach me current events? At least I didn’t have to hear about “Britney in Crisis”. Perhaps I should send an open letter to Britney et al: “Dear useless celebrities, please stop doing crazy things in public so I don’t have to deal with seeing you anymore. Sincerely, someone who never liked you.” Then another to CNN asking where they lost their credibility.
I also saw a trailer for the new Rambo. It made me wonder how bad it must sting for the bad guys to get whipped by a 60-something movie star. Also, Will Smith is a scientologist. I picked that up on the Colbert Report. Hurray for satirical news shows!