This originates from my response (that at the time of this post is still "awaiting moderation") at The Lima News' editorials section.
In his column last weekend, Editorial Page Editor Ron Lederman offered his take on District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's overturning of California's Proposition 8.
Today, I offered my disjointed two-cents' worth.
*******
What this issue boils-down to is an all-important question that far too few people have been asking: why is a state-issued marriage license necessary in the first place?
Once that question is addressed, the issue of who can and can't marry whom is rendered moot.
Roughly 100 years ago, as part of the Progressive movement's push to control society, state governments began requiring all couples who intended to marry and procreate to register with their county clerks for a state-approved marriage license — with part of the process including a mandatory blood test for the sake of promoting public health (which we all today ought to be able to recognize for the joke it was considering the absence of DNA testing for another 80+ years).
What's comedic is the fact states began dropping the blood test requirement over the years but never stopped requiring couples to shell out the money for that notarized piece of paper to be able to call themselves married.
In essence, marriage licenses are a modern equivalent of King George's Stamp Act.
I personally propose getting government out of the business of marriage (which is what such licenses constitute). Those companies that seek the business of same-sex couples (insurance agencies, mortgage lenders, auto financing, etc.) will do so in order to gain them as customers whether they have a marriage license or not. Those churches that recognize gay marriage will continue to do so whether they have a license or not.
The common sense resolution to this issue is returning this institution to its original process: leaving marriage to the churches to oversee and administer. Also, it wasn't until the states poked their noses into it that divorce rates began to sky-rocket. So, it's a matter of common sense unless you're a divorce lawyer who stands to lose his or her racket.
For those who feel this strongly on the subject, don't attend churches that marry people of the same gender and don't do business with companies that recognize such couples. That's the beauty of living in a free society.
At the same time, I don't agree that those who are gay warrant the kind of minority recognition or protection in the same capacity afforded to people of different ethnicities or religions. Homosexuality still boils down to a conscious choice to engage in a particular trend of behavior with others.
But, adults in America are free to make those choices — including choices with which many people disagree. If they neither pick your pocket nor break your leg (to paraphrase a Founding Father) in the process then trying to outlaw these lifestyle choices is unconstitutional.
Simultaneously, those who disagree with such lifestyles are equally as free to express that disagreement — as long as the act of doing so does not violate their civil and constitutional rights.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Sean Hannity's Epic Fail
My daily commute home from work has become somewhat predictable: muddle through the employee parking lot; wait my turn to get to the main entrance; bee-line my way to I-75; get off the freeway at Breese Road and trudge my way home; and somewhere in the middle of those steps (early on in the process) turn on talk radio.
It is a ritual to which my dad could relate if he were still with us. Pardon me for a moment as I lament how old that last sentence makes me feel for having typed it.
As you likely guessed, tuning into talk radio after 3 o’clock would mean listening to conservative Republican commentator Sean Hannity – who just so happens has been dedicating more and more time as of late to rebutting Libertarianism (but that’s another topic for a later date).
From time to time Hannity brings up and discusses valid points that warrant analysis when he’s hammering at America’s institutional left. But, I find his call-in segments difficult to listen-to most times as they too frequently consist either of listeners singing his praises or trying to throw at him poorly thought-out progressive liberal arguments that soon degenerate into “you just hate poor/black/Hispanic/Muslim/gay people.”
His other annoying trait is his insistence upon serving as America’s leading Bush apologist. On Thursday, Hannity reached a new low in that department.
At just about 3:45 he patched-in a call from someone who rightly pointed out that during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration our country’s national debt ballooned from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion. What Hannity said next made my eyes bug. “No, no, no, that’s not the real number here,” he countered, following that by reminding the caller as well as the audience of the Democratic Party’s mind boggling $1.56 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2010.
In comparison, Hannity added, the largest deficit under Bush was only $458 billion. Only $458 billion?
I’m sorry, but all of those figures are the real numbers in the discussion of America being led to financial ruin.
First of all, it was the Republican Party’s reckless, Democrat-esque spending from 2001 through 2006 that opened the door for the other major party to thrust us frighteningly deeper into the mess in which our county now wallows. In 2000, Republicans charged that during the Clinton years it was their fiscal responsibility while holding the majority in both houses of Congress that led to an eventual federal surplus of $122 billion that year. Undoubtedly, it was the political jousting and wrangling between a Democrat White House and Republican Congress which contributed to a brief departure from deficit spending in the late ‘90s.
Here’s the rub before I continue: federal spending still increased during that time.
Still, that surplus served as the foundation for their push to reclaim the White House. “If we can get this accomplished with a Democratic president, just imagine how perfect everything will be when we also have a Republican administration to work with us,” they insisted.
To state the obvious, the results speak for themselves. I hate to break it to you, Sean, but the additional $4.9 trillion of debt your boys heaped on the backs of us taxpayers is a very real number.
Let’s break that down a little further. Annual spending on the Global War on Terror amounts to approximately $150 billion. The operative question now becomes on what did the Republicans spend the remaining $300+ billion by the time they were done?
The answer is Pork – Right Wing Pork.
I also want to counter the assertion of what constituted Bush’s largest deficit. If we consider the fact that Bush signed the Troubled Asset Relief Program into law on October 3, 2008 (and thus include that with what was spent for fiscal year 2009), I contend his largest deficit as president looks much more damning when you add on top of $458 billion the additional $700 billion for T.A.R.P.
All of a sudden we see that Bush sent America over $1.1 trillion into the red as his curtain call.
If I’ve gotten any of that last part wrong, I honestly encourage anyone who reads this to show me where I went awry.
Without eight years of Republican irresponsibility and incompetence, there is no Obama Administration. It’s as simple as that. To suggest one party is somehow less responsible than the other for our country standing on the brink of financial ruin is as dishonest as Tim Geithner’s track record with TurboTax.
Mr. Hannity, you fail.
It is a ritual to which my dad could relate if he were still with us. Pardon me for a moment as I lament how old that last sentence makes me feel for having typed it.
As you likely guessed, tuning into talk radio after 3 o’clock would mean listening to conservative Republican commentator Sean Hannity – who just so happens has been dedicating more and more time as of late to rebutting Libertarianism (but that’s another topic for a later date).
From time to time Hannity brings up and discusses valid points that warrant analysis when he’s hammering at America’s institutional left. But, I find his call-in segments difficult to listen-to most times as they too frequently consist either of listeners singing his praises or trying to throw at him poorly thought-out progressive liberal arguments that soon degenerate into “you just hate poor/black/Hispanic/Muslim/gay people.”
His other annoying trait is his insistence upon serving as America’s leading Bush apologist. On Thursday, Hannity reached a new low in that department.
At just about 3:45 he patched-in a call from someone who rightly pointed out that during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration our country’s national debt ballooned from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion. What Hannity said next made my eyes bug. “No, no, no, that’s not the real number here,” he countered, following that by reminding the caller as well as the audience of the Democratic Party’s mind boggling $1.56 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2010.
In comparison, Hannity added, the largest deficit under Bush was only $458 billion. Only $458 billion?
I’m sorry, but all of those figures are the real numbers in the discussion of America being led to financial ruin.
First of all, it was the Republican Party’s reckless, Democrat-esque spending from 2001 through 2006 that opened the door for the other major party to thrust us frighteningly deeper into the mess in which our county now wallows. In 2000, Republicans charged that during the Clinton years it was their fiscal responsibility while holding the majority in both houses of Congress that led to an eventual federal surplus of $122 billion that year. Undoubtedly, it was the political jousting and wrangling between a Democrat White House and Republican Congress which contributed to a brief departure from deficit spending in the late ‘90s.
Here’s the rub before I continue: federal spending still increased during that time.
Still, that surplus served as the foundation for their push to reclaim the White House. “If we can get this accomplished with a Democratic president, just imagine how perfect everything will be when we also have a Republican administration to work with us,” they insisted.
To state the obvious, the results speak for themselves. I hate to break it to you, Sean, but the additional $4.9 trillion of debt your boys heaped on the backs of us taxpayers is a very real number.
Let’s break that down a little further. Annual spending on the Global War on Terror amounts to approximately $150 billion. The operative question now becomes on what did the Republicans spend the remaining $300+ billion by the time they were done?
The answer is Pork – Right Wing Pork.
I also want to counter the assertion of what constituted Bush’s largest deficit. If we consider the fact that Bush signed the Troubled Asset Relief Program into law on October 3, 2008 (and thus include that with what was spent for fiscal year 2009), I contend his largest deficit as president looks much more damning when you add on top of $458 billion the additional $700 billion for T.A.R.P.
All of a sudden we see that Bush sent America over $1.1 trillion into the red as his curtain call.
If I’ve gotten any of that last part wrong, I honestly encourage anyone who reads this to show me where I went awry.
Without eight years of Republican irresponsibility and incompetence, there is no Obama Administration. It’s as simple as that. To suggest one party is somehow less responsible than the other for our country standing on the brink of financial ruin is as dishonest as Tim Geithner’s track record with TurboTax.
Mr. Hannity, you fail.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
How much I will miss LeBron James
So, it appears King James is on his way to Miami, Florida, this year.
Pardon me for a moment while I let out an exuberant yawn.
This story has not interested me beyond the morbid curiosity of how much more ego self-stroking was going to take place. What it has done, though, is reaffirm the steady de-emphasis of sports in my life over the past year. Anyone who has known me for a significant length of time knows what a sports junkie I have been for almost all of my years. But between all that has transpired in our life over the last couple of years personally and the developments affecting America over the same period, something had to give in terms of time and focus. Sports turned out to be the most logical casualty.
Now, let’s face it: LeBron James needed an hour of primetime national television in order to make his announcement (or rather, he felt he deserved it). There is one thing from Thursday night’s broadcast (gleaned from the intensive coverage of it since then) that stands out enough to compel me to devote time to some type of rant.
“LeBron James is taking his talents to South Beach…”
He is referring to himself in the third person? Are you serious?!
And with that display of unsurpassed self-absorption and sense of privilege, what little enthusiasm I still held for basketball has been snuffed. Congratulations, Mr. James, you have rendered the sport of basketball thoroughly unwatchable for me.
The closest I will come to viewing organized basketball for the foreseeable future will be watching our DVD of “Semi-Pro” with my wife (although, if an intriguing enough local high school match-up presents itself I could make an exception for that).
Upon reflection, even though I’ve never been a Cleveland Cavaliers fan I have never disliked or held any discontent for the franchise. I have long held varying soft spots in my heart for teams and their fans of Midwestern and Rust Belt towns such as Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Kansas City, St. Louis, and Minneapolis – the result of growing up in a depressed area like Detroit.
While the personalities and antics of athletes such as Sidney Crosby, Ron Artest, Chris Pronger, and others have squelched that sentiment from time to time, none of those examples ever left me feeling complete disdain for an entire sport as an institution.
Beyond that, my general enthusiasm for sports overall has been dropped a notch or two. I know to most who read this it would seem I am surrendering entirely too much power to one so-called celebrity. I don’t see myself as having surrendered anything, to tell the truth: his behavior actually has served to help reinforce a sentiment that has been growing with me for a while, now.
Another sentiment LeBron’s egomaniacal display solidified is my list of favorite athletes in my lifetime shall be a short one, consisting of Steve Yzerman, Chris Zorich, Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker, Joe Dumars, Chris Spielman, and Denny Hamlin.
So adieu, LeBron. Hopefully you’ll find the ocean-front home of your dreams in one of Miami’s more posh suburbs – and sometime around the beginning of the exhibition season you’ll come home from a preseason game to find it all covered in tar balls from the BP spill.
“LeBron James is taking his talents to South Beach…”
And from now on Don Kissick will be taking his hard-earned cash to the NHL, Notre Dame, and NASCAR.
Yep, just as I suspected, it doesn’t read any less asinine when I do it.
Pardon me for a moment while I let out an exuberant yawn.
This story has not interested me beyond the morbid curiosity of how much more ego self-stroking was going to take place. What it has done, though, is reaffirm the steady de-emphasis of sports in my life over the past year. Anyone who has known me for a significant length of time knows what a sports junkie I have been for almost all of my years. But between all that has transpired in our life over the last couple of years personally and the developments affecting America over the same period, something had to give in terms of time and focus. Sports turned out to be the most logical casualty.
Now, let’s face it: LeBron James needed an hour of primetime national television in order to make his announcement (or rather, he felt he deserved it). There is one thing from Thursday night’s broadcast (gleaned from the intensive coverage of it since then) that stands out enough to compel me to devote time to some type of rant.
“LeBron James is taking his talents to South Beach…”
He is referring to himself in the third person? Are you serious?!
And with that display of unsurpassed self-absorption and sense of privilege, what little enthusiasm I still held for basketball has been snuffed. Congratulations, Mr. James, you have rendered the sport of basketball thoroughly unwatchable for me.
The closest I will come to viewing organized basketball for the foreseeable future will be watching our DVD of “Semi-Pro” with my wife (although, if an intriguing enough local high school match-up presents itself I could make an exception for that).
Upon reflection, even though I’ve never been a Cleveland Cavaliers fan I have never disliked or held any discontent for the franchise. I have long held varying soft spots in my heart for teams and their fans of Midwestern and Rust Belt towns such as Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Kansas City, St. Louis, and Minneapolis – the result of growing up in a depressed area like Detroit.
While the personalities and antics of athletes such as Sidney Crosby, Ron Artest, Chris Pronger, and others have squelched that sentiment from time to time, none of those examples ever left me feeling complete disdain for an entire sport as an institution.
Beyond that, my general enthusiasm for sports overall has been dropped a notch or two. I know to most who read this it would seem I am surrendering entirely too much power to one so-called celebrity. I don’t see myself as having surrendered anything, to tell the truth: his behavior actually has served to help reinforce a sentiment that has been growing with me for a while, now.
Another sentiment LeBron’s egomaniacal display solidified is my list of favorite athletes in my lifetime shall be a short one, consisting of Steve Yzerman, Chris Zorich, Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker, Joe Dumars, Chris Spielman, and Denny Hamlin.
So adieu, LeBron. Hopefully you’ll find the ocean-front home of your dreams in one of Miami’s more posh suburbs – and sometime around the beginning of the exhibition season you’ll come home from a preseason game to find it all covered in tar balls from the BP spill.
“LeBron James is taking his talents to South Beach…”
And from now on Don Kissick will be taking his hard-earned cash to the NHL, Notre Dame, and NASCAR.
Yep, just as I suspected, it doesn’t read any less asinine when I do it.
"You sent her back to me." The Q&A
A well-known left-wing activist experienced a medical emergency that left him near death, leading him to have an out-of-body experience.
During this time -- when the vast majority of people who have such experiences either find themselves watching the efforts to save their lives, reconnecting with passed loved ones, or even enjoying the rare opportunity to converse with an angel or one of the Saints -- the activist had the rarest of all opportunities: he was allowed a chance to speak one-on-one with God himself.
God said to the political activist, "How would you like use this time to have a Q & A session?"
To which the man agreed, "Absolutely!"
Not wanting to beat-around-the-bush, the activist decided to put God on a figurative witness stand for cross examination to (as he thought) get Him to answer for all of mankind's woes.
"So, God, why have You made us all, the human race, to suffer like You have? You've given us AIDS. You've given us cancer. Why would You do this?"
God sat back for a second of reflection and to let the the man's sense of accomplishment wash over himself. He then answered calmly.
"I sent you the cure for those two afflictions, among others," God replied. "But, a supporter of yours chose to abort her and sent her back to me."
(Special thanks to my friend Jonas Reffitt for sharing the original concept for this with me!)
During this time -- when the vast majority of people who have such experiences either find themselves watching the efforts to save their lives, reconnecting with passed loved ones, or even enjoying the rare opportunity to converse with an angel or one of the Saints -- the activist had the rarest of all opportunities: he was allowed a chance to speak one-on-one with God himself.
God said to the political activist, "How would you like use this time to have a Q & A session?"
To which the man agreed, "Absolutely!"
Not wanting to beat-around-the-bush, the activist decided to put God on a figurative witness stand for cross examination to (as he thought) get Him to answer for all of mankind's woes.
"So, God, why have You made us all, the human race, to suffer like You have? You've given us AIDS. You've given us cancer. Why would You do this?"
God sat back for a second of reflection and to let the the man's sense of accomplishment wash over himself. He then answered calmly.
"I sent you the cure for those two afflictions, among others," God replied. "But, a supporter of yours chose to abort her and sent her back to me."
(Special thanks to my friend Jonas Reffitt for sharing the original concept for this with me!)
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Another spontaneous blog: quick comments on legalization
This essay originates from a comment I posted to a link/status update on Facebook by Wayne Allyn Root. He sent out a link to a cnbc.com slide show titled "Marijuana: by the numbers."
Among the comments preceding mine is one lamenting the notion of accepting decriminalization and likely taxation of marijuana if and when it does finally become legal in the United States. In fact, the CNBC piece mentions that recent estimates suggest marijuana could be a $40 billion-a-year industry based on current usage rates.
The other respondent's argument is of a purist perspective on libertarianism: that we ought not to partner our political and legislative efforts with those whose motivations are to trade one form of governmental control of personal behavior for another. In a sense, moving from prohibition to legalization purely for the sake of generating tax revenue qualifies as such. He is right on that point.
But, to argue the way he did against taking the pragmatic approach toward legalization that currently is underway is going to get little accomplished in the current political atmosphere in America. From here, my elaborated reply follows.
One thing that is going to prevent many Libertarian efforts from ever seeing the light of day is this "all or nothing" attitude on issues such as legalization.
I agree that people ought to be able to enjoy the right to choose whether or not they wish to ingest THC without taxes, a state-issued card (referring to medical marijuana access in some states), or other governmental apparatus attached to it.
However, with all the history of bias fueling a great deal of the resistance to legalization of marijuana, Libertarians are going to need to accept the one-step-at-a-time path: decriminalization; expanded acceptance for medical purposes; heavily regulated and taxed access upon legalization; and eventually taxed and monitored access under the same guidelines as alcohol.
For long-time purists of Libertarian ideology, I understand that these conditions are not acceptable to you. I think it stinks, too.
But, unfortunately, our society is one that will require easing into accepting the end of marijuana prohibition. What we need to do is, whenever this effort takes one step forward in terms of how federal and state laws approach possession and distribution of it, stand firm on the ground that has been gained and identify the next logical goal in terms of either court battles or influencing the next round of legislation aimed at further legalization/decriminalization.
Even Rand Paul managed to get Sean Hannity to see his perspective (to some extent) on the need for ending the war on drugs and dramatically scaling-back its myriad of penalties for simple possession. Now that is major step forward.
Among the comments preceding mine is one lamenting the notion of accepting decriminalization and likely taxation of marijuana if and when it does finally become legal in the United States. In fact, the CNBC piece mentions that recent estimates suggest marijuana could be a $40 billion-a-year industry based on current usage rates.
The other respondent's argument is of a purist perspective on libertarianism: that we ought not to partner our political and legislative efforts with those whose motivations are to trade one form of governmental control of personal behavior for another. In a sense, moving from prohibition to legalization purely for the sake of generating tax revenue qualifies as such. He is right on that point.
But, to argue the way he did against taking the pragmatic approach toward legalization that currently is underway is going to get little accomplished in the current political atmosphere in America. From here, my elaborated reply follows.
One thing that is going to prevent many Libertarian efforts from ever seeing the light of day is this "all or nothing" attitude on issues such as legalization.
I agree that people ought to be able to enjoy the right to choose whether or not they wish to ingest THC without taxes, a state-issued card (referring to medical marijuana access in some states), or other governmental apparatus attached to it.
However, with all the history of bias fueling a great deal of the resistance to legalization of marijuana, Libertarians are going to need to accept the one-step-at-a-time path: decriminalization; expanded acceptance for medical purposes; heavily regulated and taxed access upon legalization; and eventually taxed and monitored access under the same guidelines as alcohol.
For long-time purists of Libertarian ideology, I understand that these conditions are not acceptable to you. I think it stinks, too.
But, unfortunately, our society is one that will require easing into accepting the end of marijuana prohibition. What we need to do is, whenever this effort takes one step forward in terms of how federal and state laws approach possession and distribution of it, stand firm on the ground that has been gained and identify the next logical goal in terms of either court battles or influencing the next round of legislation aimed at further legalization/decriminalization.
Even Rand Paul managed to get Sean Hannity to see his perspective (to some extent) on the need for ending the war on drugs and dramatically scaling-back its myriad of penalties for simple possession. Now that is major step forward.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
A moment to talk about Ron Paul...
I don't agree with him on foreign policy -- or anyone who uses simplistic arguments such as if we didn't bomb people over there or meddle in their affairs, they wouldn't be trying to blow us up.
But, I'd sure be happy to see the next president nominate Ron Paul for Secretary of the Treasury.
Or, better yet, have a president with real testicular fortitude nominate Paul for Secretary of Energy -- for the simple purpose of putting him in there for the job of dismantling the department and shutting it down once and for all, and then nominate him for Secretary of Labor for the same job function, and then systematically make him Secretary of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, and then Homeland Security.
After all that, then unleash him -- one at a time -- on the EPA, the IRS, the FTC, and the FCC.
Ron Paul could be the man who saved America nearly a trillion dollars every year!
But, I'd sure be happy to see the next president nominate Ron Paul for Secretary of the Treasury.
Or, better yet, have a president with real testicular fortitude nominate Paul for Secretary of Energy -- for the simple purpose of putting him in there for the job of dismantling the department and shutting it down once and for all, and then nominate him for Secretary of Labor for the same job function, and then systematically make him Secretary of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, and then Homeland Security.
After all that, then unleash him -- one at a time -- on the EPA, the IRS, the FTC, and the FCC.
Ron Paul could be the man who saved America nearly a trillion dollars every year!
Friday, June 4, 2010
A quick thought on entitlement society
America's entitlement mentality has been cultivated quite effectively via contemporary pop culture.
We're all supposed to be angry and have discontent with the older generations -- thus it follows that all the values and principles they have held dear must be dismissed as well.
I wonder how smart and original people such as what we see with the grunge generation hold-outs would feel if someone were to successfully make them aware that their rage-against-the-machine collective personal philosophy is little more than a rehash of the 60's antiwar movement, just effectively packaged and marketed to them in a nice neat, profitable strategy.
We're all supposed to be angry and have discontent with the older generations -- thus it follows that all the values and principles they have held dear must be dismissed as well.
I wonder how smart and original people such as what we see with the grunge generation hold-outs would feel if someone were to successfully make them aware that their rage-against-the-machine collective personal philosophy is little more than a rehash of the 60's antiwar movement, just effectively packaged and marketed to them in a nice neat, profitable strategy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
