Hillary, thank you now GOOD-BYE!
27 January 2008
by
lolife
Filed under
Politics
We need the progressives, the liberals, the Democrats and the democrats to stand up, give Hillary Clinton a big round of applause and then put all of our efforts into Barack Obama, the next president of the United States.
And Dear Bill Clinton, I know you owe your wife big time for the muck you dragged her through, but we all know you would be on Obama’s side if your wife was not in the race so do you think you could ease up on the destructive rhetoric a bit? Obama is really no less experienced than Hillary and his energy, his vision and his honesty are things we desperately need in the White House.
We need a woman President and Hillary is far from the worse choice we have in the race. But there has rarely been a figure as polarizing as Hillary and that will lose the race for us in 2008.
I’m sorry, Hillary
Don’t be irrate
Obama in two-thousand-eight
28 January 2008 @ 7:13 pm
Although I doubt I could ever vote for Obama, it’s time for the Clintons to exit stage left, pardon the pun. I think their act has worn pretty thin on the American peeps.
Sorry I’ve been absent but I’m actually helping a friend of mine run for congress in the 3rd District. He’s running as the endorsed candidate in the Independence party (which I’ve also joined). I’m actually a delegate and I’ll be very active this political season. Should be fun and you can’t call me a Republican!
His name is David Dillon and his website is http://www.DillonForCongress.org, if you don’t mind me making the plug. Please check it out, you might like him. I can tell you he’s a good and decent man.
28 January 2008 @ 10:32 pm
Hmmm…maybe I should interview him for my podcast…
28 January 2008 @ 10:53 pm
That would be cool, I can certainly facilitate an introduction. I think you live in that district, don’t you?
I really like the Independence Party. It’s like the Democratic Party without the Marxists and the Republican Party without the religious nutjobs.
I’m joking a little bit. We voted to affiliate with the Independence Party of America and the philosophy of the party is basically that we don’t care if you are for or against abortion, or for or against gay marriage, or for or against any social issues. We are a political party and some things should not be political. Of course, people of good conscious within the party are free to advocate on either side of these issues but the central party will not take a side. We want to enable independent-minded people to run based on the merits of their ideas and solutions, not some built-in ideology.
5 March 2008 @ 12:03 pm
micadelic was wondering where “all the recent righties were”. Perhaps he considers me one, so I’ll continue to comment in an attempt to lure him back. He wrote:
“…we don’t care if you are for or against abortion, or for or against gay marriage, or for or against any social issues. We are a political party and some things should not be political.”
micadelic, I think that is a noble thought, but I wonder how deep it really goes. In Canada, one can get public funding for abortions. My question to you is, independent of whether you (or your party) are “for” abortion or not, or abstain on the issue, do you feel that the application of public funds to *pay* for abortions (other than in cases of victims of crime, like rape, incest etc) necessarily places the issue into the political realm?
I personally believe that using funds that are taken from citizens through coercion (ie taxes, and I go to jail if I do not pay them) to pay for *anything* places that thing or process in the sphere of politics, and the merit must be decided as a matter of public policy. It would surprise me, given what I have read from you here, if you did not believe the same, and are deluding yourself by proclaiming it is not a political issue, if abortion procedures are publicly funded.
With respect to gays “marrying” I am certainly fine with gays engaging in all sorts of relationships, formal and otherwise. But I think we are clouding (or perhaps intentionally atempting to redefine) the use of the word “marriage”. Traditionally, like say for at least a thousand years, the term has meant to everyone the bond and commitment undertaken between a man and a woman, typically with an implicit or explicit oath of fidelity, and primarily though not necesarily for the purpose of providing a stable environment in which to have and raise children. This seems to be the common case across many religions and cultures. If you think I have misunderstood the historical common understanding of the term, let me know.
Lately (in recent decades) it seems that some people want to use the term to apply to other sorts of relationships, between other types of people, and clearly this is causing some confusion and dissent. Not unexpected, in my opinion, if we try and redefine in a few small years what has been common knowledge around the globe for thousands.
Is there any good reason why we should not simply use different terms for different types of relationships? Last I checked, anyway, it would not be possible for a gay couple of either sex to be “married” in the historically common understanding of the term.
Then, as we consider public policy that discriminates on the basis of marital status, as say here in Canada, we have the ability to write off spouses as dependents on one’s taxes, etc., we must ask what is the intent of this differention. Presumably it is to encourage couples to marry, form stable families, and have children, because, well, it has worked well for thousands of years.
Unfortunately, here in Canada, anyway, public policy seems to actively discourage marriage, and encourage divorce, if one considers financial incentives as encouragement. One year, for “fun”, I did two sets of tax returns. The first was my real return that included myself as sole wage-earner, and my wife and children as dependents.
Then, I did another pair for my wife and I, in which I assumed we had divorced, I paid my her alimony and child support etc. My taxable income dropped substantially, so I was in a much lower bracket. My wife’s income (through alimony) was in an even lower bracket. Together, we also had many more write-offs. In grand total, I believe the net result was the Canadian government was willing to pay my wife and I about $40,000 per year (by reducing our tax burden, and leaving our money in our pockets) if we would just get off our asses and get divorced. We didn’t, although I know of a couple that did exactly this, and they were much better off financially, if not morally.
Yes lolife, this is an anecdote. It is also true, and it would apply to anyone who chose to examine their taxes in married and unmarried scenarios. I do not know to what extent the US rules are similar. Try it, if you are married and in a single-income situation, I found it quite an eye opener.
Do either of you, lolife or micadelic, feel that there is something here I do not understand properly, or am deluding myself about?
With respect to Mr Obama, lolife, I only ask if you really know what you are getting yourself into by advocating this man as your next President. Can you point me to his voting history anywhere on the web, so I can see how he has voted on various bills and policies in the past, in order to get an idea of how he thinks, and how he might cast his vote in the future? I don’t get a clear sense of that from his speeches.
thanks,
b2b
8 March 2008 @ 1:43 pm
Lots to address as usual. I’m going to pick my battles as usual as well.
I don’t understand why people think the word “marriage” is sacrosanct. I don’t think it is worth arguing over, necessarily, but this notion that we destroying marriage is just fucking daft, in my opinion. Marriage is, for all practical purposes, a civil, legal arrangement. Some religious folks like to play make believe that God is somehow involved. That is really not our concern in terms of our government. If families are important then all families are important. I don’t see why heterosexuals should have a monopoly on “marriage”.
In regards to Obama, he has been in the state and federal government. He has outlined his positions in great detail on his web site (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/). He is smart, articulate and he is running one of the best national campaigns I have ever seen. I refuse to believe that the only people qualified for President are career politicians. I don’t agree with him on everything. He will not be a President without flaw. But he is a good man, a smart man, an experienced man in both private and public life. I really don’t see what the big mystery is.
13 March 2008 @ 4:18 pm
Thanks for your response. But lolife you seem to evade the questions and points I make (in this case to micadelic, but open to all, obviously) – is this what you call “picking battles”? I don’t believe I mentioned “God” anywhere, whatever that word might mean, you fail to assert that my simple definition of the term “marriage” is incorrect, you offer no new definition in return, yet you then use the term yourself: “If families are important then all families are important. I don’t see why heterosexuals should have a monopoly on ‘marriage’.”
Ok, I’ll offer up a definition of the word “family” instead, that I believe most humans on earth over the last, say, thousand years would agree to, if expressed in their maternal tongue: “a social unit consisting of at least a man, a woman, and their offspring.” Of course the notion can be extended to include multiple generations. There are also broken families that do not have at least these elements. In most cases I believe a “childless family” would not be referred to as such, but as a “childless couple”.
For the vast majority of humanity, I do not believe that two homosexuals of either gender, either with or without children, would meet their ingrained understanding of the term “family”, so again, I stress the need to be clear on terms one is using. Again, please disagree explicitly with my definition if you think I am wrong. It came from my brain, not a dictionary.
Seriously, lolife, one cannot just constantly redefine terms and then expect to have meaningful discussion, or meaningfully achieve either consensus or disagreement. Please tell me if you think most people in the world would disagree with my definitions, and if so, offer up a better one.
With respect to Mr Obama, thank you for the link. I do find some of the objectives listed there laudable, though I have strong concerns with his position on NAFTA, being a Canadian who feels both Canada and the United States have benefitted from it.
But I was looking for his *voting* history, on legislation that was before him while in the elected positions you mention. Do you know what it is, or is his voting history available online somewhere? I find that a politician’s past voting record is usually a good guide to how they may lead in the future.
thanks in advance,
b2b
13 March 2008 @ 8:39 pm
Yeah, I don’t like your definitions. Mine would be:
Marriage – a civil contract between two otherwise unrelated people who have decided to spend their lives together in a cooperative partnership.
Family – a married couple (see above) and optionally their children, who need not be their biological children.
I think the crux of your argument is “biological offspring”. I agree that historically people have thought of marriage as between a heterosexual couple and a family as people who are blood relatives. I think allowing homosexuals to marry is very similar to the notion of adopting children who are not biological offspring. That is, we can choose our family to some extent and the people that adopt children, for example, are just as much parents as people who have biological children. In the same way, homosexual couples who find their life partner have just as much right to the civil contractual conveniences as heterosexual couples.
I have a close friend who is in a committed relationship with another woman. They have an adopted child. They are a family. No one can tell me otherwise. It’s nuts that they don’t have the same rights for things like hospital visitation or estate decisions (if one should die). My wife and I have rights and privileges that they do not. I don’t get it.
Here is Obama’s voting record (the first hit in Google for “obama voting record”):
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490
Were you really having trouble finding that? Or were you suggesting I was unfamiliar with it?
17 March 2008 @ 4:57 pm
Thanks lolife (I have a job too, and blew the budget on the other thread).
Definitions not bad! Maybe better than mine, at least from a contemporary perspective. But we’ll hit trouble ignoring the biological aspect when we consider homosexual couples adopting children, which I do not think should be allowed, and I think, for obvious reasons, but they might not be obvious to you.
I am not aware of the issue your friends have of inequitable treatment under law for adoptive parents. By “committed relationship” you mean they are “married”?
I didn’t look for Obama’s voting record, I am Canadian and don’t get to vote in your election, so it is of only peripheral interest.
Thanks for the link (which, yes, I could have found I am sure). And yes, I was hinting that you might not have been familiar with it
On scanning his voting record quite quickly, and not being familiar with all those pieces of legislation, what stands out to me is all the recent “NV”s, especially in areas of taxation and budget, which is where the rubber really meets the road, in my opinion, as that is what most directly impacts the electorate. I also followed the link: “Polical Courage Test” which surprisingly came up with:
“Senator Barack H. Obama Jr. repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff.”
Interesting site, do you think it is biased in any way?
I am not very close to the US electoral issues, but I don’t believe in buying a pig-in-a-poke. From the media coverage I have seen, I have found it hard to figure out what the guy might actually *DO* once in power, other than “change” things. And there was also some duplicity with the Canadian Embassy with respect to NAFTA recently, I recall. I doubt Hillary, or for that matter McCain, are much better. Frankly, I fear for us all.
b2b
18 March 2008 @ 1:45 pm
Why should that not be allowed?
18 March 2008 @ 4:05 pm
So I should take the time to answer your questions, though you say you won’t for mine? What the hell…but, before I begin, I will confess that I don’t spend much time thinking about such things, I think much more about economics, organizations, international affairs, criminal law etc than policy on gays and abortion and whatnot, which seem to preoccupy a great deal of people’s attention, but I don’t really understand why…many more people are deeply affected by the former, and much fewer the latter…
In my idea of “child” I include the notion that a “child” is not yet of an age to make many decisions for themselves, and that is a key function for the “parents” (in quotes to include the possibility of non-biological parents, per your definition) of the child – to make decisions on the child’s behalf, presumably in their best interest, and to influence their development.
I consider heterosexuality as the most “normal or “natural” sexual orientation for the human species. It predominates, and a heterosexual relationship is required for procreation (unless you want to introduce in-vitro technology etc into the discussion). To bring it to a nub, I think heterosexuality is “normal” and homosexuality “abnormal”. That any society might contain some fraction of homosexuals does not change this, I am speaking of the majority, that if one were to randomly walk up to someone, what would one find? What is the “normal” case? In most cases, one would find a heterosexual, I assert. If I thought that homosexuality was much more widespread in well-functioning societies, I might change this impression, but hetero does seem to dominate, and it makes perfect sense to me, I don’t think I’d be here if it didn’t.
I consider it unlikely (though I have no data to back this up, if you do, please share) that a gay couple, acting as “parents” for an adopted child, will be able to raise that child in the same manner (by which I mean instilling roughly the same values etc as would a “normal” heterosexual couple) as if the child were raised by a heterosexual couple. Given that low likelihood, and the fact that a child cannot be held responsible to make the decision and absolve society of the responsibility of making it for them, gays shouldn’t be allowed to adopt.
We could also ask if the biological parents of a child could specify that they *wanted* their kids to be raised by gays, and then it be allowed. But generically, common sense says it just seems a bad idea to me. I am not particularly entrenched on this, it just seems like a stupid idea. Perhaps you differ on the issue.
Didn’t really have enough time, gotta get one of my (non-adopted) kids to hockey… later…b2b
18 March 2008 @ 8:09 pm
You are confusing “normal” meaning common and “normal” meaning the opposite of abnormal. Yes, heterosexuals are much more common than homosexuals but that does not mean their lifestyles are somehow less abnormal.
Said another way, just because something is uncommon doesn’t mean it is harmful, deviant, destructive, anti-social or amoral.
You know, I’m pretty uncomfortable with parents who brainwash their children to be religious. I think it is decidedly odd, the load of hogwash that parents make their kids believe. Bad parents of all persuasions teach their kids some really bad, really harmful stuff — racism, bigotry, intolerance and hate. And most of these are heterosexual parents. Are we getting into the business of choosing who is worthy of parenting? I hope not.
You seem to be saying that we shouldn’t have homosexuals teaching kids that homosexuality is OK when a majority of people are not homosexuals and don’t want children taught that homosexuality is OK. That is crazy, fascist talk.
I’m willing to let religious freaks teach their kids to be religious freaks and I’m willing to let homosexuals teach their children to be tolerant of homosexuals.
19 March 2008 @ 7:33 pm
Oh lolife. “Normal” and “abnormal” are in fact antonyms, and dictionary.com thought I had it about right: “nor·mal
–adjective 1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.” I think I understand the word. You are wrong, heterosexuality is more normal than homosexuality, unless you want to start redefining words again.
Moving on, I believe it is more likely that something be “harmful, deviant, destructive, anti-social or amoral” if it is uncommon than if it is common. Alternatively, I believe that more common things are more likely NOT to be “harmful, deviant, destructive, anti-social or amoral” in a well-functioning society. I am not saying that any individual gay is any of these things. You introduced this into the discussion. I do have a hunch that some of these characteristics would be more prevalent in gay people than in heteros, but I haven’t seen any stats on such a thing. I doubt such research would be funded or published, even if true, in today’s political climate, and it would difficult to do an unbiased study.
I was commenting to a friend just today that I did not like religion, and preferred my own spiritualism instead. I believe my children are well raised, and free of racism, bigotry, intolerance and hate.
I think in the case of adoption that one is *forced* into the business of choosing who is and isn’t a capable parent. I also thought the other day of a reasonable way to largely “let the market decide” on this issue.
Public policy need only require that adoption agencies allow biological parents who give their kids to adoption to specify their preference as to what kind of parents they will accept. Or different agencies could have different policies, and the only law need be that the policy be made public, and adhered to. If gay adoption agencies thrive under those conditions, great, if hetero does, fine there too.
I think I would still stick to wards of the state being best sent to hetero agencies as in this case the “effective parent” must pick the “normal” case.
lolife: “You seem to be saying that we shouldn’t have homosexuals teaching kids that homosexuality is OK when a majority of people are not homosexuals and don’t want children taught that homosexuality is OK. That is crazy, fascist talk.”
You do enjoy putting words in other’s mouths, don’t you?
No, I am not saying that. I thought we were talking about adopting children, not teachers. But while here, in case you are interested, I don’t think teachers should teach children much about sexuality at all, and that it is primarily a job for parents. I think North America might do a little better in the global competitive marketplace if in the schools we spent a little less time showing children how to put condoms on cucumbers and trying to instill a state-driven view of morality in them and did some more calculus instead.
And “OK” is a very nebulous term. I have derived great joy from having (biologically) had children, and I hope they will have children, and derive great joy from theirs in turn. In the case of my children, yes, homosexuality is “OK”, but hetero would be better, in my opinion. In my case, if it were ever required that my children be adopted, I would prefer that they not be placed into a gay home to be raised, as I think that would decrease their chances of experiencing that joy, because of the role models they would see, and the likely influence on their sexuality. But it is not the characteristic of greatest importance, either. I would take a stable, loving, caring, gay environment over an unstable, mean, straight one.
I believe that it is unfair to a child (who, on a purely statistical basis, is unlikely to “be gay by nature”) to place them into an abnormal sexual environment to be raised, unless it is the specific direction of their biological parents or other current guardians.
lolife: “I’m willing to let religious freaks teach their kids to be religious freaks and I’m willing to let homosexuals teach their children to be tolerant of homosexuals.”
Me too. But the means by which the homosexuals acquire their children can introduce public policy into the equation.
I believe I have a sound and sane (and not fascist) position on this corner-case of corner-cases issue. It in and of itself is not that important, other than the discussion illustrates the different ways different visions cause people to think.
How did we digress here, anyway? There must be something better and more important to discuss, this was an Obama/Hillary thread. I am a bit disappointed that your Rossiter thread languishes…
I noted to my son the other day, when he provided a definition of marriage very similar to yours, that legal polygamy is a logical result, which we both found interesting. Why should N=2 only if cooperative partnership is the sole objective?
b2b
19 March 2008 @ 10:10 pm
What I meant about “teaching” was that you seem to imply that homosexual parents would somehow be “teaching” their children to be homosexuals. Almost every homosexual I know, if not every one, had heterosexual parents. I don’t think there is a correlation there.
I don’t think schools should be teaching a lot of sexuality either except in the public health sense of preventing disease and unwanted pregnancies.
I think that many adoption agencies work exactly as you describe. People do choose the qualities they want in the people who would adopt their children. My lesbian friends waited a long time to be selected simply because they were a same-sex couple.
It sounds to me like you are retreating just a hair from your notion that homosexuals should “not be allowed” to adopt children? I hope so.
I’ve written about polygamy elsewhere, but I would summarize to say that I don’t have any moral problem with polygamy but I think it has been shown, in practice, to be untenable. Hell, even marriage is, statistically speaking, barely tenable. Adding a 3rd or 4th party to a marriage is a recipe for more children of broken homes.