Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
She’s trying to play down a feud she had a few days ago…and the best way to do that, in her young ditzy mind, is to warn of an upcoming civil war within “her” party.
Meghan McCain warned a group of gay Republicans Saturday that there was “a war brewing in the Republican Party” – a war between the past and the future.
“Most of the old school Republicans are scared s***less of that future,” she told a gathering of the Log Cabin Republicans, a group of gay and lesbian party members.
The 24-year-old daughter of former GOP presidential candidate John McCain pushed back against critics upset over her comments to CNN that she wanted President Obama to succeed, and played down her recent headline-grabbing feuds with conservative commentators Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. “I did not expect my frustration with what I perceive to be overly partisan and divisive Republicans to cause a national incident,” she said.
“I feel too many Republicans want to cling to past successes…I think we’re seeing a war brewing in the Republican Party,” she said. “But it is not between us and Democrats. It is not between us and liberals. It is between the future and the past…
Whatever your vision on the same-sex-marriage issue — if you are not insane, you are at least open to, and would hopefully recognize, the solution is the recognition of the sovereign authority of the states. Yeah, states-rights. De-stigmatize that, cherish that, embrace that, learn to love it. It’s not a white-supremacist’s battle cry, it is the heritage of our nation.
Because if you want to force another state, two thousand miles from your home, to recognize same-sex marriage…as Meghan McCain does…there is something hideously wrong with you. Forget voting. You shouldn’t be allowed out of the house.
That goes for those of you who want to force another state two thousand miles away to ban it, if the citizens living there don’t want to ban it. You’re a bunch of raging psychopaths too.
This is a phony issue. California just voted on this. I voted “yes,” meaning I didn’t want same-sex marriage to be legal. My side won. This being California, there was a decent chance it would’ve gone the other way — in which case, I would have evaluated how important this issue is to me, decided it really doesn’t matter that much, and opted to stay where I am.
What matters more to me? Things that Meghan McCain doesn’t seem to give two shits about. I want to buy a newspaper — or crack open the web page for a federal agency — and not see words like “program,” “subsidy,” “deficit,” “need,” “demand,” “cuts,” “regulation,” et all…instead, I want to see words like “freedom,” “opportunity” and “liberty.” I’d like to see a better tethering between our nation’s founding vision, and the direction in which it is headed. I’d like to see a better tethering between the people who run that nation, and reality. And I don’t want to see euphemisms like “undocumented immigrant” ever again.
Because the people we elect into office, lately have the power to decide how much those things are discussed; what’s centralized as a “moderate” argument even if it’s silly, what’s marginalized even if it’s just plain common-sense.
Which is another thing I’d like to see fixed.
But Meghan McCain is more concerned about re-defining marriage. Good for her. And now, in that vein, she wishes to re-define the word “Republican.” Well, not in my dictionary, sweetie.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Linked you here. Well put.
- smitty1e | 04/19/2009 @ 14:32http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/04/go-freeburg.html
I may be wrong about this but I seem to remember that the state had absolutely no interest in marriage at all until the Counter-Reformation. At that time Catholic nations were pressured by the Vatican to ensure that all couples were married as Catholics so that the Catholic church could maintain its Medieval religious hegemony. Like I said, I may have remembered this wrong but I don’t think so.
However, regardless of when it happened, it is certainly true that until fairly recently the state took far less interest in such things. Marriage was considered a religious institution. I don’t believe that I’d get much argument from even the most religious readers out there if I say they believe it is still primarily a religious institution.
If so, the what is the state doing by being involved in it at all?
The question isn’t “Should the state sanction certain relationships as a marriage and others as not?” but, “Why does the state sanction any marriage?”
By getting the state out of marriage completely, including tax laws, many of the issues involving “Gay Marriage” go away. Insurance and such becomes a contractual agreement between you and your employer.
If the state was removed from the process then you could “Marry” a stray cat if that is what you want. If I find marring cats that repulsive then I can attend an institution that refuses to perform such ceremonies. The cat lovers, or homosexuals could not claim that the state discriminates against them and I couldn’t complain because the state allowed it.
Growl, I’m in a grumpy mood today!
- Fai Mao | 04/19/2009 @ 23:52The question isn’t “Should the state sanction certain relationships as a marriage and others as not?” but, “Why does the state sanction any marriage?”By getting the state out of marriage completely, including tax laws, many of the issues involving “Gay Marriage” go away. Insurance and such becomes a contractual agreement between you and your employer.
I’m sick of hearing people make this argument, as if it were some neat and tidy way of making the gay-marriage controversy go away. It’s complete and total bunk. Civil society and government have a role in defining who is married and who is not. It’s not solely a religious issue and I’m sick of hearing people claim that it is.
A whole host of issues are involved that have nothing whatever to do with religion – everything from child adoption to inheritance and next-of-kin issues, to taxation issues, to visitation in the hospital. Courts have to be able to make decisions about property during divorce proceedings, which means there would need to be a union that the state recognized to start with. Social Security benefits. Life insurance policies. Just to name a few.
Besides, what about the irreligious? Right now they go to a Justice of the Peace or City Hall or something in order to be issued a marriage license. If we leave that to the churches instead, it leaves secular couples high-and-dry, doesn’t it?
I won’t attempt to address the Catholic Church’s role (or lack thereof) in making marriage a civil issue. For one, I don’t care when it started; the fact remains that the issue is on our plate today.
Funny thing is, I’ve left this response on dozens of gay-marriage threads on blogs all over the Internet, and so far not one person has left a follow-up post in response. Neither have I heard anyone else point this out when someone inevitably suggests that we “get government out of the marriage business.” It’s like I’m the only guy to realize that would cause more problems than it solves.
- cylarz | 04/21/2009 @ 05:20