Text 9124, 226 rader
Skriven 2006-10-09 02:17:30 av gabiks@comcast.net
Ärende: Re: My presidential pick for 2008
=========================================
From: gabiks@comcast.net

Vorlonagent wrote:
> "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness" is not in the Constitution.
> (it's from the Declaration of Independence).  There is no legal right to
> these things so much as constitutional prohibitions against common ways the
> goverment can get in your way.  Marriage also has no constitutional basis,
> only a legal one.  There is no cause for the judiciary to intervene here and
> create (legislate) a "right" where none legally exists.

Yes, yes, I was being a tad flippant, invoking the spirit of things,
you see.  Taken together as a whole the declaration of independence,
the articles of the constitution and the bill of rights, make for one
formidable foundation.   It amazes me that we have experienced so
little internal strife as a nation.  I think the framers got the
balance of power right.
You've confused me here a bit.  Is the constitution not a legal
document?

> > Unfortunately, we as a predominantly homophobic nation are
> > unable to have a conversation at that level.    So it's fallen to the
> > states to determine for themselves.   Which may be the correct
> > approach.  If enough states 'go pink' the conversation may come
> > around.   I believe popular public opinion/acceptance can/does
> > influence the supreme court system to a degree.  In that it shows the
> > justices how far they can go/get away with peacefully.
>
> So we're homophobic.  That's a black mark on us, sure.  Thing is, it's our
> country.  If we want to be homophobic, we can be.  No matter how
> short-sighted and prejudiced it may be.

Good grief!........... Yes, we're so *very* lucky.   Let's hope
democracy brings the same enlightened attitude to all the good peoples
of the world.

> Even if banning same-sex marriage is as wrong as you or I might believe it
> to be, that quality of wrong-ness does not give the Mass supreme court the
> right or power to first overrule a ballot initiative enshrining
> heterosexual-only marraige nor the right or power to unilaterally legalize
> gay marraiage.  The Mass Supreme Court is still exceeeding its authority.
>
> Again, this point remains regardless of how deserving gay marriage is of
> legalization.
>
> If you want to legalize gay marriage, convince the legislature it's a good
> idea.  A decree from an imperial judiciary is not an acceptable substitute.

Perhaps not.   convincing the current legislature that gay marriage is
deserving of legalization isn't a complete impossibility.  Getting W
to sign it into law is.  His power base will not allow him too.  My
personal feeling on the matter is; morality is a dish best served cold,
as in from the grave.  I'll say it again women and minorities in this
country did not always enjoy the same rights under the law/constitution
as white males.  When we can talk about issues in terms of individual
rights/freedoms only, then will the conversation turn itself toward
resolution.

 > Fair enough.  Keep asking questions.

Ok, here's one.  Is your dissatisfaction with the judiciary, and its
perceived imperial slant, born of the fear that our country will evolve
in ways that are outside of your comfort zone?


> Nor are Iraq and Afghanistan as bad as they are made out to be.  Both have
> serious issues but successs gets glossed over and problems dwelled upon.
> Whatever problems Iraq has, for example, Al Queda in Iraq has been serously
> hurt or destroyed by the death of Zarkawi and the info we pried from the
> wreckage of his hideout.
>

Parts of this are so delusional; imho, I simply can't go there.

> > While I agree with the old adage that those who fail to learn from
> > history are destine to repeat it, the war on terror is not WWII.
> > Saddam (or the president of iran, for that matter, I have no idea how
> > to pronounce let alone spell his name!) is not Hitler.  Iraq is not
> > Vietnam.  and W is no FDR.  Yes there is value in revisiting the past,
> > lessons to be learned etc.   first and foremost we need to understand
> > our current situation, to explore how the past has brought us to the
> > present.....call me crazy, but I don't see the 'victory' in WWII
> > as this great triumph over evil.
>
> Why not?
>

I need to verify a few facts before I can answer that one, stay tuned.

> Introspection is not enough.  We also need to look at our opponents as well.
> There are strong elements in common between WWII and the War on Terror, Nazi
> Germany and Iran.

Ok, I'll play.  And they are?

> > what I see is a 'demographic' that has been marginalized by the
> > 'world' economy.  This demographic extends way past the mid-east
> > (think parts of asia, south America, Africa, mexico.)  there is 'the
> > west' and those who serve its interests, and everyone else.
>
> No they aren't marginalized *by* the world economy.  They are marginalized
> *in* the world econmy because these regions have a history of autocratic
> government and corruption that make it darn difficult to get ahead.
>

once upon a time I could afford actual Egyptian cotton.  Not anymore
(even if I wanted to, it's hardly available.)  Now I buy my
'Egyptian cotton' from china.  The global economy pushes for the
lowest cost provider.  Many countries that were able to compete no
longer can.   I agree however that autocratic governments and
corruption are part of the problem.  So, both 'in' and 'by' I
think.


> > It may
> > be that what we're experiencing, and the prez of iran may be
> > heralding to a degree, is the rise of the everyone-elses.
>
> That's what Hugo Chavez says too.  I don't believe it.

Hugo chavez?  The only way you can think to counter this sentence is to
suggest I have a friend in hugo chavez?
You don't by chance work for the current administration do you? :^)


> Even if true, if everyone-else feels so nihilistic as to destroy the
> economies that have outperformed them, they can and should expect one hell
> of a fight.  I am not going to don sackcloth and ashes and cede them the
> moral right to do so.
>

Nice imagery.  Nor will I.   Spin the wheel, I say, and let the moral
dice fall where they may.
their not nihilistic.  they are desperate to catch up in a race they
just recently have come to realize they are loosing.  (the long march
toward economic entropy is well on it's way.)

>
> No, we're the convienent target of lazy thinking among uneducated people.

And these people are?

>
> We bear some responsibility for buying oil from people like that but primary
> responsibility rests with the people who actually govern a poor or starving
> people.
>
> And we don't *take* anything.  We *buy* it.

I believe I wrote we *pay* for what we take, which equals *buy* in my
book.

>
> We are guilty of Cold War preeoccupation with the Soviets and post-Cold War
> fatigue and disconnection, yes.  We let some of this stuff fester.
>
> You say we need to think forward not back, but you're also saying we need to
> go back and stake stock of the past.  Which is it?  Do we wallow in past
> sins, real and imagined, or figure out what's best to do from here?  I vote
> going from here.
>

I'm right behind ya on the going forward part.  From my perspective
history shows us that you cannot win a war of ideologies militarily.
Ideas outlive people

> Bush has chosen to move forward.  A stable democracy in Iraq would be a
> powerful force for change in the mideast just by exisiting.  If you want the
> #1 reason for invading Iraq, that was it.
>

So, the #1 reason for invading iraq was to foster change in the
mid-east?  And who decided the mid-east needed changing?  And what does
this have to do with terrorism?

> >> Since Muslims are by the tenets of their faith the Chosen of God and the
> >> world doesn't reflect that back to them, leaders have blamed jews and the
> >> West.  Just as Hitler blamed jews for Germany's post WWI woes.  Thus us
> >> being us has bred a convient hatred of us.  Hence terrorism.
> >
> > Don't all people of faith consider themselves chosen?
>
> No.  I don't think you'll find that in asian faiths such as Buddhism and
> Taoism.  I don't believe it plays in Huduism or shinto but I don't know them
> that well.  I'm not sure it figures in American Indian shamanic faiths
> either.
>

Ah, yes, my bad, Judeo-Christians then.  (I can't remember, is islam
lumped together in that category as well?)

>
> >> The War on Terror is not about money.  It never was.
> >
> > is too!  is too!  is too!  (stomping feet :^)
>
> Not JUST money, no.
>

Yippee! (doing a 'partial' victory dance :^)

>
> >> Europe and/or the UN often gets the assumption of high-mindedness.
> >> American
> >> is often guilty of self-interest until proven innocent.
> >>
> >> Neither of these stereotypes are accurate.
> >>
> >
> > accurate? no, just convenient.
>
> And by the very convienence promoting a un-justified moral superiority of
> Europe and the UN and an un-earned distrust of the US.
>

Un-earned?  Oh, no.  when the basic tenant of our foreign policy over
the years has been 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', we've
earned it.

sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this thread.  but i find
myself advocating for my children in ways i hadn't imagined.  

lg


--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2
 * Origin: *READ ONLY* rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated (3:640/1010)