MISSING THE POINT

I think that Harry Reid's racially insensitive words towards then Senator Obama are being portrayed in a way that is missing the point. He said that President Obama was electable, basically, because he is a light-skinned black man who didn't speak with a "negro dialect" unless he wanted to.

Reid quickly apologized to Obama. The right is crying that he should have to step down from being Senate Majority Leader because of the racist comment. It's a double standard issue. I get that. Many black people are standing up for Harry Reid, forgiving him for the comments because he has proven over and over that he cares for black people, i.e., he's brought home lots of goodies to areas with a large African American population.

I see so many things wrong with this picture. The part of his comments that are offensive to me are not that they are pointed at Obama. It's that he is suggesting that a dark black man who sounds like a black man could not be elected. That is racist.

In most articles I've seen on this, they don't show the whole quote. It's just about describing Obama as light skinned and without a negro dialect. That's just a description, and I have no beef with that. The repulsive thing is the connection that because of that fact, he was electable, with the implication that if he were not light skinned and w/o a black dialect, he would not be.

MARRIAGE: A RIGHT OR A HOLY RITUAL

This post is motivated by reading the following article that is linked by Yahoo! News and AP Press:

Groundbreaking test for gay marriage

It will be nice for this issue to be settled once and for all, but I hope they make the right decision. The definition of "right decision" obviously differs depending on your World View. In my world view, the only reason we have something called "marriage" is that it is a ritual/ceremony that binds the couple in a contract not only with each other, but with God as well. After that, there are civil implications to the status of marriage, given by the state, in the sense of them being self proclaimed life partner. Sharing of property, decisions in medical care, etc. become privileges...and obligations. In a civil rights argument, gay people already have the option of civil unions, which give them the same rights as "married" couples. Why is the title of "marriage" even an issue here. Marriage is a holy union. In America, we are free to live as we please, within the limits of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but to give a gay couple's civil union the status of "marriage" changes the definition of marriage itself. Marriage would no longer be marriage in its original sense, i.e., being a contract with not only one another, but with God as well. Clearly, the Bible intends marriage to be the union of a man and a woman. This is clear all the way back to the Creation and Adam and Eve. If you want God's blessing in your union, then entering into the sanctity of marriage is good and right.

Confining marriage to only believers in God, might offend some people (heterosexuals) for whom got legally married but have no faith in the God defined in the Bible. So be it. But, in my mind, a civil union is the equivalent of marriage without asking for the blessing of God. Have a ceremony, if you want, but don't consider it holy matrimony, i.e., marriage. If you don't claim God, who established marriage in the Bible, as central to your relationship, why go through that ritual in the first place?

In a civil union, if there is a break in the relationship, there is as much a need for legal proceedings as with a marriage. In one, it breaks the contract with the couple; in the other, it also breaks the contract you made with God.

So, I think the issue here isn't whether or not gays can get married. I think it's the definition of marriage. Is it a holy ceremony established by God himself, or a cultural name for a ceremony that joins two adults, participating in a sexual relationship, for life. My worldview portends that true marriage would leave out not only gays from the title of "married", but also any couple who does not recognize their action as a contract with God, as well. A civil union is plenty for anyone who doesn't ask for God's blessing on the marriage. Have a ceremony; even call it something more interesting than "civil union," but don't pretend that you are entering a marriage.

If you give gays the right to be "married," you are changing the definition of marriage itself, and allowing anyone who wants to claim a commitment in a sexual relationship room to be married, too. This could potentially lead to polygamists getting to enter into the sanctity of marriage. Where does it end?

If a couple (heterosexual), for whom faith in God was not an element at the time of their official union, comes to a point in their relationship where they truly want God to place a blessing on it due to new belief, then have another ceremony declaring that. That is the point of marriage.

These posts are a chance for me to enter a stream of consciousness to think through some complicated political, religious, and social issues. Bouncing these ideas off of other people help me to see the holes in my thought, so gentle comments pushing me to rethink my reasoning are welcome. I think an honest dialogue on these things in the public is healthy, if done in a respectful way.

As I reread this, one more thing entered my head. Above is an analysis stemming from the question of whether or not to make it lawful for gays to enter into marriage based on the premise that marriage is strictly a religious ceremony. In this case, the 1st amendment enters into the arguments. After all, it prohibits the Congress from making laws "respecting the establishment of religion", or impeding the free exercise of religion. Perhaps, speaking of marriage in terms of laws is pointless and even unconstitutional. Therefore, I come back to the point that as far as the state is concerned, these contracts between two adults in a committed sexual relationship is simply a legally binding civil union. Beyond that, it is a religious choice. The state should not be making laws about a religious ritual. Then, people are free to make their choices and call their union what they want, but the state should not be defining something that has been established by the church. So according to the state, my husband and I are united in a civil union, subject to the privileges and responsibilities of that. But, according to my church and my heart and my God, my husband and I are united by the holy union of marriage. If, God forbid, we were to divorce, our civil union contract would be terminated, removing the rights and privileges the state assigns to the relationship, but so would our contract with God, which brings to us its own consequences determined by our belief in our God.

HERE'S THE THING

January 10, 2010

Here’s the thing. You can’t tamper with God’s Creation without really messing things up. In China they tried to make it rain by adding something to the clouds. I recall hearing it didn’t turn out so well. Now, of course there is Global Warming. I don’t think too many people doubt that the earth may be headed toward a warming period, based on what we’ve been hearing for so long. The doubt has been with whether or not it’s man made, and if we can fix it by altering our energy consumption. The fact is the earth has been continuing to create itself since God spoke it into existence. Every time there is an earthquake or volcano, the mountains are shifting, with the potential of making part of California an island and other massive changes. Erosion, fire, and other weather type things make similar differences in topography and so forth. We’ve had ice ages before. Yes, it may have killed off the dinosaurs, but look what came after that – what that made room for? Humans! If the dinosaurs had tried to alter their fate, where would we be?

So, from my perspective, attempting to change the weather or alter the earth’s course is futile at best, and destructive at worst. It’s the unintended consequences of tinkering that you have to watch out for. For instance, protecting some type of predator animal b/c of its risk of extinction but having the unintended consequence of putting another species further down on the food chain at risk of extinction due to the increased population of the predator. If we start limiting our use of the God given, precious resources on earth, who knows what that could lead to. With good stewardship, the resources of the earth are there for us to live and exist and thrive. Part of the reason there are rich countries and poor countries is simply because of the natural resources the area has. If we start limiting their use, it’s hard to say what domino effect that would have.

Now to the reason that I started this entry in the first place. Off of instapundit.com, I found this link:

STARTING: A 20-Year Mini Ice Age?

The first thing I thought when I read is that it may not be as much of a fact that the earth is warming like the scientific models say – with or without it be human caused – as we have all come to believe. As much as there are scientists talking about global warming, there are also those that speak of an ice age. Even giving the proponents of the dire situation of global warming the benefit of the doubt that their science is sound and their intentions good, the fact is there is only 130 years of reliable weather data to work with anyways. I’m not convinced that any argument with that percentage of data can be relied upon in a way that justifies making such over arching interventions that will change and affect the lives of everyone, in a potentially very detrimental way, in terms of the day to day making a living types of things.

So much of this global warming controversy comes down to many conflicting motivations, some sinister, and others not. But the lie in it all is to think that people have the control over the climate, in any significant way. We are not God. When things get out of balance, God has designed the earth to find a way to balance itself, to adapt to the changes. It’s the tinkering that inhibits the natural “laws of nature” to fix things on its own. I think the same analogy can be made for economics, but that can be for another time.

I DON'T THINK SO

January 9, 2010

I was reading an article linked by instapundit.com again. (NEVADA: Harry Reid Hits New Low In Poll. )

It’s regarding Harry Reid’s falling poll numbers for his Nevada re-election in November.

It’s noted that the independents will make a huge difference. One of the quotes in the article was:

"The Republicans have got to move into the middle to get them to the polls," Peplowski said.

I think she has that wrong. Politicians are mistaken when they equate independents with moderates/center. I think that a label of “independent” means that you’re just not party affiliated. You’re sick of the 2 party system and would just rather take it election by election, candidate to candidate.

I think the independents are looking for that Hope and Change candidate (that they thought they were getting in Obama) who will fix the broken system. I think any candidate that doesn’t claim devotion to either party will fare best with the independents. So, moving to the center is not the correct strategy this time around. Wishy-washiness is not called for. People are looking for someone they can trust, someone they can relate to. Few trust Obama anymore because of the multiple and continuing broken campaign promises. Harry Reid is also suspect because of the closed-door negotiations for the health care bill. That causes distrust b/c you know they’re trying to hide something. Being secretive does not instill trust, especially when transparency was promised.

Obama tried to come across as “one of us.” It worked for a lot of people. But, it is becoming increasingly clear that he is just another of the elite governing class, doing politics as usual, and in the most self-centered way possible.

I think that is what is attractive and threatening about the Tea Party movement and candidates. They are grassroots and are truly “one of us.” Part of what makes Sara Palin attractive to her supporters is her “one of us” persona. Of course, since the country is divided in its World Views, someone who seems like someone I can relate to is going to be misunderstood and despised by just as many people. I’m excited that she is attaching herself to the Tea Party movement. She can raise a lot of money! I hope she continues to only take on a supportive role, however, and not try and be an elected leader. I think she is too polarizing for that, and that is the last thing the country is looking for right now. We’ve had enough of that in the past 8 years and the foreseeable future up through 2012. Palin will attract the press, which is something the Tea Party movement hasn’t been able to do.

WHEN POLITICS GETS FUN

January 9, 2009

(Link from Instapundit.com) SCOTT BROWN: Winning “the battle of the blogosphere?” That’s not where elections are settled, but it’s something

This is the fun part of politics, i.e., when you feel like our voice is being heard and acknowledged. They (Congress and MSM) dismissed the Tea Parties, but that only made them (Tea Party types) more determined than ever to find people to put into the elections to make their points that it's not the fringe. Unless, of course the whole electorate except for unions, interest groups, and lobbyists are dismissible. Perhaps they are in practical terms for financial support and influence in elections, until, that is, the Tea Party representative wins an election - or even comes close - without a political machine. And, I predict Brown wins. The momentum is his, and it's too exciting for people to pass up the opportunity to vote in this one. And there are right leaning people all over the country, not just MA, paying attention to this election, who are represented in the large numbers of supporters and hits on the internet. I'm one of them. I googled "mid term elections" and read about the candidates, which is where I learned about the name, Scott Brown. Name recognition is huge when it comes to being in the ballot box. Otherwise, it's just a party vote. There are about 25-35% of voters who will stand by the Democratic party no matter what, but these days, less people feel comfortable with just voting by party, and if they don't know enough, they might just not vote for that contest, even if they are inclined to vote in general.

It sure makes it interesting. It's like a good sporting event, in a game that counts, whose score is nearly tied late in the 4^th quarter, but your team has the ball and the momentum.

The Tea Party's lack of coverage was frustrating, but it's exciting to see they're making a difference anyways. Even if Brown loses, his strong showing will raise eyebrows, even if they don't say so. You can ignore polls, if you want to, but an election, not so much. Other dems running in the November election will start to see the real temperament of the electorate. Either they’ll have to lean more center, or retire.

The people’s voice will be heard.

READY, SET, GO!

January 8, 2010

Here I go. I’ve never tried a blog before. My husband has and it’s quite good, but is mostly directed at friends and family, sharing tid bits and photos of our life, mainly our kids, and his interests and other things that fascinate him that he wants to share with others.

I, on the other hand, spend a lot of time writing e-mails to him about my frustration and concern about the way the country is headed under the leadership of this administration and Congress. My husband started to actually get concerned for me because world events were causing me so much stress, causing true anxiety.

He suggested I funnel my thoughts and analysis through an anonymous blog. Anonymous, so that I don’t hold back my true thoughts because of fears of offending any friends or family that might read it.

That feeling, itself, is part of my frustration with the times. As a society, we worry so much about offending one another that we’re often unwilling (myself included) to talk, discuss, and/or debate about our different worldviews. It’s easy, and often times fun, to discuss our thoughts about the important things like religion and politics with those who agree with us.

I think that is why we see such a proliferation of politically oriented blogs. It’s a chance to vent to people who think like yourself. And, occasionally, you know your voice is being heard by people with opposite viewpoints, without having the confrontation face to face.

That’s why I am drawn to Instapundit.com. It sends me to links that affirm my beliefs, as well as sometimes offering the alternate point of view in some of the links, but mainly in the comments. Every so often, I try to find a left leaning blog or news organization to get a feel for the opposite arguments, but I feel most comfortable reading links and/or watching news that sympathize with my own frustration with the temper of the world right now, particularly in politics, but also in many cultural issues, as well. I don’t think I’m alone in that. There is definitely an us and them mentality out there that is hard to kick, as much as we think we want to. Hope and Change, after all, spoke to that frustration at how the political environment had become during the Bush Administration. Partisan in a way I hadn’t seen in my lifetime.

Admittedly, I have only truly become aware and involved in political things since 9/11/2001. That’s when I became addicted to watching Fox News. They presented the war in the most straight-forward way that showed true concern for the country and covering of the events in Afghanistan, Iraq, and home related to the war. It was 24/7 coverage. I particularly liked Studio B with Shepard Smith b/c it was the most straightforward NEWS I could find. Every newscast was full of new information without much commentary. It is one of their least commentary reliant newscasts. That is hard to find these days on any cable news.

But, for all of the Hope and Change “talk”, the country has discovered that it was only “talk”. Things are more partisan as ever. I think a lot of that comes from the hypocrisy demonstrated by the left in the way they now applaud the very things they condemned during the Bush Administration. Likewise, they condemn the very things they lauded during the Bush administration. An example of the former is spending money and increasing the deficit so mightily, when they pointed repeatedly to the disgrace of the deficit grown during the Bush Administration. And an example of the latter is their reaction to the Tea Party movement, dismissing them as “Astroturf” and calling them extreme and dangerous, when demonstrating against White House policies was considered patriotic when they did it.

I think that is where the pitch of my anxst escalated as I heard them trash and dismiss a huge segment of the citizenry. The Tea Party movement was/is historic, and yet it was mostly ignored, or presented in a very negative light. Meanwhile, other demonstrations from previous years that truly did cause damage and were hateful in their speech were presented as legitimate. Disgust was evident on the left for the allusions to comparing Obama to Hitler. That wasn’t a new tactic. They used it first with Bush. They seem to continually forget their trespasses as they attack some of the very same, and often less repulsive actions from anyone not in complete agreement with them. The hypocrisy was making me sick. Never has Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount when he says to take the log out of your eye before taking the speck out of your neighbor’s been more relevant. He hated hypocrisy too. It was all over, especially with the pharisees, the elite class at the time. For all of the “progress” we’ve made in the past 2010 years, I guess not much has changed.