Bigot, n - intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, sexual preferences or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views
As of May 8, 2012, bigotry is in the North Carolina Constitution. Hope the day never comes when I am seen as one of "them" -- men who are losing their hair? -- and can be denied the same rights as everyone else. We all know that most child molesters are men who are losing their hair, and we must protect the children! :p
Article I, section 1 now reads "We hold it to be self-evident that all persons (except for those homos) are created equal; that they (except for them) are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."
Bigots are quick to point out that there are now 32 states with a 'marriage between 1 man and 1 woman' amendment -- and only 38 states are needed to amend the U.S. Constitution. But what bigots fail to mention -- understand? -- is that North Carolina is only 1 of 17 states to ban civil unions, too. Our dim-witted cousins in South Carolina have done the same thing. But the prospects of writing bigotry into the U.S. Constitution are pretty slim.
Guess what? Homosexuals are still here and will continue to be here. Despite what that "preacher' from the hills of North Carolina says when he wants to put homosexuals in concentration camps -- have you seen that video on YouTube?
* sigh *
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Post #339 Free John Edwards! Pt. II :p
Whatever happened to limiting the size and scope of the federal government?
The problem with the trial of John Edwards is that the prosecution is putting the cart BEFORE the horse. No crime was committed. The prosecution is using the court system to retroactively change the definition of what is a campaign contribution. There is no 'Edwards' rule, making it illegal for a pregnant mistress of a candidate to get a gift. Now, I'd support such a rule, but that rule needs to be deliberated, passed and written. Let's follow the law, shall we?
Call me ol' fashioned, but, if I ran a stop sign, I'd expect to be charged with running a stop sign -- not a traffic violation complete with a jury trial to determine who benefited from my running of a stop sign. That is the problem: Edwards violated no law, there is no rule about running a stop sign -- to continue the tale. But he is being charged with a traffic violation complete with a jury trial to determine who benefited from him running of a stop sign.
We ought to reject this kind of judicial activism that will lead to who-knows-what-all. I say letting the government get away with using the court system to retroactively change the definition of what is a campaign contribution is more dangerous than letting Edwards get away with soliciting "hush money" to hide his pregnant mistress. The proper way "to get tough" is through the legislative branch. Hopefully, the jury will do the right thing, limit the federal government's reach and end this madness!
What we are left with is private citizens X and Y gave gifts -- and paid gift taxes on those gifts, by the way -- to private citizen Z. No money went to Edwards or his campaign. Edwards, a slimy sleezeball, played by the rules as they were written at the time. It's time to move on.
Did Edward do "wrong?" Of course -- and he will be hounded to his unmarked grave. Edwards had sex with a woman other than his dying wife and then long refused to acknowledge the child that resulted. But his life is over, public and private. He will never go to the Angus Barn -- THE place to eat in Raleigh -- in peace again, and Domino's Pizza will not deliver to his house, and he will hear the taunts from the playground:
"Ma Ma, where's my pa?"
"NOT in the White House, ha ha ha!"
The everlasting shame of John Edwards is that there really are two Americas but no one will address that for another generation....
The problem with the trial of John Edwards is that the prosecution is putting the cart BEFORE the horse. No crime was committed. The prosecution is using the court system to retroactively change the definition of what is a campaign contribution. There is no 'Edwards' rule, making it illegal for a pregnant mistress of a candidate to get a gift. Now, I'd support such a rule, but that rule needs to be deliberated, passed and written. Let's follow the law, shall we?
Call me ol' fashioned, but, if I ran a stop sign, I'd expect to be charged with running a stop sign -- not a traffic violation complete with a jury trial to determine who benefited from my running of a stop sign. That is the problem: Edwards violated no law, there is no rule about running a stop sign -- to continue the tale. But he is being charged with a traffic violation complete with a jury trial to determine who benefited from him running of a stop sign.
We ought to reject this kind of judicial activism that will lead to who-knows-what-all. I say letting the government get away with using the court system to retroactively change the definition of what is a campaign contribution is more dangerous than letting Edwards get away with soliciting "hush money" to hide his pregnant mistress. The proper way "to get tough" is through the legislative branch. Hopefully, the jury will do the right thing, limit the federal government's reach and end this madness!
What we are left with is private citizens X and Y gave gifts -- and paid gift taxes on those gifts, by the way -- to private citizen Z. No money went to Edwards or his campaign. Edwards, a slimy sleezeball, played by the rules as they were written at the time. It's time to move on.
Did Edward do "wrong?" Of course -- and he will be hounded to his unmarked grave. Edwards had sex with a woman other than his dying wife and then long refused to acknowledge the child that resulted. But his life is over, public and private. He will never go to the Angus Barn -- THE place to eat in Raleigh -- in peace again, and Domino's Pizza will not deliver to his house, and he will hear the taunts from the playground:
"Ma Ma, where's my pa?"
"NOT in the White House, ha ha ha!"
The everlasting shame of John Edwards is that there really are two Americas but no one will address that for another generation....
Wednesday, May 09, 2012
Post #338 Obama's War
My 2nd cousin, Michael, 19-years-old, has been injured in a mortar attack on his base in Afghanistan -- burns and shrapnel in his chest. He was evacuated to Germany and then to Bethesda in D.C. He had broken his foot during training but went with his unit to Afghanistan anyway and was given a desk job. He is still undergoing therapy but is going to be OK. :)
And now President Obama wants to continue that War -- after cleaning up George W. Bush's mess, he wants to add his own mess: Thus, Obama's War.
I believe in giving the military whatever they need to accomplish a clear and well-defined mission. Building roads and schools does not qualify. That is something best left to the State Department and foreign aid.
Obviously, our strategy has devolved into 'the best defense is a good offense.' In other words, we are over there for the sake of being over there. In my opinion, that is not good enough. We need to improve our defense -- monitoring communications (translators), spies -- as a good offense cannot be sustained forever. 'The best defense is a good offense' only works in timed events, like a football game. It is a losing strategy against terrorism.
Good Luck with that.
And now President Obama wants to continue that War -- after cleaning up George W. Bush's mess, he wants to add his own mess: Thus, Obama's War.
I believe in giving the military whatever they need to accomplish a clear and well-defined mission. Building roads and schools does not qualify. That is something best left to the State Department and foreign aid.
Obviously, our strategy has devolved into 'the best defense is a good offense.' In other words, we are over there for the sake of being over there. In my opinion, that is not good enough. We need to improve our defense -- monitoring communications (translators), spies -- as a good offense cannot be sustained forever. 'The best defense is a good offense' only works in timed events, like a football game. It is a losing strategy against terrorism.
Good Luck with that.
Wednesday, May 02, 2012
Post #337 A Day That Will Live In Infamy, Pt. IV
To "NCCitizenX:"
If Amendment One to the North Carolina Constitution passes on May 8, 2012, will it:
1) Protect the children? NO.
2) Extend Domestic Violence protections? NO
3) Prevent two men from moving in next door and having homosex 30 feet away from my bedroom? NO.
4) Prevent the chief of staff for the Speaker Of The House of North Carolina from having sex with a lobbyist who is not his wife? NO.
5) Prevent the serial marriages of someone like Newt Gingrich who practices his own "special" brand of polygamy? NO.
6) Secure equal protection for all citizens before the law and equal access to government protections. NO.
Indeed, the only reason I see to support this Amendment is that its passage will make bigots feel good 'cause they'll know there are a lot of other bigots out there. I could have told 'em that! :p
But, dear, "NCCitizenX," you have an ally: The ignorant.
I saw a post the other day: "My core value is, marriage = one man + one woman. Period. Let homosexuals have 'civil unions,' but leave marriage alone. That is why I am voting FOR this Amendment."
Good Lord. * sigh * Amendment One outlaws "civil unions" -- that is what the fuss is about. Nobody wants to mess with core values -- this is about equal protection for all citizens before the law -- see the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Amendment One reads: "marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State." The first part -- marriage between one man and one woman -- is pro-marriage, a core value of many; the second part -- the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State -- outlaws "civil unions" and is anti-gay. Do not be fooled by those who claim 'pro-marriage' only without telling the whole tale of this discriminatory policy.
But never let ignorance keep someone out of the voting both, right, "NCCitizenX?"
The cry is dogs, incest, polygamy. Even the most ignorant can see that dogs and children are ruled out by the definition of the marriage contract: Between 2 consenting adults, governing the transfer of wealth and rights. Of course, the State has a compelling interest in prohibiting other types of incest as the child of NCCitizanX and his mother would probably be more ignorant than NCCitizenX himself! :p
But why do people have are hard time understanding "2?" Look, if a husband is in a wreck and terribly injured -- in a coma and on life support, and wife #1 wants to 'pull the plug' immediately, and wife #2 wants to wait 6 months. Then, we'd have a court battle to figure out who really is wife #1 and who really is wife #2 -- which defeats the whole purpose of a marriage contract. So, "2" remains, and polygamy is a non-issue.
But, aaahhh, the bigoted and the ignorant -- that is quite a coalition!
If Amendment One to the North Carolina Constitution passes on May 8, 2012, will it:
1) Protect the children? NO.
2) Extend Domestic Violence protections? NO
3) Prevent two men from moving in next door and having homosex 30 feet away from my bedroom? NO.
4) Prevent the chief of staff for the Speaker Of The House of North Carolina from having sex with a lobbyist who is not his wife? NO.
5) Prevent the serial marriages of someone like Newt Gingrich who practices his own "special" brand of polygamy? NO.
6) Secure equal protection for all citizens before the law and equal access to government protections. NO.
Indeed, the only reason I see to support this Amendment is that its passage will make bigots feel good 'cause they'll know there are a lot of other bigots out there. I could have told 'em that! :p
But, dear, "NCCitizenX," you have an ally: The ignorant.
I saw a post the other day: "My core value is, marriage = one man + one woman. Period. Let homosexuals have 'civil unions,' but leave marriage alone. That is why I am voting FOR this Amendment."
Good Lord. * sigh * Amendment One outlaws "civil unions" -- that is what the fuss is about. Nobody wants to mess with core values -- this is about equal protection for all citizens before the law -- see the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Amendment One reads: "marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State." The first part -- marriage between one man and one woman -- is pro-marriage, a core value of many; the second part -- the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State -- outlaws "civil unions" and is anti-gay. Do not be fooled by those who claim 'pro-marriage' only without telling the whole tale of this discriminatory policy.
But never let ignorance keep someone out of the voting both, right, "NCCitizenX?"
The cry is dogs, incest, polygamy. Even the most ignorant can see that dogs and children are ruled out by the definition of the marriage contract: Between 2 consenting adults, governing the transfer of wealth and rights. Of course, the State has a compelling interest in prohibiting other types of incest as the child of NCCitizanX and his mother would probably be more ignorant than NCCitizenX himself! :p
But why do people have are hard time understanding "2?" Look, if a husband is in a wreck and terribly injured -- in a coma and on life support, and wife #1 wants to 'pull the plug' immediately, and wife #2 wants to wait 6 months. Then, we'd have a court battle to figure out who really is wife #1 and who really is wife #2 -- which defeats the whole purpose of a marriage contract. So, "2" remains, and polygamy is a non-issue.
But, aaahhh, the bigoted and the ignorant -- that is quite a coalition!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)