CE - Volume 2

[JACkory]

People forget that at the moment President Bush heard about the first attack on the WTC he was in a class room reading to a group of elementary school kids.
Bush maintained his composure for their sake, and having no reason to believe that the military didn't have the situation monitored and as "under-control" as was possible, he did his best to wrap up the session without alarming those kids. None of us conceived of a second jet aiming for the other Tower, why would we expect Bush to have a greater sense of precognition?
And what, prey tell, could Bush have done in those 7 minutes? I mean, you can't even listen to all of "Stairway To Heaven" in that time span...there wasn't much ANYONE could have done within a 7 minute "window of opportunity", so what's the point?

I used to despise George W. Bush, but I've done a complete turn-around as a result of his leadership during and after the 9/11 crisis. I think he was exactly what this country needed at that time and that he's done a fine job of preventing similar instances of terrorism from invading our borders in the years since.
He's not perfect, but I honestly believe that he was the right man for that situation...I cannot fathom what might have happened had Al Gore been in his shoes, and I fervently hope that John Kerry never gets the chance to be tested in a similar manner.

[PC]

JAC, do you think your support for Bush might have anything to do with you being a devout Christian? I'm not saying that condescendingly; I'm just curious. A recent study showed that fervent churchgoers are much more likely to vote Republican, while non-religious people are much more likely to vote Democratic. And frankly, that doesn't surprise me at all.

[strat-0]

Sorry about the break in continuity, folks, but I think we're going to have to go on from here. The original CE is fubared. I can't fix it from here. I have a query in at ProBoards support; maybe they'll have a fix. I guess we'll have to have CE, volumes one and two.

Meanhile, I did a little Midsummer Night's house cleaning.

But, anyhow...
(Mary) I really believe that gay marriage is nowhere near as unpopular as people think. The reason for this is because of the HUGE difference between younger and older people on the issue. I realize statistics can be problematic and manipulated and such, but I've read a ton about this in preparation for my con law class and absolutey without fail every sngle poll I've ever seen, the percentage of support for gay marriage steadily climbs as the age range of the respondents declines. Without fail. In the under 35 age range, support for gay marriage hovers close to 50%, often creeping past 50%, in virtually every poll I've ever come across. That says everything to me. In a few generations, I believe those who oppose gay marriage will be in the minority. I really do think opposition to gay marriage just appears, statistically speaking, to be on the losing side of history. Politicians today still have to account for the older generations, but what happens when the 20-35 year olds all have grown-up children, and they've imparted their values to those children, and the opponents of gay marriage are getting older and older? Then who do the politicians serve? Who do they obey? I don't know when it's going to happen, but I believe gay marriage is inevitable.

This may be true, Mary. Well put. But consider that some of those younger folks will change their minds along the way. Remember Churchill: Show me a young man who's not a liberal and I'll show you a man with no heart. Show me an old man who's not a conservative, and I'll show you a man with no brain.

Not that I am either an old man or a conservative, I should like to say, but the pendulum always keeps on swinging. It's just human nature. But this is something that could skew your assessment of the increased acceptance of gay marriage, etc. in the future, Mary.

[stratman19]

Mary: I don't know when it's going to happen, but I believe gay marriage is inevitable.

Mary, it will come as no surprise to you that I respectfully, and sincerely, hope you're wrong. Traditional marriage has been one of the bedrocks of this society since this country's inception. I'd go as far as to say it's been one of the bedrocks of civilization (for all cultures) for thousands of years. Gay marriage for me just signals one more brick in the wall of moral decay.

Strat, good job too, on the house cleaning. I noticed that Title Tag isn't working properly either, regarding displaying page numbers. Just a minor inconvenience, but thought I would call your attention to it.

[Meursault]

I don't think gay marriage has anything to do with moral decay, it's shitty parenting, shitty education, shitty television, and the mass hypnosis that we're all under.

[stratman19]

What do you guys think of President Bush's refusal to accept an invitation from the NAACP to speak? My feelings are that he was completely justified in refusing. This is an organization that has been over the top in it's criticism of him.

In my opinion, Julian Bond and Kweisi Mfume, have completely hijacked this organization. They've turned it from a non partisan (officially at least) civil rights organization, into a vehicle for the far left. They've stated that the Republican Party would like to see the American Flag and the Confederate flag flying side by side.

They've stated that President Bush takes his views from "the Taliban Wing" of the Republican Party.

They've called him a liar and a thug. They've made many more inflammatory, and in my opinion, downright slanderous statements.

I for one, am glad President Bush turned them down (and has for 4 years). Look, he's not going to pick up any votes in accepting to speak to them, and he's going to potentially subject himself to some very bad treatment (and bad press).

After Bush spoke to the NAACP in 2000, they ran that deplorable ad which strongly implied that since he hadn't signed that hate crimes bill into law as governor of Texas, that he was as guilty as the actual murderers of that black man (can't think of his name) down there at the time. No, President Bush needs not speak to an organization such as this. They would be better served to just "get over it".

[shin]

Before I respond to your post, Chrisfan, I'd like to know something...have you actually seen Fahrenheit 9/11?

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

That's the same question I was going to ask JACkory, who said a couple of days ago at the movie board that he hadn't seen it. Have you seen it since, JACk, or at least the footage of Dubya in question? 'Cos, you know, I'm sure you wouldn't base your opinion without seeing the footage first and wondering whether there truly is anything alarming in what you see, as some have claimed.

Incidentally, just to correct Chrisfan slightly, it wasn't so much Moore making the point about that vacuous, panic-stricken look on Dubya's face, but that retired British general Sir Michael Rose (who is definitely no lefty, btw).

But yeah, it's not a major point. Criticisms of Bush don't have to rely on some footage of a rabbit-in-headlights expression he wore when left on his own for seven minutes during the biggest unfolding crisis of his Presidency. They don't rely on taking us to war on a false premise through the wilful misrepresentation of intelligence. They don't rely on his cronyism, or his jobs for the boys back from Texas oil, or the general smell of corruption around him. Nah, none of that stuff is actually necesssary to regard this man as the worst leader of a democratic Western nation (except Berlusconi) in twenty years.

That's why the focus on some of the more subjective aspects of Moore's film is so frustrating, because Bush should just be hammered on his track record, and on what he's undeniably done to America's standing and reputation in the wider world, and how despised he's made his nation.

Jackory suggests Gore would have been far worse, but it's hard to see how so. I really worry about the prospect of 4 more years of this guy, not least for the environmental impact he's having. But even more so for the astonishing way he's made America the enemy of public minds in every damn continent on the planet. I'm pretty sure Gore wouldn't have got the USA into that position of low standing.

It ain't all jealousy, George. British people don't hate democracy or "the American way of life". We've been America's closest friends for years... how have you made so many Britains despise America in just four short years?

[Mary]

Yes strat-o, it's true that people can change their minds as they get older, but I don't really think this is the sort of issue where that happens, unless someone has some kind of intense religious conversion. Because I think a lot of the reason for teh support among young people is the fact that we deal with gay people all the time and it is so banal and commonplace that we just can't even fathom anyone caring if they get married or not. That's not going to change in 20 years. I've had two gay roommates, my dissertation is advisor is a lesbian who is raising a son with her partner, who is also a professor. One of my friend's roommates is a gay man who recently donated sperm to a lesbian couple so they could have a baby—the baby is happy and healthy and just turned one, and I went to its first birthday party, where it was surrounded by loving family members, friends, and well-wishers. I don't think twice about a person's sexual orientation anymore, and I believe this is the situation for many people my age—you start to know more and more gay people, the effect that has on you just isn't going to evaporate.

It's also the case that support for gay rights of all sort has steadily increased over time. If you combine the two trends, it would really reuqire a pretty unusual reversal of a steady historical trend for the past half-century to turn the tide now. That's not to say there won't be a major backlash which will temporarily stop the flood, but I thik it will only be temporary.

And stratman...

Traditional marriage has been one of the bedrocks of this society since this country's inception.

Just to make one point, traditional marriage doesn't go away when gays start marrying. I mean, would your marriage fall apart if a gay couple in your neighborhood got married? If not, then why should we expect some kind of calamitous reverberation that undermines traditional marriages? Straight men and women will still marry each other. Those marriage will still constitute the overwhelming percentage of marriages in this country, because at the most generous estimates, only about 10% of the population is gay. I just don't understand how allowing them to get married is going to destroy the marriages of the other 90%.

As some of you know, since I mentioned it on the old rs.com boards, I have personal reasons to feel strongly about this, as one of my dearest friends has been miserable and heartbroken ever since his boyfriend, who was here on a temporary visa, had to leave the country. They were 100% committed to one another and wanted to spend the rest of their lives together. Had they been a straight couple, they would have gotten married and never would have had to face this agony, as they both wanted to remain in San Francisco if they could. That's why this feels like an issue of justice for me. If there were some alterantive to marriage that allowed gays to sponsor their partners for immigration purposes, and then to acquire civil unions that conferred all the other benefits of marriage, fine. I don't care what it's called—in fact, all things being equal, I'd prefer this kind of civil union as an option for all kinds of cohabiting adults, including not only couples but also siblings and long-term roommates (obviously, with some of the benefits changed depending on the nature of the relationship). I'm actually generally critical of the entire instution of marriage, and thus skeptical of its appropriate place in a truly progressive gay rights movement. But when there are certain rights conferred only by marriage, and they are rights that would serve any loving couple whether gay or straight, then I do think gay marriage becomes an issue of social justice and equity. I guess it's hard for me to feel any other way after I see my friend repeatedly reduced to tears and misery because of the cruel intolerance of this country.

M

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

"I now pronounce you husband and husband... you may kiss the groom." Does sound a bit daft though, eh Mary?

I reckon shane was onto something here with his earlier suggestion. Have a ceremony that confers all the same rights and what have you as marriage, but just call it by another name. That way everyone's a winner, no visa problems, and you don't outrage one or other half of the population. Surely a decent compromise?

[Dr. Drum]

JesusLooksLikeMe said:

But yeah, it's not a major point. Criticisms of Bush don't have to rely on some footage of a rabbit-in-headlights expression he wore when left on his own for seven minutes during the biggest unfolding crisis of his Presidency. They don't rely on taking us to war on a false premise through the wilful misrepresentation of intelligence. They don't rely on his cronyism, or his jobs for the boys back from Texas oil, or the general smell of corruption around him. Nah, none of that stuff is actually necesssary to regard this man as the worst leader of a democratic Western nation (except Berlusconi) in twenty years.

Bravo, Jesus. And here’s hoping that if and when Dubya goes down he takes his little sidekick Tony with him, eh?

A little story; about five years ago during a provincial election campaign, the then premier of Nova Scotia froze up for seven seconds during an election debate. Just sat there glassy-eyed and silent with a deer-in-the-headlights expression after a direct question from one of the other party leaders. Now, I realize the vast disparity between Russell McLellan’s situation that day and Bush’s on 9/11 but it just goes to show how unforgiving the electorate can be: "Russell’s seven seconds of silence" became the talk for the rest of the election and the premier and his party were hammered, of course, finishing in third place.

[kats]

Strat and Strat-- mixed racial marriages were once considered in defiance of natural 'laws', and were shaking the foundations of society. Society changes, it is inevitable. Whilst now in this time and age you may find the idea of gay marriage abohorrent, that's not to say that in the future it will be considered a norm-- such as mixed racial or religious marriage. My grandparents had to 'elope' and went against convention and denounced both of their respective churches to be married in England. Now it wouldn't make a difference.

As for who broke the board? Betcha it was a Liberal

Strat-o, can you PLEASE tell me who keeps commenting about me being a mash fan? thus, I will know who set up the board about me liking mush. While it takes away the funniness, it would be handy info

you can prvate message me if you like

[kats]

Gay marriage for me just signals one more brick in the wall of moral decay.


Not insinuating that you hold these views, stratman, but women being able to divorce abusive husbands was seen in the same way. Also, women working, etc. Society's evolution IS inevitable. IMO. Or black people going to school, sitting on the same part of the bus, etc. These views, as you know, were commonly held by the white majority, but change was inevitable.


If there were some alterantive to marriage that allowed gays to sponsor their partners for immigration purposes, and then to acquire civil unions that conferred all the other benefits of marriage, fine.

Exactly. Would you guys have a problem if gay people were allowed their own type of union that allowed them the same rights as straight couples? Financially and immgration wise?

[riley]

To my way of thinking (this is simplistic no doubt) it seems far more likely that moral decay has more to do with humans doing shitty things to other humans far more than it does a couple of humans wanting to announce they're decision to hang out together under a more formal arrangement.

I don't know that opposite sex couples have done such a fabulous job of showing how great they are at holding together something deemed to be so completely sacred by way of example. Are current divorce rates attributable to moral decay? I don't know. If so, gay people should be given equal opportunity to strip away morality like the rest of us

My wife and I got married next to the ocean, miles away from the closest church. No one seems to call into question the validity or strength of our marriage (not to our faces anyway). Isn't what same sex couples want essentially that same experience? Why do we care?

What Georgie Jr. does has a direct impact on the lives of people around the globe, given the magnitude of the job he's chosen. Unemployment and deficit spending impact households. Fred marrying Frank really doesn't, unless maybe they're living in your spare room, in which case you might want to pad your Erasure collection.

So much time and energy debating something (in More than one country I might add) that honestly will not work to the benefit or detriment of anyone other than those who wish to marry their same sex partners.

Sorry Stratman. With all due respect, if society's moral fibre is decaying, I just can't buy that it has to do with a couple of people with similar chromozones (sp?) signing a marriage certificate. I'm pretty sure a gay couple has signed one up here in the last 24 hours and most of us slept fine.

[riley]

I wore my hockey helmet and jock to work today btw, just on the off chance I decided to participate on this board, so go ahead and give'r.