“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”
Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll
We seem to have lots of Humpty Dumptys in politics, their words mean what they choose, not what most people think they mean.
Take the “Freedom Caucus”. What do they mean? It certainly doesn’t mean freedom to govern ourselves according to generally accepted rules. To them it means freedom to do what they damn well please, to hell with whoever else's freedom they tromp on.
Just what are “conservatives” conserving. It certainly isn’t resources. It certainly isn’t careful consideration before making any changes. To too many “conservatives” it means either conserving the power of large corporations or conserving a very narrow view of religion. ironically, the latter don’t hold the former to “you cannot serve both God and Mammon.” - Matthew 6:24.
As I’ve written more times than some of my readers would like, “free market” means, according to the Humpty Dumptys is again, free for the sellers to do as they please. To them the free market is not providing buyers with all the information they need and is not avoiding externalities such as pollution and worker safety. These to them are impediments to “free markets”.
“Liberals” misuse words also, but their goals tend to be more friendly to the general populace. But sometimes their “liberality” works counter to the general welfare or unnecessarily creates opposition to certain desirable goals: like letting people lead the lives they choose.
I think “gay marriage” has lost a lot of otherwise “liberal” votes because many supporters have a different view of marriage. I’ve always thought this problem should be dealt with by a “granny rule”. If two grandmothers choose to live together, is it our business whether they sleep in the same bed or in different rooms? It is “our business” if one of them dies. Does the survivor have to sell the house to pay the inheritance of the deceased’s children and grandchildren? To avoid this situation, any group of people who choose to live together should be able to have a civil contract that protects the interests of each member of the group.
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Sunday, March 26, 2017
Wednesday, May 09, 2012
The coming battle of the no-shows
The 2012 elections may be determined, not by who votes, but who does not vote.
If President Obama doesn't actively support gay marriage, many gay rights supporters might stay away.
If President Obama actively supports gay marriage, many who don't care for the issue might stay away.
Because Mitt Romney is a Mormon, many "conservatives" might stay away.
If Mitt Romney wavers on any of the "conservative" issues, "conservatives" might stay away.
If Mitt Romney strictly follows the "conservative" script, many RINOs might stay away.
Wherever you stand on the issues, don't give the election to the candidate with whom you disagree the most. Show up and vote on November 6, 2012!
Remember: the 1% may have the money but the 99% have the votes!
If President Obama doesn't actively support gay marriage, many gay rights supporters might stay away.
If President Obama actively supports gay marriage, many who don't care for the issue might stay away.
Because Mitt Romney is a Mormon, many "conservatives" might stay away.
If Mitt Romney wavers on any of the "conservative" issues, "conservatives" might stay away.
If Mitt Romney strictly follows the "conservative" script, many RINOs might stay away.
Wherever you stand on the issues, don't give the election to the candidate with whom you disagree the most. Show up and vote on November 6, 2012!
Remember: the 1% may have the money but the 99% have the votes!
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
"Life is not conservative"
Harry Drabik concluded an interesting analysis of "conservative" thought with the above statement. It is in his column "north shore notes" in the Reader Weekly, 2011-06-02.
"Life is not conservative. It is wildly radical existing on sea bottom deeps, high mountain peaks, and dry deserts. There is nothing conservative about life on this planet. If you believe in a Creator about the most disrespectful thing would be to take all that marvelous, vibrant complexity and reduce it to a narrow little fairy tale that suits you small fancies."
"Life is not conservative. It is wildly radical existing on sea bottom deeps, high mountain peaks, and dry deserts. There is nothing conservative about life on this planet. If you believe in a Creator about the most disrespectful thing would be to take all that marvelous, vibrant complexity and reduce it to a narrow little fairy tale that suits you small fancies."
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Marriage is one man, one woman?
Many who oppose "gay marriage" claim the Bible says God defined marriage as one man and one woman. However, the Bible says that Jacob married both Leah and Rachel, that David had many wives, and that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. All three of these men were supposedly favored by God.
Solomon was almost a marriage machine. He ruled about 40 years or about 14,000 days. We can probably assume that he didn't marry much near the end of his reign and probably married some of his wives before he became king. If his marrying days were still about 40 years, that would mean he would be marrying a woman every 20 days or marrying a woman or taking a concubine every two weeks. That sounds like Solomon's life was one continuous honeymoon!
Solomon was almost a marriage machine. He ruled about 40 years or about 14,000 days. We can probably assume that he didn't marry much near the end of his reign and probably married some of his wives before he became king. If his marrying days were still about 40 years, that would mean he would be marrying a woman every 20 days or marrying a woman or taking a concubine every two weeks. That sounds like Solomon's life was one continuous honeymoon!
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Yes or No! No Ifs, Ands, or Buts!
Creationism vs. evolution, anti-abortion vs. pro-abortion, pro-Americanism vs. anti-Americanism, “you’re for us or against us”, “my way or the highway”, Democrat or Republican! On and on it goes for issue after issue – taxes, gun control, and war. Loud voices drown out reasoned voices. Slogans overwhelm discussion.
Now the election is over and we shall see if we get more partisanship or more governance. If McCain has won, we’ll definitely see more partisanship and less governance; each side working to show how they “know best”. If Obama has won, we may see less partisanship and a bit more governance. Even then, with our “imperial presidency”, there will be grandstanding both in Congress and in the Executive Office to show how “hard everyone is working for the people.”
Whoever has won, we will see many shortsighted solutions. On one hand, we’ll see “free market knows best” solutions with a lot of government breaks for favored industries. On the other hand, we’ll see “the people know best” solutions with a lot of government breaks for favored industries.
Charles Wheelan, author of “The Naked Economist”, recently wrote “The Twilight of Free-Market Ideology”. He faulted those who promoted lessening regulations to let business thrive, especially those who say government should get out of businesses’ way. He wrote that, at a minimum, we need government for when we want to sue somebody.
Many of the comments that followed on finance.yahoo.com were extremely vituperative. Almost any hint of government involvement is seen as socialism or communism. Fortunately, we have few public voices that are espousing either of these extreme ideas of government involvement in the economy.
In health insurance, McCain has been promoting individual choice and wants to tax employee-provided insurance. He seems to forget all the fraternal societies founded in the 1800s to provide various forms of assistance to members as well as help to others. At one time insurance companies were owned by policyholders; that’s why they included the name “Mutual”.
Obama has a several-point plan on reducing costs and providing insurance for more people. However, it will take a lot of jawboning on the part of the Federal government to implement many of these ideas.
Wouldn’t a better way be to encourage states to improve health care and insurance costs? This way a lot more ideas can be tried sooner with a lot less hassle than a national plan.
“Obama will take our guns away.” Other than an ill-advised, off-the-cuff remark about some people finding solace in having guns, I don’t think Obama has said much about gun control. Even if some future president and Congress wanted to take guns away, does anyone think they will succeed? President Bush hasn’t been able to take guns away from people in Iraq and Afghanistan in over five years. And there are enough Democratic hunters in Congress to block any extreme action in the U.S.
“Gay marriage will destroy marriage!” “All couples should be treated equally!” Hm! I find both positions tiresome. Gay marriage surely will not destroy my marriage of 48 years. And everybody has the right to marry a person of their choice of the opposite sex. However, there are many living arrangements that require more legal support than is currently available. How about two widows living together to save costs?
As for the Biblical basis of marriage being one man and one woman, what about Solomon and his 700 wives and 300 concubines?
Every abortion is a difficult choice. To criminalize abortion is to assume that the federal government knows best; strange coming from the party that wants “to get government off our backs.” Criminalizing abortion will work no better than prohibition of alcohol or drugs. We would be much better off working to reduce abortions by providing more non-governmental counseling, just like is done with substance abuse.
“The two-party system” is the king of “yes or no, no ifs, ands, or buts”. We are bamboozled into making a choice between two candidates, both of whom may cause more problems than they will solve. “Don’t throw your vote away!” “A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush!” It was? More Democrats stayed home than voted for Nader in 2000 in Florida. Nader got 9,000 votes and over 100,000 Democrats stayed home.
I hope you didn’t stay home on Nov. 4 but cast your vote as you saw fit, whether it was for McCain or Obama, Barr or Nader, or whoever else was on the ballot. If you didn’t like any of them, I hope you voted for “None of the above”. You didn’t see it on the ballot? It’s there in two ways. In Minnesota, you can write someone in (remember to give two names when voting for President) or you can leave the boxes blank for any given office.
This election may see the rise of a viable national third party. There may have been enough Republicans, dissatisfied with the McCain-Palin candidacy or with the ideological hardening of the Republican Party, who will split off into a new party. Don’t forget that the Republican Party was started by dissatisfied Whigs.
As the first and last real Republican said, “As our case is new, so must we think anew, and act anew.”
Now the election is over and we shall see if we get more partisanship or more governance. If McCain has won, we’ll definitely see more partisanship and less governance; each side working to show how they “know best”. If Obama has won, we may see less partisanship and a bit more governance. Even then, with our “imperial presidency”, there will be grandstanding both in Congress and in the Executive Office to show how “hard everyone is working for the people.”
Whoever has won, we will see many shortsighted solutions. On one hand, we’ll see “free market knows best” solutions with a lot of government breaks for favored industries. On the other hand, we’ll see “the people know best” solutions with a lot of government breaks for favored industries.
Charles Wheelan, author of “The Naked Economist”, recently wrote “The Twilight of Free-Market Ideology”. He faulted those who promoted lessening regulations to let business thrive, especially those who say government should get out of businesses’ way. He wrote that, at a minimum, we need government for when we want to sue somebody.
Many of the comments that followed on finance.yahoo.com were extremely vituperative. Almost any hint of government involvement is seen as socialism or communism. Fortunately, we have few public voices that are espousing either of these extreme ideas of government involvement in the economy.
In health insurance, McCain has been promoting individual choice and wants to tax employee-provided insurance. He seems to forget all the fraternal societies founded in the 1800s to provide various forms of assistance to members as well as help to others. At one time insurance companies were owned by policyholders; that’s why they included the name “Mutual”.
Obama has a several-point plan on reducing costs and providing insurance for more people. However, it will take a lot of jawboning on the part of the Federal government to implement many of these ideas.
Wouldn’t a better way be to encourage states to improve health care and insurance costs? This way a lot more ideas can be tried sooner with a lot less hassle than a national plan.
“Obama will take our guns away.” Other than an ill-advised, off-the-cuff remark about some people finding solace in having guns, I don’t think Obama has said much about gun control. Even if some future president and Congress wanted to take guns away, does anyone think they will succeed? President Bush hasn’t been able to take guns away from people in Iraq and Afghanistan in over five years. And there are enough Democratic hunters in Congress to block any extreme action in the U.S.
“Gay marriage will destroy marriage!” “All couples should be treated equally!” Hm! I find both positions tiresome. Gay marriage surely will not destroy my marriage of 48 years. And everybody has the right to marry a person of their choice of the opposite sex. However, there are many living arrangements that require more legal support than is currently available. How about two widows living together to save costs?
As for the Biblical basis of marriage being one man and one woman, what about Solomon and his 700 wives and 300 concubines?
Every abortion is a difficult choice. To criminalize abortion is to assume that the federal government knows best; strange coming from the party that wants “to get government off our backs.” Criminalizing abortion will work no better than prohibition of alcohol or drugs. We would be much better off working to reduce abortions by providing more non-governmental counseling, just like is done with substance abuse.
“The two-party system” is the king of “yes or no, no ifs, ands, or buts”. We are bamboozled into making a choice between two candidates, both of whom may cause more problems than they will solve. “Don’t throw your vote away!” “A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush!” It was? More Democrats stayed home than voted for Nader in 2000 in Florida. Nader got 9,000 votes and over 100,000 Democrats stayed home.
I hope you didn’t stay home on Nov. 4 but cast your vote as you saw fit, whether it was for McCain or Obama, Barr or Nader, or whoever else was on the ballot. If you didn’t like any of them, I hope you voted for “None of the above”. You didn’t see it on the ballot? It’s there in two ways. In Minnesota, you can write someone in (remember to give two names when voting for President) or you can leave the boxes blank for any given office.
This election may see the rise of a viable national third party. There may have been enough Republicans, dissatisfied with the McCain-Palin candidacy or with the ideological hardening of the Republican Party, who will split off into a new party. Don’t forget that the Republican Party was started by dissatisfied Whigs.
As the first and last real Republican said, “As our case is new, so must we think anew, and act anew.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)