USA and Marriage

I always wonder about the conception of marriage. Honestly, I have not been the most successfuly in my relationships over the years, but I have considered the application of marriage in my life at one point. The more I think about it; though, the more I wonder what exactly is the point of marriage beyond a religious symbol or a different status within both the tax code and society. It is the latter two that I want to tackle right now:

"Mrs. Bush: Don't Campaign on Marriage Ban

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer 45 minutes ago

Some election-year advice to Republicans from a high-ranking source who has the president's ear: Don't use a proposed constitutional amendment against gay marriage as a campaign tool.

Just who is that political strategist? Laura Bush.

The first lady told "Fox News Sunday" that she thinks the American people want a debate on the issue. But, she said, "I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously."

"It requires a lot of sensitivity to just talk about the issue — a lot of sensitivity," she said.

The Senate will debate legislation that would have the Constitution define marriage as the union between a man and a woman early next month, Majority Leader Bill Frist said on CNN's "Late Edition."

President Bush supports the amendment, but Vice President Dick Cheney does not. Cheney's daughter, Mary, is a lesbian and has been speaking out against the marriage amendment as she promotes her new book, "Now It's My Turn."

Mary Cheney wrote that she almost quit working on the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2004 because of Bush's position on gay marriage. Asked Sunday about reports that White House political adviser Karl Rove and other Republicans want to use the issue to mobilize conservatives for the midterm election, she said she hoped "no one would think about trying to amend the Constitution as a political strategy."

"I certainly don't know what conversations have gone on between Karl and anybody up on the Hill," Cheney added in her appearance on Fox. "But you know, what I can say is look, amending the Constitution with this amendment, this piece of legislation, is a bad piece of legislation. It is writing discrimination into the Constitution, and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong."

But Frist said he would defend the amendment even to Dick Cheney.

"I basically say, Mr. Vice President, right now marriage is under attack in this country," Frist said on CNN. "And we've seen activist judges overturning state by state law, where state legislatures have passed laws defining marriage between a man and a woman, and that's being overturned by a handful of activist judges around the country. And that is why we need an amendment to come to the floor of the United States Senate to define marriage as that union between one man and one woman."

Yahoo! Link



I, for one, support the right of anyone to marry anyone because, in my opinion and beliefs, a marriage is a union to a person that you trust, love, respect, and give your life. The fact that that person may be the same sexual denomination as you are seems, as Mrs. Cheney would say, discriminatory based on a specific set of religious beliefs surrounding marriage. I support Mrs. Bush and the Cheneys (I can't believe I just said that) in this campaign. The concept of marriage, if promulgated as a stance of only the union between and man and a woman, is a religious issue, and it has no place within the guidelines of the US Federal government. Such a distinction should never be made sacrosanct within one of America's most important documents. If it is considered as such, then the line of state and religion will be blurred to a point that religious doctrine will have even a stronger place within the jurisdiction of both the executive and legislative branch.

Protocol Gaffe?!?

"Earlier, in a protocol gaffe, when China's national anthem was announced, it was referred to as the anthem of the Republic of China - the formal name of Taiwan. China's formal name is the People's Republic of China."

Source: BBC World News

I'm just curious how you can mistake the PRC for the RoC when the country definately has vested interest in both parties. Things like this makes me wonder what kind of monkeys have been running Washington for the past 5+ years.

Ports deal

http://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/archives/001813.html

Ever since Congress flipped out over the port takeover by the state-owned Dubai company out of the United Arab Emirates, I have been curious about this entire situation. In all honesty I have understood very little of it; however, I know there is more to it then just "national security risks" as many Congressmen and executives have claimed. The link above is a great blog that connects many different threads to provide a clearer picture. I was really struck with the connections he made between foreign investment in essential US infrastructure and its relationship to poor fiscal policies since the 70s.

However, I am not completely convinced this is the only case. First of all, it seems to me that most of the Congresspeople are using this as an opportunity to sell themselves to their constituencies. The Dems are showing they can be "tough," and the Reps are distancing themselves from an administration that are suffering from their worst approval ratings of the past 5+ years. There is electioneering afoot.

It seems to me that the above article does not address the potential desire of the administration to see this deal through. As we all know, UAE is a major oil producer. And the connection between a UAE state-owned oil company and the Bush administration is one that cannot be ignored. However, UAE (specifically Abu Dhabi) are strongly tied to OPEC, so the ability to directly affect policy is limited.

There is stil an interesting connection though. The UAE has the 4th largest natural gas reserves in the world (behind Russia, Iran, and Qatar). It would be intersting for those with better capabilities to examine any possible connection between this port deal, the US need for natural gas, and the desire of the UAE to better develop their energy and gas infrastructure through companies like, oh I dunno, Halliburton and Brown & Root.

I guess all I am really driving at is to not take the excuses used in the media (national security issue) as fact. Dig under the rhetoric. And if you are still having troubles making a solid connection in your mind, then dig for someone elses and use that as a starting point to critically think about the situation from a different point of view. This is one of many examples, but a good one nonetheless.

Hurricanes

Interesting article surrounding the "knowledge" of a potential levee problem in New Orleans prior to Hurricane Katrina's landfall on the Gulf Coast:

AP Article

Basically it talks about a collection of videotapes that has FEMA officials, including Michael Brown, warning Bush and Chertoff about the potential of a levee disaster in New Orleans if and when Katrina hit the city. My personal favorite quotes are the ones making excuses:

"There's nothing new or insightful on these tapes," (Homeland Security Spokesman Russ) Knocke said. "We actively participated in the lessons-learned review and we continue to participate in the Senate's review and are working with them on their recommendation."

"I hope people don't draw conclusions from the president getting a single briefing," presidential spokesman Trent Duffy said, citing a variety of orders and disaster declarations Bush signed before the storm made landfall. "He received multiple briefings from multiple officials, and he was completely engaged at all times."

Personally, it seems to me that these statements are ridiculous. For these spokesmen to pawn these off as pointless is to attempt to falsify the idea to the public and make them forget the occurrences surrounding the disaster itself. Many of us knew something was going to happen to the city if a hurricane hit it at that strength. All of us know that it took Bush two days before he left his Texas ranch to deal with it. Dick Cheney was nowhere to be found. Condoleeza Rice (although not necessarily needed for this, but still a member of the cabinet) was buying shoes in New York. To say that he, while implying the others, were "actively engaged" in the plan seems like another attempt at historicism. They may have been engaged to some extent, but it was an engagement of disbelief at a potential disaster and/or the avoidance of a knowledge that something terrible was bound to happen.

While this is in the past, a lesson still needs to be learned. The idea of a securitization of environmental factors is necessary to engage in our personal and community risk assessment toward the world. It should also be a major long term economic and security assessment of not just the Homeland Security Department, but also the Commerce Department and the Department of the Interior. Even if global warming is not true, we are still entering a few decades of increased storms (if historical patterns are correct). Katrina will not be the last to hit these coasts, and if you couple these storms with the obvious increase in earthquake activity then an unpreparedness can cause even more problems than what happened to New Orleans in late August of 2005.

Hamas, Palestine, and Iran

I quite like the email today. I tend to write these as a stream of consciousness--much like I would respond to a request or a question. I think it allows me to portray my feelings in a more authentic light despite the possible poor grammar or sentence structure.

Once again, if anyone is actually reading this, I pledge to you to do your part in making this government understand our opinions regarding their policies. It has been too long for us to engage with an administration that many of us do not support, and it is necessary to confront it so that we do not have to suffer a worse one beginning in 2009.

Anywho, the email:

I have read today through our selectively free media that Iran has pledged to donate money to the current Palestinian cause. I may be wrong, but I can imagine that this is causing problems in the government; however, I have to assume that you predicted that this circumstance would occur. The recent wholesale rejection by the administration of current Iranian policies, led by Ms. Rice, is frightening, and now the collaboration of this supposedly rogue nation with a rogue government in Hamas should worry this executive based on the past policies surrounding Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Zimbabwe, etc.

I have heard very little though. It makes me wonder if the press is being used as a buffer to not act on these stories or comments so the general public (who cant watch C-Span all day) will not have knowledge as to the government's policies to the collaboration. Personally, I feel that the isolation of Iran, Palestine, and like minded states and governments is a dangerous precedence to set for the supposed World Superpower and police force for democracy. While Iran is an Islamic State, the current President is still popularly elected; in addition, the current government in Palestine, thanks to a electoral screwup by Fatah, is now legitimately represented by Hamas. The rejection of these two electorates, despite their opinions and policy goals, is undermining US expansion of democracy.

This makes me wonder if the desire to expand democracy is truly the goal, or if it is really the expansion of American power and economic superiority. If such is the case, then I really do not understand how this will benefit our population and future prospects. From my readings of the world we are being attacked and fought against by many groups of people that are not upset because of the expansion of democracy and ideals; rather, they are perturbed from the extension of economic and political control over the territory that they espouse to be that of their religion and their prophet. To continue to arbitrarily extend this control for power and control feels like we, as a country, do not care about the actual plight of these people but care more about geopolitical goals and extensions. As an American citizen, this I cannot support any longer.

To isolate these two countries is to further drive them, and others, into the realm of anti-americanism. By isolating Hamas, their people will only rally to the cause further, and they will continue to destabalize any chance at a peace agreement in the area. By continually isolating Iran (despite an inability to create a nuclear weapon for at least 10 years), we will only push them further from cooperation with the international atmosphere. If the goal is to play good cop, bad cop with Russia, then kudos--it seems to be working. However, if the goal is to call out Ahmadinejad, then I have a feeling that he will call your bluff. From my research, Iran is out to forge some level of strategic control in the region to both balance Israel and protect their borders from US control of Iraq. To further declare them as a threat only deters them from cooperating in the future.

Energy Policy

I was somewhat impressed by the desire of the administration to mention the development of a sustainable energy policy in the State of the Union a few weeks ago; however, I am still hesitant to jump onboard and believe it will happen. Mr. Bush was quoted today saying:

"Our nation is on the threshold of new energy technology that I think will startle the American people. We're on the edge of some amazing breakthroughs - breakthroughs all aimed at enhancing our national security and our economic security and the quality of life of the folks who live here in the United States."

I'm not so sure how close to "threshold" the United States actually is, but the progression in biofuels and ethanol production is slowly beginning to improve. I hope that a little more funding will help push it along. What I am not so sure of is the obsession with the new Lithium-Ion batteries and solar panel companies that Bush seemed enamored with. From my understanding, renewable energies will not even be close to mainstream for AT MINIMUM 10-15 years due to cost and installation issues. I also have to believe that since the new Lithium-Ion batteries designed by Johnson Controls are at least 2-4 years away from auto production.

The push for a new energy policy has been a noble effort so far. But much like the rest of the Bush policies (No Child Left Behind, International Policy, Social Security Reform, AIDS funding for Africa, etc), I will believe the results when I see them. This administration has become the child that calls wolf during every State of the Union address to try and improve their poll numbers. I am done believing, and I want results.

Wiretappings

So, I am thinking it will be easier in some ways if I just post my ranting emails to the whitehouse instead of writing completely new ones. I'm sure I will have comments along the way about other things I am frustrated about, but sometimes the emails will suffice--as this one will today.

"While I am sure that this topic has become so commonplace in your campaign of disinformation lately, I still want to make a point about them before I go back to my studies.

First on wiretappings. I see the point and argument of the administration in that PL 107-40 provides a wide berth in dealing with external foes; however, I, and many others, interpret the law as providing for the use of military force by the President and his staff. Last I checked the monitoring of telephone calls and communications by the CIA and NSA do not specifically fall under the jurisdiction of the military--especially those calls done by noncombatants. Such provides the grey area in which you make your argument, I know. It worries me that the argument is very rarely made, and that by keeping the idea of the law out of the knowledge of the general public(be it by the admin or the press) seems like a way to cover it up while forcing the supreme legitimacy of a strong executive branch on our democracy. We are built on the idea that the strong power of a single, decision making branch should be checked in some ways to prevent concepts of tyranny, absolute power and control. The current process is setting a poor precedence that could end up being abused more and more as history progresses.

Please consider the needs and desires of a large bulk of your population. We do not support much of what is happening, and to lie and tell us that it is necessary for national security is fearmongering and disinformation. We are not stupid people, and many of us can see through the lies and would prefer to be engaged with our government as opposed to scared of it."