Global
"Only a union between one man and one woman may be a
marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its
political subdivisions. This state and its political
subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal
status for relationships of unmarried individuals that
intends to approximate the design, qualities,
significance or effect of marriage."
I just wanted to thank you for not only writing discrimination into the Ohio Constitution, but also for undermining the benefits and rights of straight couples who have enjoyed long-term, unmarried relationships spanning not just years, but decades.
Driven by the fear, ignorance and prejudice of a few, you have cheerfully damaged, if not ruined, the lives and relationships of many. Some might even be friends, or former friends now, of yours.
So, rest easy Ohio, while the spectres of terrorism, poverty, inadequate health care and a crumbling social safety net still haunt us, you've saved us from the horrors of same-gender couples enjoying the same rights and priviledges as married couples.
I just wanted to thank you for not only writing discrimination into the Ohio Constitution, but also for undermining the benefits and rights of straight couples who have enjoyed long-term, unmarried relationships spanning not just years, but decades.
Driven by the fear, ignorance and prejudice of a few, you have cheerfully damaged, if not ruined, the lives and relationships of many. Some might even be friends, or former friends now, of yours.
So, rest easy Ohio, while the spectres of terrorism, poverty, inadequate health care and a crumbling social safety net still haunt us, you've saved us from the horrors of same-gender couples enjoying the same rights and priviledges as married couples.
As a point of reference and for disclosure purposes let me say that I am a registered Independent. I do not like to pledge allegiances to any group. All too often a party’s platform will change over time and I do not want my image tied to any party which does not reflect my views fully. As an Independent I can study and develop my views and I currently my views consist of a range from all over the politic spectrum with most being considered leftist, some moderate, and some conservative. I do not have the chore of squaring my views with committee heads of a political party that I will never meet. These views are mine and I really like the thought that I have the power to form and even change the views of my party- which is a party of one. The platform of my Independent party is my wholly my responsibility.
As seen below, two of the four current lead-ins on The New York Times website (http://nytimes.com) at 2:12AM ET mention a "mandate" for the president and a third states that the country is "center right". Let's stop and think about this. President Bush was just elected in a tremendously close election.
He had 3 percentage points more votes than Kerry.
He won with 51% of the vote.
I don't know about you, but the support of only half the country and the dissent of the other half doesn't seem like a mandate to me. The words I'd use to characterize a president who only has half of the country's support are tenuous, fragile, delicate, and, perhaps, weak.
Why is the New York Times (and countless other mainstream media outlets) using such strong language for Bush and his political agenda?
President Bush has a weak hold over our country. Let's flex some political muscle and break his grip.
From NYTimes.com:
TOP HEADLINE: Bush and Republicans Celebrate Victory; Mandate Is Seen for the Next Four Years
After Kerry Concedes, Bush Cites 'A Duty to Serve All Americans'
He had 3 percentage points more votes than Kerry.
He won with 51% of the vote.
I don't know about you, but the support of only half the country and the dissent of the other half doesn't seem like a mandate to me. The words I'd use to characterize a president who only has half of the country's support are tenuous, fragile, delicate, and, perhaps, weak.
Why is the New York Times (and countless other mainstream media outlets) using such strong language for Bush and his political agenda?
President Bush has a weak hold over our country. Let's flex some political muscle and break his grip.
From NYTimes.com:
TOP HEADLINE: Bush and Republicans Celebrate Victory; Mandate Is Seen for the Next Four Years
After Kerry Concedes, Bush Cites 'A Duty to Serve All Americans'
I must confess: I know nothing about politics.
That much is clear after I completely misread the outcome of last week’s presidential election, one that I thought for sure was going to end up in a victory for Democratic challenger John F. Kerry.
I knew it would be close, but I thought Kerry had it in the bag. I figured he would win by 2%, 3%, or maybe even 5%, thought maybe he would pull a couple of states that went for Republican George W. Bush in 2000, and had even predicted we would have a clear winner by the day after the election. I believed it would be Kerry, and the country would come to see the wisdom of their choice and revel in our return to normalcy and understanding.
But, apparently, I was wrong.
What was it that led me down this path of error and confusion? If I wanted to, I could blame the candidates for fitting into the preconceived notions I had about them. Blame Bush, perhaps, for getting my hopes up by alternately looking like a confused puppy and an annoyed teen-ager during the debates, and sticking to a set of talking points on the campaign trail that were little more than transparent lies anyone could see through.
That much is clear after I completely misread the outcome of last week’s presidential election, one that I thought for sure was going to end up in a victory for Democratic challenger John F. Kerry.
I knew it would be close, but I thought Kerry had it in the bag. I figured he would win by 2%, 3%, or maybe even 5%, thought maybe he would pull a couple of states that went for Republican George W. Bush in 2000, and had even predicted we would have a clear winner by the day after the election. I believed it would be Kerry, and the country would come to see the wisdom of their choice and revel in our return to normalcy and understanding.
But, apparently, I was wrong.
What was it that led me down this path of error and confusion? If I wanted to, I could blame the candidates for fitting into the preconceived notions I had about them. Blame Bush, perhaps, for getting my hopes up by alternately looking like a confused puppy and an annoyed teen-ager during the debates, and sticking to a set of talking points on the campaign trail that were little more than transparent lies anyone could see through.
Dear Molly,
It is now November 3rd and we are faced with the horror of four more years of Bush. I firmly believe that there will be a reactivation of the draft, no matter what Bush said while campaigning. I have a sixteen year old son who is an intellectual and anti war. I cannot bear to think of this child with a gun in his hands or a knife at his throat. I am feeling a lot of anger at family and co-workers whose only concern was that they get a chance at vouchers for their private schools. How can people be so short sighted? When and where will this end? I am very sad today. Thank you for your column. Pam Clibon
Pamela Clibon
The votes are cast, our public spoke,
and chose once more, a bitter joke.
I'm depressed to see this fooled country
choose to end up despised and broke.
and chose once more, a bitter joke.
I'm depressed to see this fooled country
choose to end up despised and broke.
Dear John:
Hey, buddy, I just thought I would drop you a line and share a few thoughts, ask a question or two. I want to understand what has just happened to you, and I want you to understand what this means to all of us who supported you, and thought you were serious when you announced that you wanted to be President of the United States.
First of all, when George W. Bush asked you if you would have still authorized the use of force against Iraq if you had known at that time that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, the correct answer was, “No, I would not have done so, because Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the security of the United States and its people.” It was the easiest question any presidential candidate has ever been asked, to my knowledge. You could have dominated the news in a positive and vote-getting way for ten news cycles, easily, and it would have made a nice opening for you in the debates. But you said yes. Why, John? Were you trying to lose?
I must confess: I know nothing about politics.
That much is clear after I completely misread the outcome of last week’s presidential election, one that I thought for sure was going to end up in a victory for Democratic challenger John F. Kerry.
I knew it would be close, but I thought Kerry had it in the bag. I figured he would win by 2%, 3%, or maybe even 5%, thought maybe he would pull a couple of states that went for Republican George W. Bush in 2000, and had even predicted we would have a clear winner by the day after the election. I believed it would be Kerry, and the country would come to see the wisdom of their choice and revel in our return to normalcy and understanding.
But, apparently, I was wrong.
What was it that led me down this path of error and confusion? If I wanted to, I could blame the candidates for fitting into the preconceived notions I had about them. Blame Bush, perhaps, for getting my hopes up by alternately looking like a confused puppy and an annoyed teen-ager during the debates, and sticking to a set of talking points on the campaign trail that were little more than transparent lies anyone could see through.
That much is clear after I completely misread the outcome of last week’s presidential election, one that I thought for sure was going to end up in a victory for Democratic challenger John F. Kerry.
I knew it would be close, but I thought Kerry had it in the bag. I figured he would win by 2%, 3%, or maybe even 5%, thought maybe he would pull a couple of states that went for Republican George W. Bush in 2000, and had even predicted we would have a clear winner by the day after the election. I believed it would be Kerry, and the country would come to see the wisdom of their choice and revel in our return to normalcy and understanding.
But, apparently, I was wrong.
What was it that led me down this path of error and confusion? If I wanted to, I could blame the candidates for fitting into the preconceived notions I had about them. Blame Bush, perhaps, for getting my hopes up by alternately looking like a confused puppy and an annoyed teen-ager during the debates, and sticking to a set of talking points on the campaign trail that were little more than transparent lies anyone could see through.
AUSTIN, Texas -- Do you know how to cure a chicken-killin' dog? Now, you know you cannot keep a dog that kills chickens, no matter how fine a dog it is otherwise.
Some people think you cannot break a dog that has got in the habit of killin' chickens, but my friend John Henry always claimed you could. He said the way to do it is to take one of the chickens the dog has killed and wire the thing around the dog's neck, good and strong. And leave it there until that dead chicken stinks so bad that no other dog or person will even go near that poor beast. Thing'll smell so bad the dog won't be able to stand himself. You leave it on there until the last little bit of flesh rots and falls off, and that dog won't kill chickens again.
The Bush administration is going to be wired around the neck of the American people for four more years, long enough for the stench to sicken everybody. It should cure the country of electing Republicans.
And at least Democrats won't have to clean up after him until it is real clear to everyone who made the mess.
Some people think you cannot break a dog that has got in the habit of killin' chickens, but my friend John Henry always claimed you could. He said the way to do it is to take one of the chickens the dog has killed and wire the thing around the dog's neck, good and strong. And leave it there until that dead chicken stinks so bad that no other dog or person will even go near that poor beast. Thing'll smell so bad the dog won't be able to stand himself. You leave it on there until the last little bit of flesh rots and falls off, and that dog won't kill chickens again.
The Bush administration is going to be wired around the neck of the American people for four more years, long enough for the stench to sicken everybody. It should cure the country of electing Republicans.
And at least Democrats won't have to clean up after him until it is real clear to everyone who made the mess.
A distraught young person called me in tears on the morning after the election, amid the ashes of the terrible defeat for the Democrats and for liberal hopes. I tried to console her by saying that in 1980, things looked pretty dark after Ronald Reagan and the Republicans swept into power, yet only 12 years later, we had a draft-dodging adulterer ensconced in the White House and the Democrats back in control of Congress for a couple of years.
This didn't help, so I rushed her back to 1956, when Eisenhower was reelected and the skies looked dark. But only four years later, we had a Democratic war hero-adulterer on the parapet of Camelot and the Summer of Love only seven years down the road.
This didn't help, so I rushed her back to 1956, when Eisenhower was reelected and the skies looked dark. But only four years later, we had a Democratic war hero-adulterer on the parapet of Camelot and the Summer of Love only seven years down the road.