Obsidian Wings

Would Castro just die already?

My first, very partisan response to seeing this:

Bush Tightens Rules on Travel to Cuba

was "He's such a whore!"

What other voter block is he going to throw a meaningless bone to?

Then, I stopped and thought, well, what if he's right. What if "Fidel Castro government [really] has taken steps to destabilize relations with the United States over the past year. " and those step demand some sort of action...after all, I'm nothing if not sceptical of everything this man does.

Then, however, it occurred to me that tightening rules on travel to Cuba may punish Castro in that fewer Americans go and spend money there, but it mostly punishes Americans who, for reasons that transcend politics, would love to travel there. It gives the Cuban Americans who despise Castro a wink, wink, nudge, nudge reassurance the President is on their side, but it really does nothing to get us closer to what's really needed to end this pathetic standoff...Castro's death.

Perhaps tighter restrictions on Doctors travelling to Cuba would be a good move, but why punish the rest of us?

An unexpected death - and expected reaction.

While I agree with John Cole that this article draws an incorrect conclusion from a tragic event - it's about that poor woman who died of a heart attack while watching Gibson's new film - I'm actually surprised that John might have expected anything like a different spin on events.

I'd normally be unpacking a humorous comment right about now, but it'd be pretty disrespectful in this case. Someone did die, after all.

Something for everybody...

Tbogg and Wonkette are, between the two of them*, collecting campaign slogans: tbogg's covering the mean-to-Bush ones and Wonkette's got the mean-to-Kerrys. Here's your chance to realize your dreams...

...well, maybe not, but some of the ones so far are funny.

Moe

*Yet independently.

I am Spartacus.

A note to Kalle Lasn, editor of Adbusters Magazine.

I noted with some interest your recent editorial discussing American / Israeli relations and the reasons for same. I was remarkably impressed by how easily you were able to shrug off both Bush's call for a Palestinian state and recent criticisms of Israel in your drive to indicate that the neocon movement was both running the the WoT and dominated by Jews, especially your dedication in determining and indicating those Jewish members of the '50 most influential neocons in the US" (whether they would identify themselves as neocons or not). How - lucky - for you that half of them turned out to be Jewish! Why, it couldn't have come out better if you had assembled the list deliberately!

Now, I am not myself a neoconservative, although I agree with a fair number of their policy positions. As for Judiasm... well, to echo Professor Tolkien when he was faced with a not completely dissimilar situation, "...I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people." Nevertheless, please note this symbol (regrettably made nortorious by certain other individuals dedicated to searching out hidden Jewish influence and power) -

- anyway. I find the thought of confusing people like you about just who is and who isn't Jewish around here to be a strangely compelling one. Not to mention probably a mitzvah.

Moe

PS: Shorter Moe Lane: Kalle Lasn, Geh kak afen yam.

Open thread for gay marriage...

...as I'm sure that you're all getting tired of bouncing back and forth between the two threads already devoted to it.

Everybody play nice.

Liberty, Sanctity, or Equality

There's no way around it. The FMA is either

1. anti-Liberty
2. anti-Sanctity or
3. anti-Equality

To defend the FMA, you must own up to one of these stances.

1. Anti-Liberty
In this context, anti-Liberty means anti-gay. One must believe that sexual orientation does not fall under the umbrella of the "liberty" we believe is our inalienable right. In short, one must believe gay people should not be gay.* President Bush has on several occasions argued that "that everybody ought to be treated with continuing respect." For the moment, I'll take him at his word, and I'll assume that means he's not "anti-gay." I'm sure he'd argue he's not "anti-liberty."

*CLARIFICATION UPDATE: One must believe that gay people should not be free to be who they are in public; that they are not at liberty to live their lives as who they are in plain view of other Americans.

2. Anti-Sanctity
I have a great respect for conservative blogger Paul Cella. Although I seldom agree with him, he's true to his convictions and remains one of the best writers in the blogosphere. On this subject, however, he wrote:

There is no "right" to marriage; but even if such a thing existed, it is not being denied to homosexuals -- any whom can legally take a husband or wife, of the opposite sex.

Forget the divorce rate, forget the quickie Las Vegas, Elvis-impersonator weddings; How is the "sanctity of marriage" maintained by advocating fraudulent or sham weddings?

The only sound defense of Paul's argument is the assumption that gay men and women would first convert to heterosexuality; in which case I re-direct you to #1. above.

3. Anti-Equality
If one maintains that one is not anti-Liberty and not anti-Sanctity, the only remaining defense for supporting the FMA is a stance that advocates codified inequality. If one argues that that "gays should be allowed to be gay" (and the SCOTUS has argued just that) and that "marriage is sacred" (suggesting that it should only be entered into by people who will mean what they say when they take their vows and that what they're presenting to the world is in fact true), then denying marriage to gays is to say gays are not equal to straights.

Supporting FMA and denying you adhere to at least one of these stances is simply lying to yourself.

John three-sixteen appears too often in football stadiums.

Something Andrew Sullivan wrote today made me want to recall that seemingly perfect morning in September, 2001. Consider this an open thread, regardless of whether you feel the same.

Meanwhile, back at the primaries...

...Kerry won Idaho and Utah; Hawaii's... shoot, are the polls still open for those guys? Could be. Anyway, no surprises and no insights, except that Kerry's current glidepath doesn't seem to have wobbled any. One week to go before the fireworks...

And now, to sleep. It's been a day.

Just to establish.

1). I do not support a constitutional amendment defining marriage.
2). I do support the right of two consenting adults to enter into what arrangements suit them, explicitly including the ones traditionally associated with marriage (including the name).
3). I do not believe that everyone who disagrees with my stance on #2 is either a homophobe or an anti-gay bigot. For that matter, I further do not believe that everybody who disagrees with my stance on #1 also disagrees with me on #2.
4). I have not changed my intended vote for George W Bush for President. See #3.
5). Comments are turned off on this post because there's a perfectly adequate one of von's already up for discussion; my objective here was to provide an easy reference guide for my opinions.

We now resume your regularly scheduled blogging experience.

Moe

UPDATE: After consultation with the (wise) girlfriend, I need to add:

3a). Most (if not all) homophobic, anti-gay bigots disagree with me on both #1 and #2.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Feels weird to blog anything without comments. I mean, people obviously do it all the time, still...

Fools. And knaves.

Well, Bush did it:

"Today," Bush said, "I call for the Congress to promptly pass and send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman, as husband and wife."

Bush could have endorsed an Amendment that merely held that a gay marriage in one state need not be recognized as a marriage in another -- an Amendment that lets the states decide. It would've had broad support.* (Indeed, even Rep. Barney Frank, the openly gay Massachusetts Congressman, has endorsed this approach.) Instead, Bush has endorsed an Amendment designed to prohibit the states from conducting their own affairs. Bush -- the freely-spending champion of "limited" government -- has decided that the federal government should now reach into the bedrooms, town halls, and churches of communities around the nation.

And so Bush feeds a narrow constituency, at the expense of the whole.

von