This is the nature of all politics. To get the votes and appease your special interest groups and lobbyists, a bill needs to be packed with goodies, or "pork" as they call it. Typically, in the form of earmarks, this is less than 1% of the total expenditure passed. In this particular case, it's not so much earmarks. It's the superfluous spending. In times of crisis, the human selfishness and hunger is even greater. While Obama wanted a 40/60 split of tax cuts and spending, the bill, constructed by self-interest people like speaker Pelosi and others in the house, the split is 25/75. No wonder Republicans rejected it. There's so much extra spending in the bill. Spending that's less to do with stimulus and more about ideology. In normal circumstances that would be fine. Now, when excessive spending has been the cause of the large American debt, the logic suggests to reduce it and give tax breaks. Bush already tried one such spending bill towards the end of last year. Obama is trying another one. One can argue to continue spending more is ridiculous. The lack of immediacy with the spending has also been criticised. Is any of this really the issue?
Obama was elected on a clear mandate - especially on the economy. McCain proved to be hopeless in that area, lacking a substantial policy other the eradication of earmarks and to "reform" Washington. With earmarks of minor total expenditure effect and the inexperienced Palin supposedly the reformer, it all sounded dubious and more to do with the continuation of existing policies. When McCain helped push through the earmarked-laden Bush bill of late last year, after it was first rejected, he lost credibility on reform too.
People wanted "change". Obama and his party have been swept in to office to
provide this. Even if the bill can be seen as extravagant, there are genuine stimulus
mechanisms in the bill. The very nature of the bill itself should inspire confidence
regardless of the direct effect on individuals, or the length of time it takes for the
bill to full unwind. Obama cannot just sit back and do nothing. This is his response.
History will judge the result. For now, the bill is right to do. Least not for the fact
the people voted Obama for his superior credibility on fixing the economy. If the people
are fully behind it, they'll gain a natural confidence in the economy. Ultimately, any
economy is about confidence.
To protect moose and caribou stock for subsistence and hunting, Alaska controls wolf
populations by shooting them from helicopters. One of the typical nosey celebrities has
taken action. Palin argues the cull is necessary; Judd says it's barbaric. The numbers are
quite small with 125 or so killed last year. This year the aim is for 650. There's various
insidious accusations by both sides, as you'd expect. The real issue is that this is an
attack on Palin, more on any specific care that wolves are being killed. Why pick on
wolves in Alaska when there so much other barbaric activity humans are committing on
animals? Why would be shot from a helicopter being shot from jeep, or on foot? Any animal
being shot is barbaric. In fact, any form of hunting is barbaric, including methods like
harpoons and slicing that various subsistent cultures like eskimos and remote islanders
use. Hunting for subsistence is obviously ok. What about the torture of bears in China so
bile can be extracted from them? What about Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry
after his 2004 election defeat when he was out shooting geese? Imagine a goose shot in a
wing, and left to fall to the ground and ultimately die of hunger or predator. What about
any weekend when thousands of Americans are out shooting? Judd and Palin are obviously two
extremes on the political and cultural spectrum. This issue is about ideology and Palin.
Judd should be ashamed for the hypocrite and bigot that she is. 
After the people already voted against it, the supreme court made it legal for the duration until the next election where people would vote on "Proposition 8". People voted for it, which was to preserve traditional marriage. The margin is closing. Ten years ago, it was 20%. Now just 5%. Ironically, the black vote that Obama so rallied proved the demise with 70% against gay marriage. Whites, despite efforts by various white churches, still voted in favour by slight majority. Remember, Obama made it clear during the debates that he supported traditional marriage. In fact, it was no debate. Both sides conclusively gave their unanimous views. Obama later said he was against the vote in California. That was on the principle of people affecting the US constitution, not the issue itself. He conveniently did not offer a view of whether he endorsed the supreme court over-turning the rule of the people in the first place. No doubt Obama was being populist to the leftist extremes with his comments about Proposition 8.
First, the disgusting revolt by militant groups against white churches, when in fact the black population had greater influence. This shows more an attack against christian white values more than the issue itself. For supposedly such a major issue, the gay turn-out on election day was minimally higher than before. In San Francisco, "getting married" saw a totally indifferent response to the issue. Lost in the fall-out is the enormous stride made to the legalisation. No doubt the next election it will swing in favour. Why, when in a democracy, and happy to participate in the process, must fanatics not accept the voice of the people?
Second, the "right" itself. No one is banned from marriage in the USA. Just find someone of the opposite sex that's not related and not already married and go for it. Even then, marriage is only an option. No one must do it. If you choose, there are traditions to obey. A bit like joining a chess club. You don't go there and play Tiddly Winks. It's the forms of relationships that are not allowed. Traditional people obviously want their tradition protected, and not made a mockery of a "husband and husband" situation. That would totally destroy the tradition, as is the case places like Scandinavia where people just don't bother anymore. In fact, many would laugh at you if you provided the idea of getting married. While wanting marriage extended to accept man/man or woman/woman, gays are conveniently ignoring man/woman/woman, brother/sister, or any other consenting combination. All that does is make them as exclusionary and biased as traditionalists they like to accuse, selfish to their own cause, and re-draw the discrimination lines rather than removing the discrimination totally. That discrimination is not actually against any tradition that has every right to have restrictions or clauses it likes, it's of the law discriminatorily giving this section of the community certain rights, while others miss out. It's these rights that are of most interest to gay people, rather than the principle of "getting marriage" - the only present way to get these rights.
Ban marriage. Ban the legal entitlements to it. That's the only way to end this discrimination. Return it to its ceremonial form. The only record of a marriage would be on the registry of the marrying body. In its place, use the civil union or a new entity caleld "civil engagement" to join couples, or trios, whatever configuration of relationship (no discrimination, remember). Make it strict to avoid the ridiculous "Vegas" type weddings. Only offer basic rights like will, divorce and maybe adoption. From there, relationships can continue to their own ceremony or celebration as they see fit.
There's no right or wrong on the issue. This is an issue of the people.
Californians deserve their voice and spoke as they saw fit. Freedom of speech and
democracy must be respected.
Back Home - The Warrior's Realm
visitors who been enlightened by Warrior Wisdom