The Table of malContents Weblog: A Life Unrequited

The convention continued of course, into Wednesday.

For Wednesday, Edwards's speech was def. good, though his presentation seemed a bit off of what I've seen him do before. And of course, Sharpton just went wildly off his pre-cleared remarks and went all out. Which, love him or hate him, is always interesting and enjoyable. For extra credit, compare his actual speech with the 'as prepared' remarks on the linked page.

Wednesday:

Senator John Glenn

"In short, a commitment to leadership in education and research underpinned America's rise to greatness over the past 100 years. Our strength was built on sound public schools in every community, strong universities with the best labs, and a commitment to the ever-curious, questing spirit of America that is still unlocking the secrets of the universe through top-flight science. And it will be future education and research -- from earth and from space that will create the new industries and new jobs that increase our standard of living and will determine our leadership position in the world."

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr

"Five years ago, if you asked experts what they thought was the gravest threat to our environment, they'd mention a whole range of issues, from over-population to global warming, to toxins in our food and air. But today, they'll give you just one answer: It's George W. Bush."

Reverend Al Sharpton

"Mr. President, the reason we are fighting so hard, the reason we took Florida so seriously, is our right to vote wasn't gained because of our age. Our vote was soaked in the blood of martyrs, soaked in the blood of Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner, soaked in the blood of four little girls in Birmingham. This vote is sacred to us. This vote can't be bargained away. This vote can't be given away. Mr. President, in all due respect, Mr. President, read my lips: Our vote is not for sale."

Senator John Edwards

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I know that we have to do more to fight terrorism and protect our country. And we can do that. We are approaching the third anniversary of September 11th, and I can tell you that when we're in office, it won't take us three years to get the reforms in our intelligence we need to protect our country. We will do whatever it takes, for as long as it takes, to make sure that never happens again, not to our America .... And we will have one clear unmistakable message for al Qaida and the rest of these terrorists. You cannot run. You cannot hide. And we will destroy you."

Been quite busy lately, with covering for multiple people at work, having family stuff going on, and, of course, obsessively watching the 2004 Democratic National Convention. The theme for this convention seems to be A Stronger America - Safer at Home, Repected Abroad. Which sure would be nice to have. Also? Apparently this Kerry fellow served in Vietnam. Who knew?

There are many hours of speeches every day, but from Monday and Tuesday, here are a few of my favorites / the big guys. At the links below, you can read the entire speech, watch the entire speech, or watch highlights. I highly recommend President Clinton's, and Senator Obama's. Also, if you are a friend of mine and have access to music.westnet, many of the below speeches will be appearing there soon.

Monday:

Vice President Al Gore

"We have to be crystal clear about the threat we face from terrorism. It is deadly. It is real. It is imminent. But in order to protect our people, shouldn't we focus on the real source of this threat: the group that attacked us and is trying to attack us again -- al Qaeda, headed by Osama Bin Laden? Wouldn't we be safer with a President who didn't insist on confusing al Qaeda with Iraq? Doesn't that divert too much of our attention away from the principal danger?"

President Jimmy Carter

"In repudiating extremism we need to recommit ourselves to a few common-sense principles that should transcend partisan differences. First, we cannot enhance our own security if we place in jeopardy what is most precious to us, namely, the centrality of human rights in our daily lives and in global affairs. Second, we cannot maintain our historic self-confidence as a people if we generate public panic. Third, we cannot do our duty as citizens and patriots if we pursue an agenda that polarizes and divides our country. Next, we cannot be true to ourselves if we mistreat others. And finally, in the world at large we cannot lead if our leaders mislead."

President Bill Clinton

"We Americans must choose for President one of two strong men who both love our country, but who have very different worldviews: Democrats favor shared responsibility, shared opportunity, and more global cooperation. Republicans favor concentrated wealth and power, leaving people to fend for themselves and more unilateral action. I think we're right for two reasons: First, America works better when all people have a chance to live their dreams. Second, we live in an interdependent world in which we can't kill, jail, or occupy all our potential adversaries, so we have to both fight terror and build a world with more partners and fewer terrorists. We tried it their way for twelve years, our way for eight, and then their way for four more. By the only test that matters, whether people were better off when we finished than when we started, our way works better."

Tuesday:

Senator Ted Kennedy

"For centuries, kings ruled by what they claimed was divine right. They could not be questioned. They could not be challenged. The people's fate was not their own. But today, because of the surpassing wisdom of our founders, the constant courage of the patriots of the past, and the shared sacrifice of generations of Americans who kept the faith, the power of America still rests securely in citizens' hands. In our hands."

Governor Howard Dean

"We're not going to be afraid to stand up for what we believe. We're not going to let those who disagree with us shout us down under a banner of false patriotism. And we're not going to give up a single voter, or a single state. We're going to be proud to call ourselves Democrats, not just here in Boston. We're going to be proud to call ourselves Democrats in Mississippi, proud to call ourselves Democrats in Utah and Idaho. And we're going to be proud to call ourselves Democrats in Texas."

State Senator Barack Obama

"If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief - I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper - that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. 'E pluribus unum.' Out of many, one."

Ron Reagan

"In a few months, we will face a choice. Yes, between two candidates and two parties, but more than that. We have a chance to take a giant stride forward for the good of all humanity. We can choose between the future and the past, between reason and ignorance, between true compassion and mere ideology. This is our moment, and we must not falter. Whatever else you do come November 2nd, I urge you, please, cast a vote for embryonic stem cell research."

Teresa Heinz Kerry

"I have a very personal feeling about how special America is, and I know how precious freedom is. It is a sacred gift, sanctified by those who have lived it and those who have died defending it. My right to speak my mind, to have a voice, to be what some have called "opinionated," is a right I deeply and profoundly cherish. My only hope is that, one day soon, women - who have all earned the right to their opinions - instead of being labeled opinionated, will be called smart or well-informed, just as men are."

Over on westnet/kaitzi the other day, Kaitlin posted drawings of Robin (of "Batman and...") that we had done. She did Robin IV, I attempted Robin III. Needless to say if you visit that page, or look at the thumbnails, I have no art skill. Many in my family do, though, (cough), and I'm pleased to see that my little brother Nicholas has apparently gotten the genes I so clearly did not.

Keep in mind he's just a wee lad of 12, and check out his interpretation of Tim Drake, based on the cover to Robin #10:

--+--+--+--

One Year Ago Today: "See, they let you rent boats there, and we got ourselves a two person kayak and just went on out to do some boating"

Two Years Ago Today: "I know, I know, I'm just a geek, but those aforementioned moments ruin a film for me, and it completely shatters my suspension of disbelief to see those types of errors."

Thirty-Five Years Ago Today: "Magnificent Desolation."

Well... discussion maybe. (and yes, I've had such arguments on the site before, but they degenerated into regreattable blather (on both sides) and I think this one went well enough to post anyway)

After I sent a (rather confrontational) mail out to a few friends urging them to call their senators to oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment, TV's Mike Funicelli was kind enough to pass it on out to his friends. This then prompted a civil and enjoyable back and forth between a few people, and one of his friends replied with a few points with his opinion. My reply to him, which quotes his email in full, is, with his permission, reprinted below. Not posting it as "Look, I housed him!" cause, no, I don't think I did. But I did okay, and said things a bit clearer than I have in the past, so I'm posting it (slightly polished) here.

--+--+--+--+--+--

Well, here is my reply. It may be a bit jumpy. This is blind-carboned to the same people yours was carboned to. My apologies to anyone who really doesn't want this mail. I'll try to be much more civilized than I was in my original mail. Where my less confrontational views below conflict with the original mail, the below is more thought out.

"I'm not quite sure I agree with some of your points. Personally, I am neutral an the gay marriage issue. Really, I couldn't care less. But then again, I'm not married nor do I have children, so my perspective would be less complicated than those who are and do. But your characterization of this effort as a "Hate Amendment" is a bit curiuos to me. Are you saying that if I'm against homosexuality, particularily homosexual marriage, that I am guilty of hate? If that's the case I suggest it is you who are engaged in intolerance. You're basically saying that if I do not agree with you, I'm automatically guilty of hate and intolerance. I take issue with that."

What I'm saying that if you're against homosexuality in general, yes, you are guilty of bigotry. Am I being intolerant, in the sense of "unwillingness to recognize and respect differences in opinions or beliefs," of what I see as bigotry? Well, yes. And no.

Lots of people can and have disapproved of and had a problem with homosexuality. Or desegregation. Or the end of slavery. Or they dislike Jews. Or the Irish. Or Catholics. That's the way people are, and to a point, I don't care all that much. One LONGtime friend of the family says 'colored' and hates interracial marriage (which is a good analogy in many ways, and will be mentioned again a lot in this mail.) But you know what? He's not really hurting anyone, and he's old, and he's a product of his upbringing, and frankly, he can think what he wants. He has every right to believe what he believes. And many, many people are just uncomfortable about gays and gay marriage. It's unfortunate, but I accept that. So in that sense, I have tolerance.

Where my tolerance does, I freely admit, stop, is when people act on their beliefs to deny the rights of others. I do not have tolerance for that. Would you have me be tolerant of the opinions of George Wallace standing in the doorway of the University of Mississippi stopping black students? Or of Bull Connor spraying black schoolchildren with a firehose for wanting to share a lunch counter? I say thee nay. And I see gay marriage as no different, or no less a civil rights issue. (I know you disagree on that, which I address later.)

So, to sum up the above, "You're basically saying that if I do not agree with you, I'm automatically guilty of hate and intolerance", no, everyone can believe what they want, but don't use your power to oppress people based on your own hangups.

"You state: 'Even if gay marriage makes you uncomfortable, the government should not be enshrining into our constitution rules about what genetic makeups get which civil rights, and making it so that future generations cannot extend those rights if they decided to do so in the future.' That's quite a mouthful. Not only that, but you are stating conclusions that are very much open for both debate and interpretation."

It was indeed a mouthful. It was walking a line. I would love it to be nationally legal right now, but that will not, and perhaps politically should not, happen right away. Like reforms like this before, (cough*interracial marriage*cough) leave it to the states for now. The states that do make it okay will, amazingly, not collapse into anarchy, and the rest of the country will see that. Eventually the Supreme Court would rule that, yes, under the constitution as it is written today, it really should be allowed, and by then, many of the moderates that are the majority of the country may have forgotten why they ever cared. That mouthful was trying to appeal to people like Senator McCain, who, yes, opposes gay marriage, but still does not believe it is appropriate to enshrine rules against it into the constitution.

Take a look at some of the quotes against interracial marriage here: http://www.buddybuddy.com/quiz-1.html (the 'quiz' being a trick, as they are all about interracial marriages. ALL. of them.)

They'll look very familiar. Very. Very very very. And there were many attempts to make a constitutional ban on this around the turn of the century. Could you imagine if these amendments had passed, how it would look nowadays?

"First of all, we're talking about an institution that has pretty much existed from the dawn of time, predating any concept of 'civil rights' by millennia. Understand this, it is not those who believe in a traditional concept of marriage who are forcing this issue. No-one would be talking about a Constitutional Amendment if it were not homosexual groups attempting to codify gay marriage via the courts."

Traditional marriage that goes back from the dawn of time means kidnapping the wife. Or buying her from the father. Or meeting your wife on your wedding day a la Tevye and Golde. Love was far from the primary purpose. Miscegeny was untraditional. Divorce was once non-existent, which can be good or bad depending on who you ask. The definition changes, and has changed, and claims that the definition is ancient are simply incorrect on many levels. And yes, it is the oppressed who are fighting back against their oppressors. One can hardly expect things to change otherwise.

"So what exactly is it that you find so repellent - the fact that those who don't agree with you are seeking redress via the Constitution, or those you do agree with doing the same? And why are you so quick to state that the people who don't agree with are motivated by hate? Hmmmmmm, an overwhelming number of people believe (rightly or wrongly, again, an item still open to debate) that marriage is between a man and a woman. A much smller group of people wish to turn that basic assumption on it's head, and you characterize their reaction as being motivated by hate? I really wonder which side is more guilty of intolerance......"

Hardly overwhelming. In fact, most polls range from a 50-50 split to a 60-40 split nationwide. (always with more against, of course). Among the 30 and under though, it's closer to 70-30 in favor. Canadians are in favor of it overall. Views are shifting. Pick any single movement towards equality (women voting, desegregation, etc.) and you'll find the majority opposed it at one time.

Besides, our government is specifically designed not to be beholden to what Mill called "The tyranny of the majority"

"Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own." - John Stuart Mill - "On Liberty"

"But perhaps some common ground.........to state that marriage is a civil right is not something I would agree with (how's that for starting off on common ground?)."

The Supreme Court strongly says otherwise. I quote from Loving v. Virginia (1967) which legalized (wait for it) the 'non-traditional' interracial marriage:

"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." - (italics mine)

"But I do think we might agree that marriage in general should not be politicized."

agreed.

"But guess what - it already is."

agreed.

"Putting aside the way our society treats and provides allowances/benefits for marriage and the respect it places upon it (at least residually), the government does the same. The government recognizes marriage (in its current form) and provides benefits for it. If this were not so then why all the fuss? But these same benefits (survivor notivfication, survivor benefits, etc.)can be achieved outside the government via wills, testaments, etc. So again I have to ask, why all the fuss?"

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm says there are approx. 1400 rights automatically granted to married people in the United States. Seems a bit unfair to make people jump through 1400 hoops.

Besides, even if it were the same, need I remind you that the meaning behind marriage (least for the last few hundred years,) is for two people, who love each other very much, to affirm before each other, before the state, before their neighbors, and before their God, that they choose to spend the rest of their lives with each other. There is a connotation to the word marriage that a civil union simply cannot grant.

If I may quote the Court again: Separate is Not Equal.

"The problem, or the main point of contention (in my opinion) is not really about what benefits the government showers upon marriage and gay couples want their place at the government sugar tit. I contend that the issue is that homosexuals want society to accept their lifestyle (as opposed to them as individuals) as equal and on par with heterosexuals. And what better way to achieve this than by legally codifying homosexual marriage? As clearly as I can see and understand their (homosexuals') motivation, I can see and understand the other side as well. And it's not as insidious as you make it out to be."

I agree it's in part a PR play. The unequal want equality, and this is an important step towards it. What I can't understand is how active opposition to that cannot be anything but insidious.