My coffee shop is depressing me

[pecunium]

There are five guys sitting in on the terrace, talking politics. I don't have the energy to engage them, not least because by the time I'd parsed out what they were saying, I knew it was hopeless.

They are talking, among other things, about how the Jews in America have been tricked into with all the leftist america hating which has been preached for so long that the are willing to cut Israel's throat by supporting Obama.

They are talking about how the "failed policies" of the present adminstration are all recent..., "the first six years were a complete success." They can't see how so many americans have been hoodwinked into thinking Bush, et al, have been bad for them.

They are hoping for a disaster in the next 18 months, so the nation will come to its senses and return the Republicans to power in the House and Senate, a la 1994. I wonder, if there is no disaster, if we are managing to weather the storms still spinning 'round us from the unmitigated disasters Bush and his cronies are working to leave us with, they will still sing that same song.

I fear they will, and hope they won't.

Comments

[geekosaur]

Sadly, large chunks of Israel feel the same (I note that Liqud, otherwise known as Neocon East, has gained a lot of strength from Qadima's failure). They can't even manage the cause-and-effect between Bush's Iraq strategy and the growth of Iran as a power.

I fear Israel is going to destroy itself within the next 4 years.

[fledgist.livejournal.com]

I am reminded of the bumper sticker I saw in San Diego in 1993: 'Lenin, Stalin, Clinton -- The Tradition Continues'. There seems to be a strand in the US of people whose understanding of reality is so narrow that anything outside it is parsed as equally radical and equally dangerous; Stalin is the same as Clinton. I have no idea how anybody can think that, or why.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

The ads this year (on republican websites) were, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler Castro.

[fledgist.livejournal.com]

What, as if they all got together to play bridge?

[geekosaur]

...the fact that the Republican playbook seems to have been authored by Stalin notwithstanding?

WEuuugghh. I fear their stealing this election.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

As if it were a projection, leading to a culmination in Obama.

[fledgist.livejournal.com]

Good grief.

[sunfell.livejournal.com]

People who have never been in a disaster are always the ones who wish the loudest for them, secretly hoping that they'll harm other people.

My sincere wish when I am in earshot of such an idiot is that disaster will hit them- and in a very personal way. Those who survive that sort of thing suddenly shut up about armageddon and the apocalypse...

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, Stalin (among others) probably said "... what matters is who counts the votes", but I thought the Republican playbook was at least partly written by that notorious Socialist, George Orwell. (Mind you, he intended _1984_ as a Cautionary Tale, and the Republicans took it as a prescription.) Oh, and there are some of us who think the Neocons are _still_ Marxists, rather than reformed ones, and that they think the Exploit the Proletariat side will win, so they've joined it.

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Meet the 27%. :/

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

I hope you're right, but fear that the 27% (Crazification factor) can add to or link with the almost equally large -- I don't think it's been given a name, & I'm unable to coin a good one -- factor of "I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I guess I'll go along with some Catchy Phrases propaganda" to equal slightly more than one-half of the vote. (And yes, I consider California's provision for altering its Constitution by a simple majority of the vote to be ... somewhere between ridiculous and pernicious.)

Personally, my political/social Attitude has long been based on the thoughtfully worked-out (at least, _I_ think it's thoughtful and solid) concept of "Maximum number of choices for the maximum number of people", and I start viewing every new proposal in the light of this. I have no objection to people trying to persuade other people to decide to act one way or another, but, in my book, rendering them unable to make such a decision is Right Out, except in the limited set of cases where unequivocal and significant harm to the social fabric can be established.

I'm a bit unhappy that this puts me, generally, in the liberal (or upper-case Liberal, or even to the left of that) category, because I think it is (or ought to be) a thoroughly Centrist approach. Be that as it may, I can see absolutely no way in which allowing two people of the same sex to marry (or more than two, of the same or different sexes, for that matter) significantly & harmfully affects valid "traditional" marriages. And I reject, outright, the vague and emotional claim that it would "destroy the Sanctity of Marriage", on the grounds that Government has no business whatsoever messing-around with establishing what is or isn't Sacred.

[lady-jem.livejournal.com]

re your comment: "And I reject, outright, the vague and emotional claim that it would "destroy the Sanctity of Marriage", on the grounds that Government has no business whatsoever messing-around with establishing what is or isn't Sacred."

In principle, I agree with you, and it's taken me literally years to kind of "get" what the other side is talking about, and where the threat lies...

As it is now, for anyone who gets married in a sacred ceremony of any kind, the government essentially puts a rubber stamp on what was done in the sacred milieu. Yes, people get married in civil ceremonies, but in circles where any kind of religious observances are...well...observed, that is considered not as "real" as a marriage that takes place in a religious context. And as of now, there isn't that much the government would sanction that a cleric of some kind would not.

But we're standing on the edge of a great new world (or abyss, depending on yoru point of view) where we are about to change the paradigm of what "marriage" really means, in a way that can't be ignored or brushed under the rug--suddenly there will be a whole world of civil marriages, acknowledged and up-front-ly seen and obvious, over which the sacred purview has exactly zero influence. (Why do you think the Catholic Church has embraced an easy "annullment process" the way they have?)

Religious groups are already seeing declining membership and participation, especially in the loss of membership of young adults, and the one hope/strategy they have is the knowledge that they come back to get married, and they come back to dedicate/christen/whatever their babies, and they come back to bury their dead. Marriage, culturally, is seen as a sacred thing which is recognized by the government. Opening the legal doors to all kinds of marriages which would be unsanctioned and/or uncondoned by any sacred system (or particular sacred system) will inaugurate a pretty serious paradigm shift in the perception of the roles of sacred and secular where marriage is concerned.

If all the secular and entirely non-practicing folks who nonetheless return to their house-of-worship-of-origin to get married suddenly begin to realize that not only do they not have to, but there's not really much reason to, that's a HUGE shift in the balance of power. And end of year financial statements.

Food for thought. I still don't AGREE with this line of thinking, but I'm beginning at least to understand it a little. It's not, fundamentally, about taking marriage away from its "original" definition, it's about potentially taking marriage away from the religious sector.

peace,
Jem
(who has not thought all this through with complete thoroughness and would welcome thoughtful debate to hone my thinking...I'm posting this onto my own blog as well if anyone wants to chat about it over there and not take up too much space here...)

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

But the same "problem" exists for them when some faith in which they have none performs a marraige. Hindu, Muslim, Wiccan and all sorts of religious ceremonies are given the state's imprimatur; the only thing different with same sex marriages being so "sanctified" is the sex of the partners.

[songblaze.livejournal.com]

From a purely legalist standpoint, poly marriages are...complicated in one aspect. How do you divide wealth and debt?

There is no consistent way of handling that even between two people in the US - it varies wildly from state to state (for example, PA does not acknowledge common-law unions...unless it was 'finished' in a state that does - ie, a couple who lived together for 8 years in CA, then moved to PA, would be treated as married in PA).

I am not in any way shape or form saying that the complication means it should not be done - I'm firmly in favor of allowing people the greatest amount of choice in their personal lives as is possible without causing a harm that is greater than the harm caused by restricting people's liberty.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Actually, California has no common law marriage, so it would have to be in Texas, or DC., or a grandfather-state like Georgia.

Common Law Marriage

Because I live in Ca, and have lived with women; in a way which might have led to such a thing, I looked into it.

I've heard this the other day:

[killslowly.livejournal.com]

"gay people already have the right to get married. A gay man, can marry a woman, and a lesbian can marry a man".

Scary logic.

But I am sad that Prop 8 passed. I am all for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

1. Life: People will argue that same sex marriage does not promote life, because same sex partners cannot procreate. Creating life is what brings "sanctity" to the marriage (LOL). But that is a stupid argument, because married couples perform abortions all the time, thus not promoting life themselves, but destroying it.

2. Liberty: As far as liberty is concerned, same sex marriage is all about liberty, like when there were laws in our books that preserved the "sanctity of marriage" by prohibiting inter-racial marriages. I do not believe in the "separate by equal" doctrine of banning gay marriages. I think that once that battle is won, the next battlefield will be the destruction of "separate but equal status" between man and woman. No more facilities to segregate men from women. No more separate bathrooms, schools, medical facilities, etc. Then, when that is done, the next war will be fought against ageism. No more rules on how old somebody must be for dating, marriage (either straight or gay), or fucking. Utopia will be achieved.

3. And of course, the pursuit of happiness if most obvious. Same sex marriages will enhance the right to the pursuit of happiness to those who seek it. Besides, my gay friends should have the right to the same amount of happiness and suffering that marriage brings to my "breeder" friends. They should also be given the right to join our armed forces, and the same goes to women's segregation on combat arms specialties.

Soon, when Utopia is achieved, everybody will be treated the same, no matter what. Age, sex, race, sexual orientation, financial status, education, nothing will matter anymore. We will all be the same, treated the same, or ignored just the same.

Got to go now, I am going to buy me a Che Obama t-shirt. At least someone has come to the vanguard all will stop Che Guevara's monopoly on t-shirt sales to the young and educated.