The State of the Union was really just a stump speech, Bush’s first real campaign speech of 2004. Nothing really remarkable in that, although his straight face when he talked about “weapons of mass destruction-related program activities” was a triumph. Maybe it’s just me, but the smirk – Bush’s trademark facial expression – was almost atomic tonight.
My favorite part of the speech was the values/society section. Listening to the President, you’d think the main things preoccupying Americans were steroid abuse in sports, teen STDs, saving heterosexual marriage from the threat of activist judges, and stopping discrimination against faith-based charities.
Yeah, I know that’s what keeps *me* up at night.
IMPORTANT UPDATE: Melissa of how fresh!, one of my favorite people on the web, has obtained a followup letter from Ashley to the President. It’s a must-read.
Things pre-occupying me: Income, Health Insurance, Housing, Debt, Education Opportunities and personal issues.
One of my favorite things last night was Ted Kennedy’s priceless looks of utter disgust. I actually hooted with delight (yes, hooted) when they cut to him for a reaction shot.
did anyone else know how eerily (sp?) silent the room got as he began the marriage portion of the program? While I wasn’t surprised at what he had to say, it still angered me much more than I had anticipated. And yeah, it DID keep me up last night. And of course the killer for me was that this comapssionate conservative doesn’t blame the gays for ruining marriage, it’s the activist judges (like the Supreme Court Justice his vice president hunts ducks with??? naw)
As repeated ad nauseum around the web: like the activist judges who upheld Bush v. Gore in 2000.
____________
I go now.
Wow, Matt. I had that same thought. I also thought it was funny how he was talking about the “majority” needing a say in such an “important issue” yet he didn’t win the popular vote four years ago. I find the nearly-nonexistent logic behind the right’s opposition to gay marriage baffling. I wish they would come out and say what they really feel.
Anyway, my favorite part of the night was the end when he hit the microphone with his binder, perfectly demonstrating our president’s overwhelming grace and class.
Remember the priest in “Harold & Maude?” That’s what Bush and his followers remind me of. Slaveringly disapproving of other peoples sex lives.
You know how you shouldn’t go see a really gory film if you get sick to your stomach at the sight of blood? Yeah, I couldn’t watch the Bush Infomercial last night for that very reason. But I appreciate the updates I’ve read from my fellow bloggers today. (Also – I disagree with your friend who said you have to tell personal details of your life to get more readers. You are witty and cool and I’ll be back).
Thanks, Hot Toddy. That means a lot to me.
Eryk > “I wish they would come out and say what they really feel.”
What does the right really feel? I don’t consider myself on the right, but I get lumped in with them a lot, so I’m currious what it is you think they feel.
Simply put, that God hates fags. Unfortunately I doubt that statement polls very well.
Here’s “what they think”:
1) Homosexuality is morally, culturally and socially inferior to heterosexuality.
2) Homosexual persons do not have the right to manage their own private, legal or financial affairs.
3) The straight majority have the right to delimit when, how, and to what extent homosexuals participate in private and public life.
4) Any efforts to counter this form of social engineering is “social engineering”.
That’s “what they think”, and they’re willing to amend the Constitution to turn “what they think” into the law of the land.
Seems to me they’ve been very up front about their beliefs. When have they shied away from saying homosexuality is a sin and that same-sex families are not real families deserving of protection? I don’t know, though, that it’s necessarily wrong for them to be trying to turn “what they think” into law. That’s the nature of our legal system and what the Left would do if it were in control. Our laws reflect the moral beliefs of the majority/powerful, and the minority/weak can screw themselves. Only when the powerful think it’s in their best interests to protect the weak do laws get passed doing so. It’s always been that way in this country, why is anyone surprised? I mean, they’re not even TRYING to be deceptive about it, they are confident in their ability to sway enough people to make it work out for them. Why should they hide their motives when they feel they’re in the right?
I’d prefer if they didn’t remove the series of checks & balances before making (presumably) permanent changes in the foundation of the legal system in this country. But that’s just me.
____________
I go now.
Actually, they lie their fucking assess off about what they really think. Instead of just sticking to the facts — that they use Biblical justification to legitimize their visceral dislike of homosexuality — they riff off on bullshit like:
1) gay marriage hurts straight marriage
2) homosexuality spreads disease
3) homosexuals want to convert our children
4) homosexuality is a choice
5) homosexuals want “special rights”
Because their main argument — “We just don’t like it!” — is utter trash, they attempt to use mock-science and prey on parents’ fears for their children to justify keeping us down in both private and public life.
The mistake of pro-gay activists is that we speak their language. We need to just say, “We wanna fuck who we wanna fuck and when we tie the knot, WE WANT HALF.” And why? Because we want to undo Western Civilization? Because we want to fuck babies into our lifestyle? Because we hate God? No. It’s because we’re tax-paying American citizens and we’re tired of subsidizing a stupid government that keeps fucking us over.
But you won’t read that on the HRC website.
Many of our laws are to protect the minority from the majority. The checks and balances are in place to ensure that the majority does -not- rule. The 9/11 attacks created a new wave of fear in this country that continues to be exploited every which way. There’s nothing “moral” or “loving” about that.
Last time I checked women could vote and blacks could sit at the front of the bus. Eventually we will have our rights whether they like it or not.
The “checks and balances” are to insure that one branch of the government does not have power over the other two as dictated in the Constitution, it has *absolutely nothing* to do with balancing the interests of the powerful vs. the weak. You seem to believe that the Constitution granted women and blacks some sort of equality at the start. On the contrary, the Constitution in its original form protected white, male, landowners and not women, nor blacks, nor children, nor non-citizens, etc.
Women can vote because the white men who made the laws eventually decided it was in their best interest to allow it (perhaps to shut them up, more likely it was racially motivated; the suffragists’ language was quite racist and one of their major rallying points was that black men had been granted the vote already and the country should be loathe to recognize black men as being more human or rational than white women). Blacks couldn’t sit at the front of the bus until pretty freaking recently and any semblance of racial equality did not come from the normal operation of government.
Yes, there have always been some people involved in law-making and enforcing who really believed in equality and justice and were committed to protecting those without a voice in government, but they have rarely been the norm. Our government is set up to give voice to those who already have power, not to those who are oppressed. We have laws at this moment in history that protect the minority from the majority because a) there have been those few who truly supported them and b) the minority/weak have at times been loud and insistent and made enough trouble to get noticed.
I fully support laws protecting the weak from the powerful in this country, but I am not naive enough to trust in the good will of the legislature or the justice of the Constitution to make those laws happen. The only way to bring more justice in the world is to fight for it, to make a fucking lot of noise, to support “activist judges,” and so on.
Also, to John: But I think they believe all those things, too, I don’t think they’re inventing them simply as a smokescreen. And our own president has said homosexuality is a sin, so how is that hiding that they get the idea from their religion?