Meeting John Kerry

I had a chance to meet John Kerry Saturday evening. He was flying into my fair city, Columbus, Ohio, for some campaign events, and his campaign wanted to get out some veterans to meet him. I got the call and went willingly.

What I noticed about Mr. Kerry was that he is very tan and fit. He's also very personable one on one. He landed and was in transit to a function downtown, but he took the time to shake the hands of each veteran and talk with us. We had a couple of WWII vets, a couple of Korea vets, half a dozen of us Vietnam Vets and a couple of others, and he spent time with each of us in some way. He didn't seem rushed, even though he was a bit late landing and getting to his next thing.

Does that mean he would make a good President? Good question. How do I decide who would make the best President? Especially given that I think the incumbent hasn't been that good on balance. I made my choice after the Iraq war didn't turn out as advertised, either in terms of the liberation we were led to believe the Iraqis would feel or in terms of finding WMD. At that point, I became ABB (Anybody But Bush). Senator Kerry is most likely to be the only person who can unseat Bush, so he gets my vote.

And that is my brush with greatness.

First Day Back at Work

After being off work for nearly four months, I started a new job today. It's a contract job with a major insurance firm.

I haven't work shoes all day for these four months. Mostly I've gone barefoot or in sandals. It's a hardship wearing shoes in warm weather, but I'm bearing up as I sit here now barefoot again.

Going back to work is a bit of a drag. I've enjoyed being off. Unfortunately, the severance from my last job has ended, and I like to eat as do my wife and our two dogs. So there it is.

That Pesky Constitution

Has it occurred to anyone to wonder what the fuss is all about around extending the right to marriage to same-sex couples? Those who would define marriage as between one man and one woman, speak of activist judges running amok and a threat to one of the most fundamental of human relationships, etc., etc.

I got to wondering what it was that these so-called activist judges were doing, and I was directed to the US Constitution, specifically to the 14th Amendment, which says, in part:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is the problem, isn't it. Those pesky activist judges are forced by the 14th Amendment to examine all laws and apply the test of whether any law might "abridge the privileges...of citizens."

I suppose that is the reason President Bush and others want to amend the Constitution on the issue of marriage. Such an amendment would, in effect, say that the 14th Amendment does not apply to marriage laws.

Further, Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." That means that a law passed by one state, for example recognizing same-sex marriage, must be accepted in every other state. (That would include marriages that are legal in one state but not in another.

I recall that in my youth some young people who didn't have or didn't want to get parental approval for marriage because they were considered too young to enter into marriage without parental approval would go to a neighboring state where the age of consent was lower and get married. Then their marriage had to be accepted as legal in their home state.

Section 2 of Article IV further states that "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." That means that no state can deny a right to a citizen that they would have in another state. I think, by the way, that's one reason why the US Government, under pressure from the several states, forced Utah to renounce plural marriage as a condition for entry into the Union.

It is true that discrimination was originally built into the Constitution with respect to slavery, and it took a civil war and a couple of amendments to the Constitution to change that.

With any luck, we won't start writing discrimination back into the Constitution. If we did, where would it end?

Homeland Insecurity

Last week, Secretary of Homeland Security, former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, said that the government has developed information that Al Qaeda plans to disrupt the US elections with some sort of attack or series of attacks in the runup to the elections November 2nd. As usual, he didn't have anything specific, and as has become usual in the past year, he didn't raise the color-coded threat level.
Is the government doing everything in its power to keep the American public informed as information is developed, or are they playing politics? I think the answer is yes to both questions.

One of the persistent criticisms of the government after 9/11 was that they didn't take what intelligence they had developed seriously, and they didn't properly inform the nation--both the public and state and local agencies--of what they knew about potential attacks. They developed the color-coded alert system and created the cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security to address those criticisms. And since 9/11 we have been inundated with warnings for things that, frankly haven't materialized.

That's not unusual in the intelligence business. Not everything pans out. It is much easier to see what intel info is right after the fact. 20/20 hindsight remains perfect. So we get a lot more information, but it all doesn't turn out to be right.

I suspect Al Qaeda has learned how to jerk our chain and send out false information. And they've been able to judge how effective their communications are and how quickly we respond, but putting out false indications to gauge our reactions.

I also suspect that the Bush Administration doesn't want to be criticized again for failing to properly warn Americans of a possible impending attack. So they tell us about anything that is possible, whether it is probable or not. In the military, we used to call that "covering your butt." The government is covering its collective butt with these warning, and that's about all.
And this butt-covering is also a political exercise. "We told 'em. We did everything we could to prevent or warn about the attack. So don't blame us. We can't stop everything." Or so the argument will be made, and there is a grain of truth in it, to be sure.

I can't help wondering also if it isn't part of the election strategy of the Administration to keep reminding us that it's a dangerous world since 9/11, and they are on the job. (I wonder what the polling numbers show after a terror-threat announcement? Does the President's approval rating go up?

Equally importantly, for a political standpoint, is the answer to this question. If there is a terrorist attack before the elections, does it favor Bush's re-election or his defeat? Part of that will be timing, I'm sure. An early attack might be more damaging to Bush's chances than a late attack if peoples' reactions are immediately to show support for the administration. If they have time enough to consider what went wrong, they might blame the administration.

On the other hand, it might work the other way around. Frankly, I don't know what such an attack will do. I don't even know if the Spanish model will hold here. In Spain, the people were pretty unsupportive of the war in the first place, and the attacks in Madrid seemed to push them over the edge. But Americans weren't that unsupportive initially, so I don't know that we will react the same way.

The more I think about this, the more confusing it gets.

Comment About Farenheit 9/11

I have no intention of seeing the movie. Though I want the Bush Administration retired so its members can write their memoirs, which I doubt I'll read, everything I've read or heard about Michael Moore's movie indicates to me that at its best it is mere polemic, and I already know what Mr. Moore thinks, so I don't need to give him more money. At its worst, his movie is not always truthful, even as it claims to expose the lies of the Bush Administration.

Then I ran across this quote today on the Reuters news wire.

"We were used to such messages in the communist days. Everybody has open eyes and can understand that this is propaganda. It was a weak film that tells us nothing new."

-- VACLAV KLAUS, president of the Czech Republic, after watching the MICHAEL MOORE documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11."

I don't think the President of the Czech Republic has a big stake in our presidential elections, and I suspect his statement is a disinterested, truthful observation.

Truth is such a precious commodity that it should be adhered to strictly, especially when one is claiming to expose the untruths of another. Mr. Moore's film fails to meet my tests of what truth is all about. We may vote for the same guy, but we won't be going about getting there in the same way.

Gay Marriage, Christianity, and Libertarian Views

AP Headline today: "Bush Leads Support Against Gay Marriage." Pete Yost is the Associated Press author. Below is the lead paragraph.

President Bush says legalizing gay marriage would redefine the most fundamental institution of civilization and that a constitutional amendment is needed to protect it. A few activist judges and local officials have taken it on themselves to change the meaning of marriage, Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address.

Bush said, "If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost and the institution is weakened."

How?

First of all, legally a marriage is "a mere legal contract." I believe that the statistics I've read say that the divorce rate in the US is around 50%. I've been divorced, as has my wife. We expect to celebrate our 25th wedding anniversary in November in our second marriages, which was better for both of us that either of our first marriages.

And I recall that it wasn't all that long ago that divorce was barely tolerated in this country. Divorces were difficult to obtain, especially for women.

I bring this up only to point out that attitudes have obviously changed in my lifetime about what marriage is. I do believe, from my own experiences and from anecdotal evidence, that nearly everyone who gets married has it in mind that they will remain with this other person till one or both of them dies. They mean it at the time. But people change, and sometimes people aren't as accomodating to change as the other person needs them to be.

According to President Bush, again quoting from the AP story:

Bush singled out Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court, which called marriage an evolving paradigm. "That sends a message to the next generation that marriage has no enduring meaning, and that ages of moral teaching and human experience have nothing to teach us about this institution," he said.

I think I've just called into question the basic assumption that marriage must have some enduring meaning. Yet I'll grant that President Bush is referring to the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is true, and I would be disengenuous if I denied it, that such has been the traditional meaning of marriage.

It is also true that really until the last hundred years or so marriage was more viewed as a property settlement than an institution of love. Love often had little to do with marriage in human society, and even with societal strictures against divorce, people have walked away from bad or unhappy marriages since the beginning of human civilization.

Historically, marriage has been a way to traffic in women, treating them as chattel or even cattle. Ours has been, and continues to be, a male dominated society, and marriage has been historically our shining beacon of male dominance and female dependence. As we attempt, slowly and painfully, to move toward a different paradigm than male dominance--and it won't change in my lifetime, I'm sure--why not look at alternatives that provide for the common welfare while allowing individuals the freedom they desire.

I know that the Bible is cited as the source of God's condemnation of homosexuality. Yet, as I read the Bible, what I find is that male homosexuality is condemned. Nothing is said about female homosexuality. Are we to believe that the one existed but the other did not? Somehow I doubt it, but if the Bible is to guide us in this, then it must be okay for females but not okay for males. Why would that be?

My personal view is that I don't have to do what I don't want to do or feel comfortable doing. I don't have to marry. I certainly don't have to marry another man. I think society's laws should be for the protection of people from harm and that where someone is not harmed, no law is needed. I am not harmed by homosexuality. My experience is that the people involved, assuming they are mature enough to know what they're doing, are not harmed by homosexual activity.

I don't think the state, any state or nation, has the right to legislate against harmless activities. I particularly think the state should stay out of the bedroom and the living room and the kitchen. The only laws states should have regarding marriage is to set a commonly agreed age for mature consent and ensure that people are protected from harm. (Hell, I would argue that when I got married legally the first time, I was too immature to do so, even though I thought I loved my wife and I wanted, still want, to care for my children.)

If anybody wants to argue the point, I'll be interested in hearing from them. Please don't argue using the Bible. I've already shown in part, and am prepared to show in detail, how that will not be an argument that will sway me. Tell me how somebody else's marriage can hurt YOU, and I'll be interested in your point of view.

Questioning Bush's Patriotism

Slowly, I'm beginning to get the hang of this blogging program. I'm used to opening up a file and writing in HTML then publishing it to my web site. This one works a little differently. Sometimes easier, sometimes not.

Anyway, I noticed that the Pentagon announced that Bush's payroll records for 1972 were among those destroyed in the mid-1990s. I seem to recall that there was a fire at the records center in St. Louis. Perhaps that's when it happened. Or perhaps it's more political shenanigans. Who can tell?

I do know that while Bush was, or was not, performing his Guard duty in Alabama in 1972, I was in the Delta of Vietnam engaged in war activities and living a not so great life. President Bush could have joined me, but I suppose like VP Cheney, he had "other priorities." Even as I acknowledge that he, like millions of others at that time, made different choices in that war, I don't have to like it.

I particularly don't have to like it when he waves the flag and touts his patriotism. For those who don't remember what it was like 30 to 40 years ago, people like Bush and Cheney thought people like me were stupid to waste our lives in the military. They probably felt they were smarter than the average and hence need not waste their time on that failed war. Since I'm old enough to remember the time and all the arguments and excuses that were made, I'm also old enough to believe that one has to live with certain choices and decisions, even as one may regret them later.

I don't like it when these guys make like they are patriots and anyone who disagrees with them are not patriots. I don't like it that Vietnam Veterans, such as John McCain and John Kerry, are continually attacked by these guys for being potentially mentally unstable because of their Vietnam experiences. (When that's not the text, as it was with McCain's failed 2000 bid for the presidency, it's often the sub-text.)

What right does George W. Bush have to question anyone's patriotism? Kerry at least served and served with distinction.

Saturday, July 10, 2004

Random Stuff catching my eye and brain this morning

There's a section of "Most Emailed Photos" on Yahoo Yahoo News - Most Emailed Photoes that has had this one picture on it for probably two weeks now. It is a picture of a blonde woman looking at what is supposed to be the preserved penis of Rasputin.

Come on, people! Aren't you tired of sending that photo around? It's a woman. It's a penis in a jar of formaldehyde. It's great fun for caption writers. Isn't that enough? As you can see, I'm getting bored seeing the same dumb picture up day after day.
###
I see that Fred Couples has withdrawn from the British Open that will be played next week. He makes the fifth American so far to have withdrawn. Fred's got a trick back that I don't think likes playing in wet and cold. Can't hardly blame him for that.

As for the others, well I've played links golf, and it is way harder than inland golf. You never know from shot to shot sometimes what the conditions will be. I don't know what we'll see on television next weekend, but I doubt it will fully convey just how hard it will be for the golfers out there.

Speaking of golfers, has anybody else noticed that Tiger Woods, even when he's playing well, cannot seem to play well in crummy weather? If the wind stays up the first two days, don't be surprised to see Tiger's cut streak come to an end. As great a golfer as Tiger is--and make no mistake about that even in his current so-called slump--Tiger is not a mudder.
###
I see a Reuters story today quoting a BBC story that Tony Blair considered resigning as British Prime Minister. Well he might. His popularity is pretty low after his part in the fiasco of Iraq.

The Senate Report issued yesterday blasted the CIA and by implication other intelligence agencies including I'm sure the British over the failure to realize that Iraq had NO WMD in the run up to the war to oust Saddam Hussein.

I think Blair let himself be dragged along on the Bush-Cheney vendetta train. I remember a story in the New York Times just a few weeks before the war was launched in which the White House changed the bar for invasion from getting rid of WMD to Saddam and his sons must step down. At that point, I realized that no matter what, Bush was going to war with Iraq. (If I was really smart, I would have realized that the previous fall.)

An interesting comment in the story about Blair is that when they hold elections next year, Blair's Labor Party is expected to hold onto Parliament, though by a smaller margin than the overwhelming majority they currently have. I wonder if that will be true, especially if, as I expect, Bush gets turned out this fall in our elections. The only thing I can see that Blair has going for him at the moment is that the other parties are in disarray and have no palatable candidates. At least we have an organized alternative to Bush-Cheney.

July 9, 2004

I do a lot of personal writing. I even have my own web site, one of those vanity sites that you get when you join an ISP. Mine is http://home.columbus.rr.com/murrell/. I decided I wanted a place to place my musings and ramblings about life, the universe, and everything.

A brief intro

I'm a married, white, middle-aged, middle-class male. In this world we all inhabit, I am privileged in being what I am, though being white and male was given to me, being middle-aged comes from not dying younger, and being middle-class has taken a lot of work and caused no small amount of turmoil in my world. As I figure this blogging program out, I'll add a picture.

I read a lot, and I have a lot of opinions about a lot of things: movies, war, television, what I read, sports: you name it; I'll probably address it over time in my writings here.