tagged w/ Essay
Think twice before voting for hate with Prop H8 (ie, Proposition 8, if you're really that slow). There is no legitimate reason to take the human rights away from human beings and Americans. Let's understand why Prop H8 is simply wrong and unconstitutional.
Arguing that "homosexuality isn't natural" is irrelevant. Homosexuality is legal. Nearly everything we do is unnatural and ‘natural’ has nothing to do with marriage and the legal system. Arguments based on morality and the Bible are equally invalid. All arguments that homosexuality is immoral (and this argument assumes that those making it would be for outlawing homosexuality, not just marriage) arise from religion, which has no place in the legal system. And again, homosexuality is legal.
"Same-sex marriage destroys 'real' marriage" is a baseless argument. Despite the fact that one marriage cannot possibly destroy marriage, it continues to be used despite there never being any back up for it. Britney Spears' sham marriages have done more to degrade marriage. Same sex marriage does not steal your marriage. No one is forcing you not to get married, no one is forcing you to marry someone you don't like, no one is undoing your marriage. To say that it is outright dishonest and low.
Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with families. Many advocates of Prop H8 claim that its about families and that children need a mother and father. Yet single parenthood is entirely legal and to suggest that people may not adopt or have children if they so choose is an incredible violation of personal freedom. However, legally marriage has nothing to do with children. It is simply two consenting adults choosing to be together.
Same-sex marriage will not lead to pedophile marriages or bestiality marriages, as some nutcases claim.These people dishonestly and knowingly ignore the fact that those types of relationships are in the first place illegal and in the second illegal because one party in each of those kinds of relationships cannot give consent. Same-sex marriage does not really change the definition of marriage. In fact, it is Prop H8 that takes rights away from homosexual families and redefines marriage as between a man and a woman only. Prop H8 will take away the rights of children and partners to see their loved ones on the death bed and to get the same rights we all take for granted. Prop H8 hurts children, not the other way around.
Homosexuals have done nothing illegal and are consenting adults. All they want is the same respect and legal status our society sees no problem in giving to shams of marriages like those of Britney Spears. Why is it that those people can marry whoever they please without reason yet homosexuals may not? Why is it that homosexuals must meet the requirement to being able to have children or even wanting to, yet heterosexuals must not? It is blatant dishonesty and double standards. Prop H8 proponents say they support it because the Supreme Court overturning "the will of the people" was undemocratic yet they are turning around and taking private rights away from people.
If Prop H8 passes, I urge everyone to REFUSE to respect marriage. If freedom does not belong to everyone, it belongs to no one, and the same applies to marriage. Marriage is a right, not a privilege, and it means nothing unless it belongs to all consensual human beings. Let's make marriage actually mean something and continue to allow those who truly want it--unlike shams like Britney Spears--have it. If you're still not convinced, think carefully. If you vote yes on Prop H8, you are saying it is OK for the government to control your marriage. You have no right to complain if other people decide that your marriage is illegitimate and no longer legal because it is your second marriage. That means you're fine with the government taking away your right to marry because you cannot bear children. Unless you're a dishonest hateful hypocrite of course.Think twice before voting for hate with Prop H8 (ie, Proposition 8, if you're... more
The New York Times has rejected an essay that Sen. John McCain wrote defending his Iraq war policy.
Sen. John McCain wrote an op-ed for The New York Times, but the paper said it could not publish it as written.
The piece was in response to an op-ed from Sen. Barack Obama that was published in the paper last week.
In an e-mail to the McCain campaign, Opinion Page Editor David Shipley said he could not accept the piece as written, but would be "pleased, though, to look at another draft."
"Let me suggest an approach," he wrote Friday. "The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans. It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece." Read McCain's rejected piece
In a statement released Monday, The New York Times said it is "standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission."
"We look forward to publishing Senator McCain's views in our paper just as we have in the past. We have published at least seven Op-Ed pieces by Senator McCain since 1996. The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain as the Republican candidate in the presidential primaries. We take his views very seriously," the statement said.
McCain's rejected op-ed was a lengthy critique of Obama's positions on Iraq policy, particularly his view of the surge.
Obama's July 14 essay had taken shots at McCain for not further encouraging the Iraqi government to take control of the country.
"Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition -- despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq's sovereign government," Obama wrote in his op-ed.
"They call any timetable for the removal of American troops 'surrender,' even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government." Read Obama's essay
Shipley, who was President Bill Clinton's senior speechwriter from 1995 to 1997, had advised the McCain campaign that "the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.
"It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator's Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan."
He added that he hoped the parties could "find a way to bring this to a happy resolution."
McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said Monday the Arizona senator's position will not change based on the "demands of the New York Times."
"John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables," he said. "Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of the New York Times."
The newspaper endorsed McCain for the Republican presidential nomination in January, shortly before the New York primary.
The New York Times has rejected an essay that Sen. John McCain wrote defending his... more
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, an assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury during the Reagan Administration, is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, an assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury during the Reagan... more
"The epidemic did not begin in Africa. The first AIDS cases were uncovered in Manhattan in 1979. At that time there were no reported African cases. In fact, the AIDS epidemic in Africa did not begin until the autumn of 1982 at the earliest."
"The epidemic did not begin in Africa. The first AIDS cases were uncovered in... more
Whoa!! Sloane Crosley's new book of essays, You Said There'd Be Dessert, collects fourteen hilariously uncomfortable personal essays, with detailed dioramas and delightfully humorous videos for each essay. This particular diorama-video shows just what happens when you have people over for dessert and you discover that one of them has secretly pooped on your bathroom floor.
The hilarious diorama-video is included.Whoa!! Sloane Crosley's new book of essays, You Said There'd Be Dessert,... more