The Obama Report Card
Email This Post
- 
Print This Post
- 
Well, 100 days have come and gone and the only comment I have to summarize this period is : So much for Obama being an agent of change. I had great optimism at the beginning of his presidency but, as I suspected, the only real agent of change in the bunch running for George Bush’s job was Dennis Kucinich. I do think some things have improved, but there have been no significant improvements and no meaningful changes. I’m the one who warned everyone on inauguration day that it will take Obama time to turn this country around, but speed isn’t the issue I’m having. My issues are much more fundamental, like campaign promises that Barack Obama has either reneged on or never had any intention of fulfilling to begin with. He has backpedaled on many other issues of importance. And unless Obama leads the charge to regulate Wall Street and the banks, you can be sure that an economic disaster of this proportion will happen again.
I’m going to start with the wars. My countdown to withdrawal calendar says we have 970 days left to go before we’re out of Iraq. Great. Essentially, Barack Obama, despite his promises to the contrary, is following the Bush plan out of Iraq. That’s a piss poor move, considering what a great job the Bush administration did managing the debacle that he himself created with his pathological lying. This seemingly never-ending war drags on and on, and people on both sides continue to die for no reason at all. As for Afghanistan, the Obama plan is a joke. There is no plan. We’re just going to continue to send in troops and hope for the best. We need to get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as we can. The battle in Afghanistan is no longer even clearly defined. It supposedly started out as an effort to catch the perpetrator of the 9-11 terrorist attacks, but it actually had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden. Both wars are all about black gold, oil. Nothing more.
The Wall Street Bail-out, or the Great Cash Giveaway, or the Highway Robbery Rescue Plan continues as well. No matter what the term, it is the biggest taxpayer swindle in history. Obama has put two of the biggest thieves in charge of this mess: Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers. Here are two gentlemen (and I use the term very loosely) who contributed more to the deregulation of these idiotic enterprises than anyone else, yet they have been chosen to slay the monster they have created. They are really not trying to contain the monster at all. In fact, they continue to throw money at these monkeys like the pot of gold doesn’t have an end. Sure. Let’s give Bank of America, Citigroup, AIG and the rest of the lot billions of dollars with no strings attached and leave the management in place that caused this economic meltdown to begin with. What are they doing with that money? Oh, hell, these guys have been through a lot. It takes a lot out of an executive to destroy a company and its employees. They need bonuses. What’s wrong with that picture?
What can we say about the bail out of the auto industry? The same: Throw good taxpayer dollars after bad businesses that - plain and simple - will screw over the workers whose taxes are bailing them out. Let’s just look at General Motors (GM). They already have $15.4 billion in existing loans and the government is extending an additional $11.6 billion. If GM receives the total $27 billion, it will be the fifth largest recipient of bail-out money (read: taxpayer dollars). Only AIG, Bank of America, Citigroup and Freddie Mac will have received more scratch. What will the taxpayer get in return for this? Well, 21,000 of them will lose their jobs (a third of the GM workforce), GM will close many of its plants and eliminate the Pontiac brand. Right. Eliminate the Pontiac brand, but release a hybrid Hummer. Only in America could the population be convinced that they need a vehicle that is used by the military. It says something about our collective values and psyche. Nobody in this country needs a Hummer, much less a hybrid version.
Then, there’s the little matter of torture and war crimes. I don’t know who Barack Obama thinks he is, but he took an oath during his inauguration to uphold the laws of the land and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. He doesn’t get to choose who is held accountable and who isn’t. That’s called obstruction of justice, and he should be made to get the hell out of the way and let the legal system take its proper course. That torture was standard fare during the Bush administration is no longer in question. When you have the president, vice president and secretary of defense all admitting to it, there’s really no way to deny it. When documents are released on nearly a daily basis describing the disgraceful behavior of our military interrogators, the involvement of physicians and psychiatrists (the “do no harm” set) in the torture process, and the highest elected officials in the land giving the okay to all of this, the situation screams out for investigation (and indictment if all roads lead there). It’s funny how our president supports the pursuit and indictment of those responsible for war crimes in Darfur. However, Obama’s position is a bit different when the criminals are a former U.S. president and his minions doing the torturing. The Obama administration has even gone so far as to try to disrupt the Spanish investigation. According to the administration, the timing is inconvenient. Excuse me, President Obama, but the timing is never convenient when it comes to ugliness like this. If you love this country as much as you claim, just suck it up and get it done.
Finally, the whole issue of President Obama’s expansion of warrantless wiretapping s a huge disappointment. He campaigned vigorously against wiretapping, but that was then. This is now. Not only did he come down on Bush’s side on warrantless wiretapping, but he has sought to expand the government’s authority by insisting that the government cannot be liable unless it releases the information it has collected on you. The government is data mining, and that is wrong. The other day, I was discussing this with a woman who works for a defense contractor. She said that the government would not have to do this if people were honest. Whoa! What? The people of the United States were led to believe that this was being done to fight the “war on terror.” We didn’t know we were being spied on by Big Brother because we aren’t an honest people. I mentioned the hypocrisy of giving our motley crew of elected officials in conjunction with members of the military-industrial complex the responsibility of passing judgment on the honesty of the American public. That’s a laughable notion, given that some of the biggest thieves and liars are in government. What the government is doing amounts to an invasion of privacy and flies in the face of every American value. The man who campaigned on cleaning up Washington isn’t so interested in change when he has to give up power. That, my friends, was the ultimate danger of allowing the Bush administration to continue unchecked for eight years. The only way we will ever get “change we can believe in” is if the people unite, stand up, and demand it. It’s pretty clear that Barack Obama is not going to deliver on his campaign promises.
What has he done right? Well, a few things. He has managed to overturn many of George Bush’s last-minute “midnight” regulations. Of particular importance was the regulation allowing medical personnel to refuse to provide health care information to their patients if it conflicted with their religious beliefs. That is an absurd notion. Health care providers, no matter what level of service, are supposed to put ideology aside when treating patients. If you don’t like that, pick a different profession where your actions have no impact on the health and well being of others. Become a bank manager, or a garbage collector, or a retail employee. Stay the hell out of health care. Barack Obama has announced the closing of Guantanamo, which is a good thing (but now it has to happen, so I consider the jury out on this one. Talk is cheap in DC.) He managed to get his economic stimulus package passed (he need another one to make a real difference in the lives of the majority of Americans).
The Obama Report Card: D- (and that’s being generous)
Comment by Richard on 6 May 2009:
I’d give Obama a gentleman’s “C” but for much different reasons.
Obama’s 100-days is the beginning of a reality check that it is far easier to make simplistic promises to glazy-eyed people during a campaign and the real world.
For instance: adding $3.8 billion PER day to American’s debt ($11.5 trillion - headed to doubling) already averaging over $36,000 per person - although crippling — will be trivial unless U. S. foreign policy isn’t put back on a productive course.
Comment by ihentschel on 6 May 2009:
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe somewhere between a C- and a D+, given the odds he is up against…like the party of no and the really good help he gets from egomaniacs like Specter, Limbaugh, et.al. And I know he had to make bold promises to get elected, but if they had not been quite so grand (what the hell happened to “transparency”, anyway?) we would not be quite so disappointed now. He set himself up for precisely the kind of criticism Deb is leveling at him.
I think foreign “policy” is not as bad as it might be (or certainly has been), but foreign “trade” and the international economy is in dire straights because our antique, greedy and malicious banking system is a mess. This is where he gets a “F” in my book. Deb says this financial mess could happen “again”. Hell, round one isn’t even over yet, Geithner and Summers are the wrong guys, doing the wrong thing and the bailout procedure is still in full swing. It has to end (with some definitive regulation and correction) before it can happen “again”. If it just continues in the limbo it is in now(and it looks like it will) forever, then we will have another great depression and we will all be facing a giant economic shit-pile.
Comment by joker on 6 May 2009:
The only thing that could possibly delight me more than you giving The One a D- would be if you had predicted it as I did, long before the election. I knew he was an empty suit, and everyone who voted for him is as gullible as anyone who buys a product ( a $40 value!!) off the TV for “just $19.95…and if you call in the next 5 minutes…”
What do you expect from a man whose resume wouldn’t qualify him to be the President of a local bank, never mind the United States. Just like Billy Mays for “Mighty Putty,” David Axelrod is smart enough to know that if you just keep using HOPENCHANGE over and over again, most people will buy in to it. I, of course was never fooled. I said he was an empty suit then, and I say he’s an empty suit now.
I can’t say I agree that there haven’t been any significant changes though. There certainly have. When the government seizes control of a private company (Chrysler), dictates the terms of its bankruptcy, and threatens the opposition with the “full force of the White House press corps,” that’s a significant change. President Stalin has made his first move towards the socialist agenda I warned would come to pass if he was elected. Source: http://www.northstarwriters.com/dkk177.htm
As far as the wars go, Saint Barack has found out that it’s one hell of a lot different when you’re privy to the knowledge only the President has, instead of hurling pies and insults from the cheap seats. I’m tired of you and the rest of the left with your tired rhetoric about Bush and his “lies.” Bottom line: If Bush had done anything really illegal in his Presidency, the Dems would have impeached his ass just like the Republicans did to Clinton. The reason they haven’t acted is simple: There is nothing to act on. Please, spare the erudite among us and get over it. Either that, or cite the lies and the proof line-by-line.
I already debunked your torture rants in my responses to your other posts, which you of course failed to respond to. I’m used to it though. In arguing with liberals, I’ve noticed that it is a trend for them to go on what I call “silent mode,” when confronted with the dreaded facts from conservatives. Do they give you all a pamphlet or something on that when you get your ACLU card? I’m just curious, because it seems such a widespread practice, and I know you can’t possibly all know each other personally.
To quickly revisit the torture issue though, I’ll briefly reiterate for the benefit of those commenting here. They cut Daniel Pearl’s head off with a butcher knife, and proudly distributed them doing so on film. We poured water over a few guys heads and kept them awake all night. I’m sure Pearl’s family is disgusted with our government’s draconian interrogation techniques. Are you kidding me with comparing waterboarding with the genocide in Darfur? Can you please get me a bag of whatever you’re smoking?
Obama on wiretapping? No surprise. Of course he villified it while campaigning, because he knew it would get gullible folks like yourself to run in and check the box next to his name. Now that he’s in the Big Chair, he sees that there really is a need for intelligence gathering in the dangerous world we live in. He realizes that the repercussions of him interfering with that process would be far worse than merely annoying folks like you. Your Orwellian rants are indeed tiresome. They have not tapped your phone or mine, and they won’t. They are looking at people who are getting calls from known bad places overseas, and why shouldn’t they? If they could have tapped calls from Germany and Japan during WWII, are you going to say they shouldn’t have? Hello? (In Butt Head’s voice) We’re like, at war, or something…huh, huh, uh, huh, huh.
The only thing he has done right so far is that he actually had the balls to give the Navy Seals the order to shoot - something I really didn’t think he was going to do. I had horror visions of “Special Envoy” Jimmy Carter sitting around in a grass hut with a bunch of skinny black guys all holding AK-47’s “negotiating” for Captain Phillip’s release. The other great thing he did was select Joe Biden to be his Vice President. With the death of Dom DeLuise yesterday I was reminded that yet another comic legend is gone. Thankfully, there will always be folks like Joe Biden, and far left liberals like yourself, around to provide necessary comic relief.
Comment by ihentschel on 6 May 2009:
Mr. Joker, sir: You would do well to get yourself a dictionary and review the words commentary, discussion, discourse, rant, tirade and the phrase ad hominem. After you have these clearly defined in your mind, and understand both their meaning and their implications, then you will be better prepared to state your case in a manner which makes a suitable and worthwhile impression. However, at the moment, as I read what you write here, the only clear image I am able to conjure up is one of a man screaming, uncontrollably, and throwing beer cans against a wall.
I would ask you,please, to either bring some competency and civility to the table or cease and desist. You are, I think, both needlessly repetitive and wearisome. That is generally the result of flawed logic and undue bias.
Comment by proletarian on 6 May 2009:
Let’s face it folks, anyone with an IQ over 100 and has lived for more than twenty-five years had to know Obama was nothing more than a demagogue. A panderer who tells the masses what they want to hear to further his agenda, or the agenda of those who jerk his strings. Elitists my friends, plutocrats who have a greater agenda and throw the populace a red herring every now and again to keep them at bay. The real problem, fascism. World domination by a select few. A cabal that seems to be going unnoticed. World industrialists and financiers who would like nothing more than total control of industry and economics on a planetary scale. Economics controlled by governments that they control.
I know what I say sounds like a conspiracist, but think about it. What happened at the G20? What about Obama’s puppet, Timothy Geithner, renouncing a global currency in front of Congress at the behest of Rep. Michele Bachmann? Then supporting it in front of the Bilderberg Group at their annual meeting less than twenty-four hours later. Or Obama himself making inroads to nationalizing healthcare, the auto industry, banking, housing, the list could go on eternally. 40% of Chrysler going to the UAW, 90% of GM, all funded by us, the US taxpayer.
What about Thomas Lauria’s claims, along with other Chrysler debtholders, that the Obama Administration has coerced, threatened, strong-armed and refused to negociate the restructering of the company in a fair and comprehensive manner? The debtholders offered to take fifty cents on the dollar. But that wasn’t good enough for Obama. Nooo, he would rather turn the company over to the UAW. Does it smack of Corleone family dealings? Absolutely. Obama could be Vito’s brother. Where’s RICO when you need it?
Comment by proletarian on 6 May 2009:
Now ihentschel, for someone who has entertained excoriation, diatribe, rants and other acerbic techniques, isn’t it a little hypocritical to rebuke Mr. Joker for using the same tactics? I don’t know the man and I will admit his writing isn’t the most eloquent, but he makes a good point.
You on the other hand espouse nonsense that Della Deb writes and on occasion put out some of the same yourself. Is that another gambit used by the liberals? I see it used quite frequently in politics by Democrats. You know, when you don’t have anything intelligent to say, attack or lambaste the opponent.
Comment by Bubba on 6 May 2009:
Gee Whiz folks let’s argue the issues and not run this into Daily Kos or Huffington Post.
Comment by joker on 7 May 2009:
Well, thank you very much “ihentschel,” but is that Mr, Mrs, Ms, Mz or gender neuter??
I hate to break the news to you, but I am an educated man, and am not only well aware of the meaning of those terms, but I will now take great pleasure in showing that you are not.
“Argumentum ad hominem,” (Latin: “argument to the person”, “argument against the person”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
You spent your entire post accusing me of incivility, yet I cannot find an obscenity in any of what I wrote. Acerbic wit and sardonic humor, yes. Incivility, no. I am very much in control, and your suggestion of me hurling beer cans across the room is unfounded, grossly obtuse, and offensive. How do you know if I even drink? I thought I cited my case rather well, even referencing a source, but the fact that it failed to make a suitable or worthwhile impression on a pseudo-intellect such as yourself is not at all surprising. You merely didn’t like what I said, and refuted it not with facts or sources, but with the type of ad hominem diatribe you accused me of using.
If anyone needs to cease and desist, it is you. You did not mention one single issue I wrote about, nor make any effort to argue against any of them. All you did was attack me personally, which shows all who read these posts that you are incapable of offering an intelligent rebuttal to the issues. You should apply for a job with MSNBC, as you seem well qualified for their level of journalism. Do it quickly though. Their ratings are so bad that they may very well be going the way of the buffalo soon, not that anyone will notice except maybe for Deb, who will have to find someone else besides Rachel Maddow to cite as a source.
Just who are you to question my competence? I do not merely voice mindless rants and opinions; I furnish sources and reasoning to explain why I take the position I do on an issue. You say my logic is flawed, yet again, you failed to address a single issue I discussed. You say I have undue bias, but in regard to what? If it’s towards jackasses, then I will admit you are correct. You seem to have an undue bias towards someone who can state salient (you may want to look that one up) points, and be able to back them up.
I ask you, please, to either address and refute the specific issues I brought up, or with all due respect (and you have not yet earned any), shut your pie-hole.
Note to proletarian: Thank you for the back-up. I will endeavor to be more eloquent as I go on
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 7 May 2009:
You know, Bubba, I’d like this to be a discussion of the issues as well, particularly since it’s my blog. Unfortunately, there are a couple of people who blog here who deal with issues by leveling personal insults at those who do not agree with their opinions. That’s not discussion. One of them NEVER shows up when rational discussion takes place. She only comes in for the insults and disappears again.
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 7 May 2009:
Hey Joker, got your little insult there about Rachel Maddow. Got news for you. She isn’t the only person I cite. Do you ever click on the links I provide in my articles? Not one is Rachel Maddow. In fact, I’ve NEVER cited her specifically. She just happens to have great guests who are, in fact, experts in their field. Those are the people I’m citing. That’s a nice twist on your part, but not accurate. Not surprised by that at this point.
However, let’s get real here. We’re talking about a conservative base who worships at the altar of Rush Limbaugh. At least Rachel Maddow knows how to cite facts and doesn’t pretend to be the master of the universe. She puts people in front of the camera who know what they are talking about. Last but certainly not least, Rachel Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar. Rush Limbaugh just spews venom, calls it fact-based, and wouldn’t ever entertain putting anyone else on his show who might know more than he does (which is just about everybody else on the planet). So, let’s lay off the cheap shots. I’ve got better people to banter with if you’re going to serve up a steady diet of that crap.
You know, take a look back at all the exchanges we have had since I have been blogging here. I think you will be hard pressed to find that I’ve personally insulted anyone. I may argue my points vehemently. I won’t apologize for that. I will not change my position, and I won’t apologize for that either. However, I do not insult people.
Comment by proletarian on 7 May 2009:
Here’s a kudo for you Deb. Albeit I don’t agree with 99% of what you say, I bow to you. You are the most controversial blogger on the site. You evoke the intermost feelings and emotions of the reader, the ire and sometimes rancor. After reading you for the last year I have to assume that is your goal.
Comment by joker on 7 May 2009:
Oh come on Deb, you just contradicted yourself.
You tell Bubba you’d like this to be a discussion of the issues rather than personal insults. Then, out of all I wrote in my original post and my response to the attack on me by ihentschel, the only thing you can pick out is the Rachel Maddow shot? Sure, I admit it, I was throwing a shot at you with that, sure. I wouldn’t go so far to call it a personal insult though.
This is simple, By me making fun of you referencing Rachel Maddow, regardless of who her “guest” speakers are, it’s my way of saying I don’t think she’s worth listening to. I say that because I take it as a given, and you just backed me up on it, that the gang on your side of the aisle all feel the same way and worse about Rush. I realize you use other sources, and I don’t dispute that.
I’m delighted you brought up the fact that Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar, and if you review a list of noted Rhodes Scholars, you’ll find it is nothing more than a liberal-Democrats only club. David Souter, Bill Clinton, Robert Reich, Russ Feingold, George Stephanopoulou, Dennis Blair, et al. If there were a famous scholarship program for White WASP Republicans only, you and your crowd would be storming the Capitol about how “unfair, hateful and discriminatory” it was. William F. Buckley was not a Rhodes Scholar, but I’d put up anything he ever wrote or said against any of the Rhodes list any day of the week.
I will not say that Rhodes recipients are not educated people, in fact most of them are brilliant, and I don’t dispute that. That brilliance is part of the liberal elitism that us common folk like Rush and I can’t stand. What does it say to you that people who are so well educated can be so wrong about virtually every political and social issue you could bring up? I’m convinced that the trade off for being extremely brilliant in college is often a total lack of common sense. I once knew a guy who was one of the most brilliant math whizzes at MIT a little over 20 years ago, like the character in Good Will Hunting. He also was observed cutting strips of lasagna noodles with a pair of scissors because “they wouldn’t fit in the pan.” That was of course until his room mate (who eventually became my room mate)went over and turned the pan the long way to match the length of the noodles. Talk about a “Wow…” moment.
When it comes to Rush, for some reason the college drop out is kicking the stuffing out of the Rhodes Scholar in the ratings. Is that because the majority of Americans love the spew of venom? Or, maybe it just might be because despite his lack of an Ivy League pedigree, the man makes valid points. Anytime you’d like to present to me a video or a transcript of anything Rush said or says, that you consider to not be true, please do. I’ll be happy to discuss it with you. The reason you and the Left hate him is because you all know he’s right, and it drives you positively batty.
Take nothing I say personally, but I can’t promise I won’t throw a zinger at you here and there. It’s just my style. Feel free to reciprocate - as long as you discuss the issues as part of the zinger, as I believe I did.
Comment by joker on 8 May 2009:
One more thing I may as well add since we’re on the topic.
I was surfing Hot Air this morning and I saw the following piece from the Rachel Maddow show:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/07/buxom-gay-marriage-opponent-fires-army-officer-for-being-gay/
It was an excellent story about a serious issue. Since I’m against gay marriage I guess I should technically be against gays in the military too. Certainly I should do anything I can to block the advancement of more pro-gay policies, right? Wrong. Why? Back to what I keep saying about common sense - and it may please you to know that I apply that policy to myself too - not just far Left liberals.
The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is another fly in the ointment from the Redneck Rhodes Scholar William Jefferson “Have another cigar” Clinton. Although I’ll admit it was a step above actively seeking out gay soldiers in order to purge them, it is still unethical, assinine, and long overdue to be changed. Rachel’s story and interview with the soldier in question, Lt. Dan Choi, was spot-on explaining exactly why.
I served in the military. I know there is an oath and a military Code of Honor. Part of that has to do with the obedience of orders. Taking a lesson from Nazi war criminals who claimed they were “only following orders,” todays military clarifies a soldier’s duty to obey by using the term “lawful orders.” Although a soldier is expected to obey lawful commands immediately and without question, he or she is not required to obey any order which is unethical or immoral.
Whether I agree with Lt. Choi’s lifestyle is irrelevant. Asking him to obey “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which basically forces him to live a lie and feel like a second-class citizen, is about as unethical as it gets. Naturally, they are kicking the man out of the service, which I think is disgraceful. He’s a highly trained, highly skilled combat officer who has earned the respect and trust of his men - who know that he’s gay and they don’t give a shit.
So, if I can say that I think it’s wrong to re-define marriage, I can also say it’s wrong to throw qualified people out of the armed forces solely because of sexual orientation. If anything, I think they should ask, and they should tell. That way they can figure out a way to keep them separate somehow. I’m sorry, but when I think about how many naked men I was around on a daily basis when I was in the Army, the idea that one or more of them may have been secretly checking me out is not very appealing. If I wasn’t allowed to hang out in the Women’s shower, gay men shouldn’t be allowed in the Men’s shower, and vice-versa.
The only other solution I can come up with is to just completely co-ed the whole thing and throw everyone in together with no inhibitions whatsoever. Gay, straight, male, female, it’s all good. We’ll train together and maybe die together, and we’ll all know what each other’s junk looks like. That may sound crazy, but I actually think it would work.
So, in this particular instance, bravo for Rachel. As I said, Leftist kook or not, make a valid point, and I’ll acknowledge it. The key is to take your emotions out of it, look at the facts, and use a little common sense.
Comment by bubba on 8 May 2009:
Deb: You can do a lot to change the temper by improving your tone and elmintating your insults.
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 13 May 2009:
Joker, guess what? I actually figured out that you don’t think Rachel Maddow is worth listening to. I disagree. I think she does her homework and I think she has credible guests. I understand that many people like to tout the fact that FOX is rated number one for news. That’s great. We all basically go where we can have our own political beliefs confirmed and that’s fine. The problem with FOX is that they’ve been caught doctoring too much footage and they are completely biased. Rachel Maddow doesn’t sell her show as an unbiased news show. She’s right up front about it.
I do not believe that all of politics is taking the emotion out. In fact, I don’t believe that one bit. In fact, that’s the complete opposite of what goes on here in this country on either side of the aisle. At the end of the day it’s about how it affects each individual’s life and how it squares with their beliefs. You are no different than I am.
And, you know, I will admit my sarcasm and I’ll tell you it isn’t going anywhere. The issue I have is that calling someone “un-patriotic” and “un-American” is neither talking issues or debunking anything. I mean, what would I say in defense of myself,”Hey, I love this country?” Well, I do. I just don’t happen to believe that paying allegiance to people running it is loving your country. The country is bigger than they are. I present opinions and I make assertions and I have files on every single story with information back-ups. I tend to use many links in my articles. I will take all the heat on those facts any day. That’s what I call debunking and refuting. That’s not name calling.
As for gays in the military. I’m really upset about that because I have lost two gay friends in Iraq over the past several years. They were as dedicated to this country as any of their fellow soldiers and I happen to know that — in at least one instance — his bunkmates knew he was gay and it did nothing to diminish the trust they had in his dedication to the cause. Simply put, they didn’t care and they didn’t rat him out.
I have personal reasons for being adamant about civil rights. Very personal. I have a twelve-year old daughter who “doesn’t get” what the big deal is that she has two mothers. She has uncles. She has a brother. She has a male homeroom teacher. She has plenty of men in her life. That’s the way she looks at it. She watches CNN and she doesn’t understand why people have to tell others who they can and cannot marry. That’s “kinda’ not their business” is what she said to me. She doesn’t understand why people are intent on keeping others down. And she figured that out by herself. No influence from me.
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 13 May 2009:
Bubba, I’d like to address your issue as well. I have admitted my sarcasm in my writing. That’s not going anywhere soon. I do not generally insult the readers or writers on this blog. I am insulting, I will admit, to the political people I write about.
I put time and research into what I write. I generally include links. I even have documents up on a site called Scribd.com that are pdfs of actual documents. Not doctored. Just there for back-up. Not only do I look online, but I spend time at my library before I write an article. Generally, there are many links or footnotes.
Now, I have absolutely no problem debating those points. I do not mind, as I’ve said before, taking the heat on those issues or what I perceive to be facts, and having someone tell me they are wrong and presenting to me evidence that they are wrong. That is what I call refuting my point. However, having someone come onto my blog and tell me that I’m un-patriotic and lying about the use of torture is not refuting the story. It’s absurd. There is plenty of evidence that it was used. To deny it now is akin to denying that the holocaust happened.
There is also another supposed fact-based blogger on this site who comes in simply to insult. There are rarely facts in this person’s comments on my articles. She never contributes articles herself. After calling me a liar one too many times, I asked her to write an article refuting what I was saying and proving that I’m a liar. She disappeared until the next opportunity for an insult reared its head. People who come to this blog and suggest to other bloggers that they go ahead and “tear me apart” with words are absurd entities who barely deserve any credible attention. It’s baby crap couched in big words.
I will not deal with those people. I will deal with anyone who wants to call me out on my positions and provide alternate facts.
Comment by bubba on 13 May 2009:
I disagree - tone does matter. A lack of regard and respects for others opinions - including insults discredits you.
Comment by joker on 14 May 2009:
Using the court system to re-define marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state. If you deny that, I can’t wait to hear you prove me wrong. Marriage is a clearly religious institution, and forcing a change in that in order to suit a small, special interest group over the overwhelming opinion of the majority goes against everything this country stands for.
A Civil Union is the common sense answer. It gives you your civil rights without infringing on the religious rights of the rest of the population. Yes, Deb, there are other people in this world besides two gay women trying to raise a daughter. I’m sorry if my opinion and that of most other Americans makes it tougher for you to teach her just how damned unfair adult life is.
“That’s kinda not their business,” eh? Is that what it is? Just who exactly are “they” anyway?? Let’s take a close look at that. You and your “partner” is none of “their” business, yet you are both women and for, oh say the better part of TWO THOUSAND YEARS, marriage has existed as a union between one man and one woman. So it’s really not about the important things like financial, legal and medical issues, this is purely about you being mad about being left out of a place you don’t belong because you’re different.
Guess what, I hate to break the news to you, but YOU ARE DIFFERENT. That’s not hate; that’s a fact. That being said, now we change everything solely to accommodate the Della Piana households of the nation.
Next up: The polygamists. Is that “their” business? Should a man be able to have 6 wives? Should a woman be able to have six husbands?
What about the newest thing….the “Triad??” Is that “their” business.
What about a modern day Oedipus who wants to marry his mother? Is that “their” business. His sister? His Great Dane?
Just when does the absurdity and perversion of these minority groups become anyone else’s business?
What if your daughter wants to marry another boy (or girl for the sake of environment) when she’s only 14 years old? Is that “their” business? Is not being allowed to marry at 14 a violation of her civil rights? What about 12? 16? Why should it be 18? Why not 21? Why have any laws at all? Let’s just let everything collapse to total anarchy and let everybody do whatever the hell they want because of their “civil rights.”
How many more examples must I give? I’d love to be a fly on the wall for a question like this from your daughter:
“Mom…why does my friend Caitlin’s father make her sleep with him now that her mommy is dead?”
I can hear the wedding bells now…Do they make a plastic figure of a grown man and a 13 year-old girl for the top of wedding cakes??? That would make a dandy cover photo for the Boston Phoenix.
I suppose you think that’s all OK, but I and the majority of people in these 50 states DO NOT. Admit it - this has nothing to do with “civil rights;” it’s selfishness on your part - pure and simple.