Couple of things
- The Athens Banner-Herald does a nice job remembering Teddy Craft, including a good column by Texas.
I would always tell (college recruiters), 'Look, this kid is special. He's not big, but he can always make the play.' That was a bottom line with him.
- Hart County defensive coordinator William DeVane
- I'm a fan of 24, but is it just me or is Keifer Sutherland's Emmy nomination for Best Actor a bit odd. I mean, has what we consider quality acting fallen so much that someone who spends much of the episode hollering 'Bauer!' or 'Drop the gun!' is now classified as award-winning? Don't get me wrong, I think Sutherland's character is pretty cool ... but 'pretty cool' doesn't exactly translate into 'Emmy winner' in my book.
- Well, this at least saves taxpayer money by not forcing the governor to call a special session to simply re-pass the law. And, though I'm probably too idealistic on this, but it just might make the folks seeking elected office, you know, talk about some of the real issues in this state.
- Considering we don't have too many cards to play with regarding North Korea, perhaps diplomacy isn't such a bad idea. Then again ... of course we're going to pursue diplomacy. War with North Korea means, potentially, war involving a variety of parties including China, South Korea, Japan and Russia.
- Matt Yglesias writes a rather unusual, yet nonetheless interesting commentary on American independence and what would have happened if we hadn't fought the Revolution. I think he's a bit off in his conclusion, however, by stating that a relationship such as the one Canada has with Great Britain might be more favorable. Yglesias argues that had there been no Revolution, the U.S. would have eventually come to pass because the British Empire was destined to evolve into the relationships it has now. I counter that because of the American Revolution - coupled with a variety of other historical geo-political developments in the 1800s - the British Empire was destined to evolve into the relationships it has now.
Outside of its claims in Africa, Great Britain's prized colonial possession was that of America. It was massive land-wise, featured numerous crops and resources, had plenty of good trade ports and was vital to their strategic defense in the New World. Canada or Australia can't offer nearly as much in return, meaning I don't see a feasible way that Great Britain would have ever cut ties with the U.S. as a colony. In fact, had the U.S. remained a British possession, it's feasible to me to envision a world still dominated by the British Empire.
I would always tell (college recruiters), 'Look, this kid is special. He's not big, but he can always make the play.' That was a bottom line with him.
- Hart County defensive coordinator William DeVane
- I'm a fan of 24, but is it just me or is Keifer Sutherland's Emmy nomination for Best Actor a bit odd. I mean, has what we consider quality acting fallen so much that someone who spends much of the episode hollering 'Bauer!' or 'Drop the gun!' is now classified as award-winning? Don't get me wrong, I think Sutherland's character is pretty cool ... but 'pretty cool' doesn't exactly translate into 'Emmy winner' in my book.
- Well, this at least saves taxpayer money by not forcing the governor to call a special session to simply re-pass the law. And, though I'm probably too idealistic on this, but it just might make the folks seeking elected office, you know, talk about some of the real issues in this state.
- Considering we don't have too many cards to play with regarding North Korea, perhaps diplomacy isn't such a bad idea. Then again ... of course we're going to pursue diplomacy. War with North Korea means, potentially, war involving a variety of parties including China, South Korea, Japan and Russia.
- Matt Yglesias writes a rather unusual, yet nonetheless interesting commentary on American independence and what would have happened if we hadn't fought the Revolution. I think he's a bit off in his conclusion, however, by stating that a relationship such as the one Canada has with Great Britain might be more favorable. Yglesias argues that had there been no Revolution, the U.S. would have eventually come to pass because the British Empire was destined to evolve into the relationships it has now. I counter that because of the American Revolution - coupled with a variety of other historical geo-political developments in the 1800s - the British Empire was destined to evolve into the relationships it has now.
Outside of its claims in Africa, Great Britain's prized colonial possession was that of America. It was massive land-wise, featured numerous crops and resources, had plenty of good trade ports and was vital to their strategic defense in the New World. Canada or Australia can't offer nearly as much in return, meaning I don't see a feasible way that Great Britain would have ever cut ties with the U.S. as a colony. In fact, had the U.S. remained a British possession, it's feasible to me to envision a world still dominated by the British Empire.
posted by Jmac at 7:02 AM
12 Comments:
1) Dude. Keifer is acting the weight of the world. That's like saying SMG only did ass-kicking as Buffy.
2) Bigoted laws systematically excluding an entire group of citizens _are_ an issue. (You want to talk about too idealistic?)
3) They also had this little country called India. Maybe you've heard of it? That said, I think you're more right than he is.
1) As we're actually discussing in real-time here in the office, my contention is that the most recent season was nothing much. Good show, don't get me wrong ... but I don't necessarily think Sutherland's acting warrants an Emmy nod.
2) Many ways to answer this ... one being that my comment was in direct response to the fact that an already 'resolved' issue (as the electorate had voted and overwhelmingly passed the amendment) was being now overhyped by some on the right with one of the primary reasons being 'look way from the rest of our problems and look at this outlying issue.'
Another way to answer is that this amendment, in itself, isn't that bigoted. It doesn't permit gay marriage being recognized, but it doesn't stop two individuals from committing to each other. Had the government said I couldn't marry my wife, I would have said 'so what' ... we're going to get married in accordance with our beliefs. Recognize it if you want, but if you don't that's not going to slow me down.
Now, the primary issue which you're probably referring to is the litany of tax benefits, domestic partner rights and other public services which are restricted to some gay couples. Those are issues which should be addressed, and perhaps permitting gay marriage would accomplish that (maybe it wouldn't, the Georgia General Assembly can be quite fickle). But there are other ways to accomplish those aims outside of just legalizing gay marriage.
Crap.
3) From what I understand, considerable investment went into India following the American Revolution. The loss of the U.S. meant Great Britain had to look elsewhere for many of those goods, thus the development of India in the 1800s. However, strategically, the loss of the U.S. was worse for the British Empire than India could ever compensate for.
But the point is, Jmac, that those "other ways" of socially and legally recognizing a lesbian or gay marriage are too burdensome for individuals to pursue on their own, especially when the government itself already stands on the side of hetero marriages. Consider an analogy: a Latino couple has a child in the United States and a white couple also has a child in the United States. Suppose the white couple's child automatically is granted certain rights and privileges when the birth certificate is certified and entered into the local community's registry; however, the Latino couple must first sign separate affidavits attesting to their parenting of the child, the child must appear before a magistrate judge in the company of the parents who together swear to raise the child properly, the parents must complete forms detailing the child's birth and/or conception and submit them to a state accreditation office, the parents must submit yearly for five years to an inspection of the living conditions of the child, and the parents must document and notarize the genetic particularities they share with the child. Once they have accomplished the paperwork and submitted them to the proper state agencies for review and subsequently been approved, then these parents can claim similar legal status over their child as the white couple over theirs. It is incomparable, on such an analogy, to suggest that because the end legal result is the same, that one has much legal and bureaucratic procedures to fulfill is not really "that bigoted" in the end.
I strongly doubt that you would have been so nonchalant had the state said you could not marry your wife. For one thing, marriage is not just a public declaration that you are boinking this person only. Marriage brings with it more than just economic benefits, but also social and cultural status. This is the very reason why it is being explicitly banned in the first place: those who want it in writing understand that with the moral legitimation of the state comes social and cultural changes at a very radical, foundational level (hence the argument that opening the door to these kinds of marriages also opens the door to polyamorous or bestial or incestuous marriages—legitimation is just that powerful). Just ask Xon why he's against the state supporting abortion, and one of his first responses would be that there is something very important going on whenever the state comes out being in favor of (or in opposition to) something. Just ask yourself, is there a fundamental, personal difference in your worship of Christ in a state that permits the freedom to worship and in a state that actively bars you from worshipping him? We would like to think that we will love Jesus regardless of whether or not we could get shot for it, but the truth is that having the freedom to be at peace in one's worship makes for an altogether different form of religious life than one spent in fear of reprisal.
In terms of justice, it is altogether a failure of the state to withhold from one what another glibly enjoys through the approval of the state. The state enforces my marriage vows within itself without my ever having to do much more than remember my wife's social security number and sign a slip of paper. Why should a lesbian have to do more?
Those are very good points Charles, and they're making me reconsider my response.
I don't want to give the impression that I would be so glib if the state didn't permit me to marry my wife. I am quite sure I would strongly voice my disapproval and concern over such a prohibition, so forgive me if I didn't make that clear. I had cut around that portion of the argument in order to make my central point, which is that marriage is - at its purest core - a public declaration of love and commitment, and that no entity can deny that right to anyone ... whether it's done in the legally sanctified setting of a courthouse or in the privacy of one's home. And that's it's insulting to the institution of marriage to suggest that some head of state has the ultimate say in what makes what valid.
However, in making that argument, I did leap over very important issues which you highlighted and, upon reconsideration, that action does indeed weaken my position ... or, at the very least, misrepresent my position.
And my original position, which was not conveyed in my glibness, is that our government shouldn't be in the business of writing discriminatory language into its state constitutions and federal law. Unfortunately, I think the amendment is an example of just that, though I do think it's a different type of discrimination than, say, the analogy of denying citizenship to specific groups. While all discrimination is definitely wrong, it's also feasible to determine that in our human society there are some things which are 'more wrong' than others.
weiszer sucks
I don't think it's insulting to married people or marriage itself to say that the state is in the business of enforcing commitments people make to each other and to the future. I have never taken the existence of the civil court system as a repudiation of the value of handshaken agreements, covenants, charters, and such bonds sealed by oaths. If someone breaches a contractual obligation, people resort to the state as a way of rendering justice within the community. Or they become vigilantes (on the one hand) or peaceful compromisers (on the other hand). So, what I am saying is not that a person's commitment is rendered worth keeping through the state, but rather that the state ensures this commitment has a public life without any further work of its participants. The state does not generate the subjective, phenomenal feelings of making a vow and keeping it; the state ensures that this vow has its own legal life inthe paperwork of our modern capitalo-bureaucracy.
I very rarely have to prove my marriage legally. A "civil union" that is built upon an extensive paper trail of documented oaths, affidavits, certificates will always need proving, especially in a cultural climate where gay or lesbian relationships are still legitimated by an appeal to the privacy of the bedroom (this part is actually complex, but my point is this: when a gay man no longer has to argue that he can commit to another gay man because the sexual relationship they share occurs in private, and what happens in the bedroom is no other person's business, but instead the man can argue precisely in reference to the cultural and social stability of any committed relationship, then we will have made a quantum political advance.).
I can understand that your original point was that the issue was resolved through the democratic process (though leftists of more Marxist flavors may doubt the persuasiveness of such an appeal, to be sure), and regardless of what we think of that resolution, this does mean that our legislature can focus on, say, better energy policies, fiscal responsibility, crime and punishment, &tc. But something in your followup unnerved me (obviously), namely that it is not enough for there to be "other ways" for gay or lesbian marriages to receive state protection.
I don't think it is an excessive or unrealistic idealism that motivates you here. I think, instead, there is a certain romanticism about marriage that you don't want to give up, because it gives to the relationship within a marriage a certain separation from any other sexual or social relationship, a separation that fundamentally prevents the state from interfering. Something like a spiritual reality which no man or woman on earth can destroy, because it is not made of material rust and moth attack. Language of insults and honor, which you applied here, operates on this level. But romance is not idealism. It just takes one reality as more valuable than another and judges commitments on that basis.
We're all so far against the amendment, and this is a disagreement among friends. To be sure, I don't think that you are being glib in your marriage or were being so in your postings here. I think that those of us who too easily enjoy the privileges of these institutions handed down to empower us alone can be, at times, too unwitting in our readiness to celebrate the rewards. The glib, here, is our being unaware of what has happened to maintain the institutions, what is happening to secure the rewards.
You are totally right: these are different kinds of discrimination. My analogy was just that. I do, however, think that the assessment of what is a worse or 'more wrong' act of discrimination is one we should always be careful of making haphazardly (not, of course, that I think you're doing that here: caution is always advised of everyone). Again, the glib enters here: I've too often seen white people lose themselves silly over arguments about what rock band or flavor of hamburger or college football team is the best, when there are people truly struggling to find a place to defecate with some amount of human dignity. It is a fortunate thing that some people have the ability to chose between Burger King, Loco's, Wild Wing, the grill out back. It is also unfortunate that some people probably will never have that. I know you know this, given your exceptional charity work. I am simply pointing out that, to the man whose injustice begins with a defiant state-enforced No to a life of love, it may not be worth holding off for other, democratically-concerned issues.
This is the price of the romantic position, you see. The people have spoken, though so has the heart. God damn the people.
God save the People.
The only thing these recent court decisions mean is that the long road to legislative verification is now underway (where it should have been a long time ago). There is even judicial verification that can still be accomplished while working the way there if we have the imagination and determination to take those steps.
On July 4th, 1776, we declared independence based on life, liberty and the persuit of happiness - and set the world on fire so brightly that sometimes we have trouble catching up. We have chosen not live under the benign philosopher-despot of perfection, but the historical messiness that is Republican Democracy. Our founders gave us plenty of tools to advance ourselves, but like the double edged blade, sometimes they can hold us back for a time.
Right now the other side of this one has the hearts and minds of the majority. That don't mean they keep it forever.
"Nice writing, Charles. I find it a shame that America proclaims itself the land of the free when it is quite obvious there are many places I can go where people have more/different kinds of freedom than we do in America."
Well, this really isn't that surprising, Ned, given that "freedom" is such a nebulous concept that is subject to many different conceptions and "angles." There are many different kinds of freedom, so it should not be a surprise that some of those kinds are realized in some countries more than others. If being the "land of the free" means that the U.S. has to contain every conceivable kind of freedom, then we would have a hopeless mess on our hands. Because many kinds of freedom are actually mutually contadictory. For example, so-called positive freedoms to have a certain quality or kind of life conflict with the more traditional "negative" freedoms to be able to do whatever you want apart from outside coercive interference. This is what lies behind most political debates in the western world, such as the health care debate, where those who want to universalize health care argue that the higher quality of life that good extensive health coverage provides is a "right" that all people should have. But this conflicts most definitely with older notions of rights or freedom, wherein people are thought to be free to do what they want with their own stuff. Because if I have a "right" or a "freedom" to have adequate health care provided to me even if I cannot afford it on my own, then that means that you are being forced to pay for it out of your own pocket. Which is clearly a curtailment of your own freedom. Etc. etc.
So, the idea that any country, U.S. or other, could somehow give all of its citizens every kind of freedom seems non-sensical.
LIVE FROM CHICAGOOOOO, IT'S SATURDAY NIGHT RUSSSSS!
Look at Charles and Xon coming out of hiding and bein' all commenty on the bloggy blog. Where the heck have you guys been?
I just wanted to say that I agree with Jmac on the Keifer issue. Looking surly and grimacing are good, but not Emmy worthy. I love that freakin' show, too, but...
Is Hugh Laurie up for the Emmy? Cuz that's my vote, right there.
I mean, when he auditioned for the part, the show's director actually launched into a speech about why "this is why it's good to stick with an American actor, because nobody could do it as well as he just did it". But, of course, Laurie is British.
People who could believe in any way that Hugh Laurie is even vaguely American are morons. This is not a comment on the show. It looks amusing. Just a comment on his accent. Perhaps they have only heard of British people but not actually heard them.
Post a Comment
<< Home