Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Landslide


Now the hard work begins. Can Rubin do a better job than Paulson? We're about to find out...

55 comments :

Anonymous said...

Almost ANYBODY can do a better job that the crew who didn't see it coming for the first 6 years...


Sippn

Max said...

No doubt.

Sold in '05 said...

We'll see. I didn't hear SENATOR Obama ringing the alarm bells either for the last 6 years. Is he any smarter today as president elect?

Because the government is NOT the solution to our current economic problems the more important question is: now that they know their backstop will expire in two months, how long will Israel wait before attacking Iran? My bet would be within the next week...

Max said...

Is he any smarter today as president elect?

Well, at least we no have a President that can make complete sentences. Yes, my expectations have fallen that low.

No way there's an Iranian attack in the foreseeable future. The Israeli government is in chaos, and the Iranians are in the process of getting rid of Ahmadinejad. There's a lot going on, but war isn't part of it.

Anonymous said...

I hope its not Rubin. Best thing about Obama is he listens. His economic team, Austin Goolsbee and Richard Thayler, are from the chicago school. They are techno geeks not so interested in reaffirming a prior democratic legacy (the way Rubin would be), but in making things work.

My hope is he taps someone affiliated with the Chicago school to run it.

Anonymous said...

Neither did Rubin, in fact he was part of the problem.... but watching from the sidelines over the past 8 years, he won't have to take ownership like Ben and Hen...

Max, its funny how we measure someone's smarts by how they fumble words...even though he's a Yale grad.... of course I'm no longer impressed with the whole Ivy League thang... loved the quip by the retired hedge fund guy!

Ben and Hen seem to be suffering from the same problem... listening to their fellow alumni screaming from the trading trenches.

Sold in '05 said...

Complete sentences are only guaranteed if barry is using a teleprompter. Um... Uhhh... I guess it's proof that he can read. At least we know that much about him.

"No way there's an Iranian attack in the foreseeable future. The Israeli government is in chaos, and the Iranians are in the process of getting rid of Ahmadinejad. There's a lot going on, but war isn't part of it."

An attack is unavoidable. If they can't do it, Bush will. This is the LAST chance to stop them from obtaining the bomb and disarray or not, Israel knows that it will not survive an Iranian bomb. If you think it is Ahmadinejad pushing the development of it you are mistaken, he is only the front man for even more fanatical and meticulous men.

Additionally, by pursuing uranium enrichment and bomb design, they are certain to have functional devices, unlike the Korean's plutonium design (my nuke engineering degree is useful once every ten years). Their bomb will not fizzle and they will rapidly be able to produce a small stockpile of functional weapons that would be sufficient to decimate a small country like Israel.

What are the other options?

Deflationary Jane said...

Max,

The voter turn out was out-freaking-standing! I'm a very happy girl today (with the exception of prop 8- grrrr).

I was hoping to see Thomas Steyer in the line up. We'll see.

patient renter said...

My hope is he taps someone affiliated with the Chicago school to run it.

A lot of our current economic turmoil is the result of Keynesian policies, the sort of which are supported by the Chicago school. More Keynesianism is not what we need. The only great suggestion coming from Friedman is that the Fed be abolished, but this is probably the only suggestion that would never be considered.

Israel knows that it will not survive an Iranian bomb...that would be sufficient to decimate a small country like Israel.

Israel has more than enough military power to defend itself. As for us, we have our own pressing issues to worry about, and Iran is not one of them.

patient renter said...

with the exception of prop 8- grrrr

I hadn't had a chance to look yet at these results yet... what a bunch of BS. I was under the impression that Californians weren't so easily swayed by brightly colored signs. Guess I was wrong.

I'm a very happy girl today

Wish I could say the same.

I was following several races involving pro-liberty candidates, and pretty much all of them lost. Our very best pro-liberty candidate was defeated by a terrible incumbent, though the incumbent was a Democrat so apparently it was a party line vote requiring no intelligent thought for the suckers in that district. I also viewed prop 8 as an issue concerning personal liberty. So overall, I'm not too happy.

patient renter said...

Pretty funny comment from Dean Baker this morning:

I saw Andrea Mitchell tonight talking about who President Obama will turn to for help in dealing with the financial crisis. The first two names were at the top of the list of people who gave us the financial crisis: Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. This would be a bit like turning to Osama Bin Laden for aid in the war on terrorism.

Bryan said...

Well I was happy overall, as well. Given civil unions and all attendant rights, I didn't view Prop 8 as reducing personal liberty, which I am also a believer in. I felt that the proponents of same-sex marriage were asking more for others (through the state) to condone and bless their marriages (with the title of 'marriage') than for the right to DO any particular thing which they already could do.

For what it's worth. Certainly don't want, here, to go too far afield on that topic...

Bryan said...

Hey I think Osama bin Laden could probably offer a unique perspective on finding and dealing with terrorists...

patient renter said...

I felt that the proponents of same-sex marriage were asking more for others (through the state) to condone and bless their marriages (with the title of 'marriage')

This is a complete misinterpretation of the proposition. It had nothing to do with conding anything. It had everything to do with revoking existing rights.

than for the right to DO any particular thing which they already could do

"Already could do" exists no more, as those rights have been revoked through passage of this prop.

siflsockpuppet said...

I think too many drank the koolaid against Prop 8. Sure, it revoked a right - one that had been granted only six months earlier. Prior to that, the people of California overwhelmingly approved a law with the exact same wording as Prop 8. All that has happened is the wording will move from the law books to the state constitution. Why should the people be expected to vote differently this time?

patient renter said...

I think too many drank the koolaid against Prop 8

Uh huh... and what flavor of koolaid was that?

Why should the people be expected to vote differently this time?

This is like asking why people or their representatives should ever vote differently on anything, and assumes morality is a constant.

Ironically, the coalition of religious groups who formed to support prop 8 are among the same groups who at one point would not allow blacks in their churches or as church officials, did not support the right of blacks to be free, of women or blacks to vote, etc.

"Morality" is a moving target, and the groups who backed prop 8 historically have been on the trailing end of recognizing "moral" changes. It seems, as you said, that this time is no different.

siflsockpuppet said...

Your straw man argument is weak. This is not the same as denying people entry into church, or the right to vote, and so on.

siflsockpuppet said...

Here's what I DO believe. I believe this is an issue that will never be settled to everyone's satisfaction. I believe that making something legal does not end discrimination or change the opinion of people who firmly believe one way or the other. I also believe in the slippery slope argument. I believe that this is an attempt is to drastically change the historical meaning of the word "marriage", and that the next group who feels they are on the wrong side of the dividing line will come forth and demand their equal rights. Why not allow marriage between closely related men and women? Why not allow a marriage between one man and two women (or the other way around)? Who are we to say what consenting group of adults should not benefit from the legal protections and advantages of marriage? The argument that works for gay marriage works for all of these. If you are disgusted by my comparison, then you are just as prejudiced against that group as you accuse the religious right of being against homosexual marriage.

DrDoom said...

If you rank the props by % approval California supports

Homes for Vets
Freedom for Chickens
Care for Kids

That's the California I know!

Max said...

If you are disgusted by my comparison, then you are just as prejudiced against that group as you accuse the religious right of being against homosexual marriage.

I'll add some gasoline to this fire. Why should the government dictate anything about marriage one way or the other? I say, no special rights for anybody. Married, single, kids, childless, gay, straight, polygymous, whatever.

Darth Toll said...

Personally, I hope Obama does a good job, but I doubt he'll be allowed to finish his first term. The bankster pigmen will see to it that any good ideas Obama has will get squashed, and if Obama really tries to implement anything too helpful, he will meet the same fate as JFK.

Biden is the bankster shill plant, same as LBJ was, imho. So if Obama steps out of line, he will get his face on the half-dollar, and Joe "credit card" Biden will be pres, and will work congress like a piano, same as LBJ. Probably the pigmen banksters will blame the hit on some racist hillbilly nut along the lines of Timothy McVay or Oswald, but they will have ordered the hit themselves.

When you can print your own money, you can buy any hitman or politician that is required. That's why I wrote-in Ron Paul. He was the only candidate that favored shutting down the illegal bankster monopoly (Federal Reserve) and not coincidentally, this was also proposed by JFK.

patient renter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
patient renter said...

If you are disgusted by my comparison

I'm not, as I believe in individual freedom so long as it does not impede on the freedom of others.

Who are we to say what consenting group of adults should not benefit from the legal protections and advantages of marriage?

Now you're catching on.

Anonymous said...

You'all think the voters were thinking about issues.... when really the pro prop 8 vote might just come down to voting against the antagonistic statements televised of the mayor of SF.


Just like the whiny school teacher ads reminded me of our weak mayor...(to be formerly)



Funny driving by the corners with pro and con prop 8 - "Big Love" on one corner, "Haight Ashbury" on the other it was hard to find my peeps to identify with.

Sippn

Deflationary Jane said...

Max and PR - I'm right there with you. The yes on 8 radio ad campaign disgusted me beyond belief. I was reminded of something a down&dirty activitist friend of mine said about the anti-sodomy laws in the south back in my youth: "doesn't that just make you want to go b***f*** in the streets of Georgia?"

Max said...

Funny driving by the corners with pro and con prop 8 - "Big Love" on one corner, "Haight Ashbury" on the other it was hard to find my peeps to identify with.

I was wondering why all the little kids were on the "Yes on 8" corners during school hours, until I realized: home schooled. Today's lesson: "Christian" values.

The anti-8 people underestimated their foes. The few I saw were flashing peace signs and were dressed like a father's worst nightmare.

Politics is an a-moral exercise, and it's 90% appearances.

The yes on 8 radio ad campaign disgusted me beyond belief.

The whole campaign had a Nazi Party vibe. There was actually a 10-11 year old kid with a sign that said "Yes on 8 = Less Government." WTF? I almost took a picture, but I didn't want to exploit the kid any more than he already was.

I'm so glad this election is over.

Rich said...

I also saw a sign equating Yes on 8 to free speech. I really wanted to ask but didn't have a chance.

I think the government should provide contracts to consenting adults, and if people want to get married, they can go to a church that will do it. If a church doesn't want to, they don't have to.

My personal disgust high was reached with the Yes on 8 ad that featured the kids going on the field trip to their teacher's wedding. All those kids had parental consent. What didn't have parental consent was the use of that girl's image in both print and on TV. Talk about hypocrisy.

Oh, and why is it we can change our state constitution with a simple majority?

patient renter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
patient renter said...

My personal disgust high was reached with the Yes on 8 ad

The Yes on 8 ads most disgusting to me were the ones claiming that gay marriage will be taught to school children. My wife, as a public elementry school teacher, knows this is false. Teaching anything having to do with family is simply not in the curriculumn (and claiming otherwise didn't exactly win the favor of teachers who know better). Yet even after the State Superintendant of Schools discredited the ads, they still continued.

Quite decietful. I hope the hypocrisy of a "moral" victory based on deceit regarding an issue backed by religious groups is not lost on the supporters of 8.

Buying Time said...

I had the pleasure of being in SF/Berkeley on election night. The energy and emotion were just overwhelming.

There were mobs of people, honking, cheering, hugging strangers. With so much animosity leading up to the election, I was moved to tears at one point, to see the solidarity and experience the joy.

Although it was kinda sad seeing all the same sex couples watching the prop 8 returns.

Buying Time said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deflationary Jane said...

BT,

You have no idea how much I'm kicking myself for not making it into the city with you. Argh!

At one point, I was texting on IM, talking on both my cell and land line and shouting down the hallway to a neighbor that McCain was about to concede. I could hear people cheering in an odd version of stero >; )

It's probably just as well that I wasn't at the No on 8 headquarters. I would have spent the entire time trying to apologize for the majority of central valley citizenry.

Sold in '05 said...

All the cheering and hugs are understandable, after 8 years of non-stop, over the top hatred for W. the ‘bama win must have been almost an orgasmic relief for the left.

What now? Smoke a cig and pick someone new to hate or is it JFK Camelot and all is well with free love for everyone? How long will the post-coital glow last? Can the left stay motivated without a villain to hate? From the postings here, it sounds like anyone who supported Prop 8 will become a new W (“stupid, ignorant, dumb, ill-bred, dim, thick-witted, superstitious, unsophisticated, uneducated, undereducated, hillbilly bigots”). What about the 57 million who did not embrace the chosen one? The afterglow is a little different experience for many of them and there is no salve for their animosity. Will the Right do what is best for the country and rally around 'bama? Will they follow the dem’s example and take up station where the left has stood for the better part of the last decade: less than loyal opposition, seditious sniping at every turn, undermining public confidence, stirring class envy and privately cheering for the failure of the president / congress / county in all its endeavors at home and abroad. It WAS the easiest path back to power.

Who will benefit if this recession lasts three or four years and barry must ask Carter to write him a new Malaise speech? Who will benefit if two years from now Iraq and Afghanistan are in chaos? Russia takes back the Ukraine. A terrorist nuke goes off in Manhattan or San Fran? What actions will barry need to take to prevent these eventualities? How different will they be from W’s? There is a lot of downside potential for the party in power for the next two years and do not bet on the right feeling any obligation to help.

A VERY rough road lies ahead so enjoy the glow while it lasts.

Anonymous said...

sold in '05

well said!

Anonymous said...

DJ - its really no problem... I apologize for Davis all the time :)

Love it when somebody's so mad their comment gets deleted!

Sippn

Max said...

This post has been removed by the author

Those of you who aren't anonymous have the option of deleting your own comments.

Max said...

A VERY rough road lies ahead so enjoy the glow while it lasts.

Way to harsh my mellow, dude.

Deflationary Jane said...

'DJ - its really no problem... I apologize for Davis all the time :)'

LOL Sippin!
So do I; so do I >; )

Anonymous said...

Sold in 05 - lets not forget who got the hate machine going into overdrive. It was the right during the clinton administration.

I was one of their biggest champions standing there cheering the repubs on - man I hated Clinton - what a scoundrel!

In hindsight though what did it get us? Perhaps it got us the office back in 2000, but at what cost. Remember how W was a uniter not a divider?

Well unfortunately the dems didnt easlily forget what we did to clinton so they went after W full bore - tit for tat my man - tit for tat.

So here we are 16 years later - the score is tied 1-1. If we want the big hate machine to stop, its up to us, the minority party to be the bigger party and give Obama a break. Dont roll over on the guy, but dont try to intentionally subvert him either.

Hopefully, when we get our turn back at bat, the dems will be a bit more forgiving - the score stays tied 1-1 and life goes on!

patient renter said...

it sounds like anyone who supported Prop 8 will become a new W (stupid, ignorant, dumb, ill-bred...

Why do you think that?

Bryan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bryan said...

[Doh, shoulda proofread my stuff..]

Wow. Didn't mean to start stuff. I'm not for contending purely for the sake of antagonizing people. I will say, though, for the sake of not being a coward at least, that I believe that one's belief in what is ultimately right and wrong should prevail over inertia. I imagine that is the rationale for opposing Prop 8. But you may imagine that is also mine for supporting it. My classic American political gut reaction (and my lame desire to shrink from a fight) was to leave things well enough alone. But my sense that I was not standing up for what God would have me do, that I wasn't setting the example I'm supposed to...well I couldn't do that. Though I realize many people disagree. Just don't think it's because I HATE anyone. I don't. I respect both the opinions and the freedom of action of others. That doesn't mean I'll call their actions good if I don't think they are (no one should have to do that...as I know some people here will tell me to shove it), but I've no enmity for anyone. Given that no one's freedom of action is hindered (we're talking about a word after all) my sensibilities are unoffended. (Oh boy, but I can already feel yours flaring...sorry, seriously)

You might think us (and 52% of the rest of the state) misguided fools who have nothing better to do than oppress others because...I don't even know what it is I'd have to gain other than a strong understanding that this is what is right. Do I get a check for voting Yes? LOL. But it is good that we each take up the cause on either side, rather than sit by and say nothing.

I'm glad to have the dialogue. Not so glad to get called all the names I've been called in the last couple of months (especially from the "opponents of hate..."). But glad to talk about it.

patient renter said...

I respect ... the freedom of action of others

But only when that freedom of action is not contrary to your opinion?

Given that no one's freedom of action is hindered (we're talking about a word after all

Implying that marriage is just a word is utterly ridiculous. If it were only a word we wouldn't be having this discussion a there are rights associated with that word.

You seem to be trying to place freedom in some sort of box where it is only respected for things that qualify as "action", when really, freedom has no bounds.

Freedom is the ability to say or do or be anything so long as it does not restrict the freedom of others. Just because I might not like that people drive oversized vehicles does not mean I can prevent people from doing so without restricting their freedom. Likewise, just because you might not like the idea that homosexuals can marry, preventing them from doing so exemplifies the most elementary understanding of what it means to violate their freedom.

Darth Toll said...

All right you guys. May I suggest spending 5 minutes digesting some of the wisdoms of hypertiger?

http://hypertiger.blogspot.com/

This person has views similar to mine and now you may know what I mean when I say, "Diet Pepsi or Diet Coke, take your pick." Things like Yes on 8 or No on 8 or McCain or Obama - these are just distractions invented by the elite to keep your eyes off the ball and enable them to continue looting and pillaging while you slumber on your soma holiday. Hypertiger says "Ignorance of truth is the root of all evil".

Bryan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bryan said...

It is a word. And words are important as you correctly (I think) intuit. Otherwise, as I think you also prefectly perceive, why would I care? But they are words. Signs to signify things (or actions). Not actions. I don't believe, for instance, in anti-sodomy laws or any other law that prohibits what competent, consenting adults do inasmuch as they are not harming others. And I don't believe that God expects otherwise as regards laws.

But here's where I must make my disclaimer, and where I suppose we must regretfully (because I hate to disagree with a personality I like...even an Internet one) intellectually part. I believe that God has a plan in this whole creation of his, and that a part of that is that gender is a essential aspect of the being of his children, and that marriage between a man and woman is one step on the path to the destiny he has in mind for them. I've no qualm with people who believe otherwise. But being that I believe that, and believing that God expects that I not "set my light under a bushel" but up where it can be seen, as it were, I've stood up for what I understand to be the meaning of the term 'marriage', as God instituted it.

So, back the initial distinction as between words and actions. While I don't think we need laws which prohibit people from doing as they please, I don't think that means I need to call any or all of their relationships marriage. In our society (unlike say, in the Roman legal system...which is a favorite topic of mine) marriage is a state institution, in addition to whatever religious character it may have with any given coupling. And in a government "by the people" the government is ostensibly to reflect the voice of the people (rather than say a monarch).

The very constitutions that we erect in order to check, to an extent, "the tyranny of the majority" are put there by the majority. The electorate, in other words, has some decisions to make. Will it call X a "marriage"? Or will it not? And everyone has a say. If I don't think X is something I believe should be called marriage then I won't vote for it. I'm not saying abridge someone's right of action. But I am saying I won't voluntarily grant them the right to force me (one little unit in the government by the people) to call something by a name that I don't think it should have. Yes, I'm saying I don't agree with such "marriages." I'm not saying I don't like the people that want to enter into them, or that I hate them, or anything like that. I accept their friendship on the same basis as anyone else. I can imagine some think I'm the spawn of the devil or Hitler or whatever. But I'm just one guy standing up for what I believe in, and I'm glad others (on both sides) have done the same.

Patient Renter, I hear what you're saying. For my part, I don't think you sound absurd. I disagree, yes, but your reasoning seems fine. We disagree, that I can see, more on a level of fundamental assumptions, like anyone with different beliefs or religions. I am evidently, in your eyes an imbecile of the most reprehensible kind. My words might seem unbearably "elementary" and "ridiculous," but I nevertheless retain my beliefs unabashedly. That you should do the same (where both of us retain an open and active mind) gives me hope and makes me love this country, even when there is some discord.

Reposte, if you want to, but realizing we're probably not going to dislodge each others thinking on this, let me just leave it on a friendly note: I'd shake hands with you if you were here to shake hands with. Having one's thoughts challenged, whatever the outcome, is always good. Thanks.

Deflationary Jane said...

Sorry Bryan. PR is absolutely correct. If marriage is just a word then why the push back? Because is does mean something even to you.

Bryan said...

Right, that's what I'm saying. It does mean something to me. I may not have punctuated that clearly enough in the intro. It is a word, not an action, BUT words and what we call things, especially important things, ARE important. Calling African-Americans the N-word, or Latinos (of which I hail) "spics" (sp?) or what have you is nasty because--in addition to being mean-spirited--it perpetuates a connection of ideas which is unsavory to a certain set of people (luckily in our day, this is most people): that African-American is bad, or that Latino is bad, merely for being such. It's the whole Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

Words are important. Which--given my belief, an explanation of which I'll not tax your patience with again--is why I voted Yes on 8. And you voted No. And it's all good. Even if Prop 8 had failed, I did what I understood to be right, and would have been satisfied with having voiced my opinion among the many. I don't have a problem with people voting otherwise if it's what they think is right.

patient renter said...

While I don't think we need laws which prohibit people from doing as they please, I don't think that means I need to call any or all of their relationships marriage.

You say that we don't need a law prohibiting people from doing as they please, yet that is exactly what prop 8 did.

Unfortunately this prop had nothing to do with the terminology of gay marriage (or whatever you might prefer to call it). If your sole concern was terminology, perhaps you could have supported a new prop to change that.

If I don't think X is something I believe should be called marriage then I won't vote for it.

Following this logic I might be inclined to vote against the "No Killing the Elderly Act" because I'd rather the elderly be referred to as senior citizens.

Bryan said...

Ok. I think you may have exceeded the capacity of my shabby intellect to establish the congruity of those comparisons, but ok. I'm enjoying the conversation. :)

If I'm perceiving you correctly though, I think you may have (please don't take this amiss) too narrowly construed that one sentence of mine. If your purpose is merely to discredit me at any cost, then that can be a fruitful strategy. But if you're trying to understand my thinking on this, as an excersize--as I've grappled with yours--that's not quite it.

Maybe a better illustration would be any situation in which a word which has had a specific meaning with reference to something which is considered by some to be a special set-apart thing--is being proposed for redefinition to include things which would not be considered in that category by that set of people. They would object and not be for that. Or so I would expect. Those that disagreed would voice otherwise.

Given my beliefs, it's like labelling boiling hot water "cold water." The results would be bad, in my opinion. Even if there are people who believe that what I think is boiling water is actually innocuous cold water, inasmuch as I don't agree, I'll continue to contend that the boiling water not receive the cold water label.

There it is. I respect your point of view, and hope I haven't demeaned it or you (aside from just disagreeing). I've worried sometimes in this whole to-do that people (perhaps on both sides) have started to take issue with people even thinking different than themselves. This makes them "bigots" and "hatemongers" etc. I think that's too bad.

And I'm not for killing old people. Whatever they want to call themselves. ;)

patient renter said...

Given my beliefs, it's like labelling boiling hot water "cold water." The results would be bad, in my opinion.

Fair enough.

But I guess what you have to consider is whether or not the negative effects of what you see as a mislabeling outweigh the negative effects of taking away very real freedoms that come along with the label. Is it a worthy trade-off?

As with my example above, winning the satisfaction of not having senior citizens be referred to as elderly at the expense of robbing them of their right to live is a pretty poor trade-off. Likewise, winning the satisfaction of not having the legal union of gay couples be referred to as marriage at the expense of robbing them of all the rights granted therein is a pretty poor trade-off.

Bryan said...

First of all, getting "Fair enough" from you was like getting an A in a law school class: gratifying and acquired only at pains. Thanks.

I really think you've hit the rub of it. We've reached that spot at the bottom of arguments where some set of undergirding values and assumptions must taken as given for the rest to be meaningful. Until opponents hit that place (which I think you just did), the arguments just seem crazy to those that have a different set of those underlying values/assumptions. This is exciting! At least by way of creating understanding, if not concord.

Is it a worthy trade-off? (Here it comes!)

If your values/assumptions aren't the same as mine, we'll come up with separate answers. There's the flash point.

If one believes (1) those things which I previously professed (i.e. that God has a plan, that the plan, on an eternal scale, involves marriages between a man and woman, and that anything to be done to promote that is therefore good) and (2) that the way society talks about things influences behavior (the whole "words are important" thing), then the trade-off does seem good. There are at least some individuals in the middle of the spectrum who, undeceived, will be able to choose the right (as I understand it; I know, I know: many disagree) and therefore have access to huge things. And the trade-off is that there will be some pretty major hurt feelings in California. Yeah, my values suggest that the pay-off exceeds the negative (and I acknowledge there's a negative).

The fact that in terms of rights of action and government response (to see partners in hospitals, distribution of property at divorce, etc, the usual marital rights) these are largely available under civil unions (please correct me if I'm wrong) further mitigates it for me. Though--to save you time--I place a level of importance on this that I would be for Prop 8 with or without civil unions. I really don't like people suffering, in the long-term or the short. Here, I'm taking my values/assumptions and banking on the long-term. I feel I have an obligation to ease the suffering and accommodate the happiness of my fellow man (and woman), but I have to take in my full understanding (as must we all, I suppose) of what that means in determining those actions I'm going to take in that pursuit.

If, on the other hand, you don't share that set of values/assumptions, then it makes perfect sense that you might oppose a same-sex marriage ban to the Nth degree. Why should anyone be "left out in the cold" as it were, or be made to feel as if their relationships are less valid than anyone elses? Etc. That's perfectly sound...if you don't believe otherwise (as outlined above), and feel that nothing else is at stake but the invalid feelings of backward crazy Central Valley rednecks. In that light, I can see why the only benefit I can be seen to have achieved is to the have "satisfaction" of denying same-sex couples the "marriage" moniker (and I laugh maniacly and twirl my mustache). I'm aiming at something more than my personal gratification. I'm neither scared of nor find homosexual relationships "icky." I just believe there's larger things at stake. And there it is.

Deflationary Jane said...

PR,
You have far more patience then me. When someone pops the g-word, my eyes glaze over and all I hear is blah blah blah afterwards.

In other news, did I hear rightly that Vokler's name was being mentioned?

Bryan said...

Values and assumptions, DJ. How can I answer the question without answering it? Thanks for you own patience.

patient renter said...

In other news, did I hear rightly that Vokler's name was being mentioned?

Eh, yea.

Though certainly much better than Paulson, I think I'm getting too cynical nowadays and look more for the bad in this than the good.

He was the head of our central economic planning banking cartel thing. While he may have been better than others at heading up the cartel, it's still not something winning much respect from myself.