evolution

i think one passes a milestone in one’s life when that one thinks to oneself: “you know, c-span is pretty cool.”

this post will be my first, and hopefully my last, on the topic of gay marriage/unions. i don’t feel threatened by gay marriage in the least. nor does it infringe upon my desire to marry a woman, raise some kids, and have a good, strong family. if a adult male wants to marry an adult male, if an adult female wants to marry an adult female – they won’t get any reaction out of me.

that’s not what bothers me about this issue. i notice that nearly 2 out of 3 people oppose gay marriage either wholly or in part. what bothers me is that america’s system of “majority rules” is being eroded. a minority of americans, of which i am a part, either support this or don’t care (with me being one of the latter). but a minority of americans may yet have their way by intimidating the majority using our activist judiciary, who have taken it upon themselves to make up laws and rights i never knew existed, and could not possibly read in the constitution. that is what bothers me most of all.

so here’s my position in summary – i don’t care if gays want to marry each other, unless one of them wants to marry me. i find this idea revolting, which is why i don’t plan to do it, and i don’t plan to encourage my kids to do it. i oppose the president’s amendment (even though i still plan to vote for him). i don’t think this issue rises to that level. i think that the best solution to this issue is to let the individual states decide for themselves what marriage means, with the results not being binding in any other state. this way, states like california and massachusetts, where the opposition is just north of even money against can knock themselves out, and states like my own (kansas), where the ratio is probably more like 3:1 against, can likewise knock themselves out.

i predict this constitutional amendment will be a lot like prohibition was in the 1920s: popular with a certain set, unpopular with another, and twenty-five years later or so, a large group of people will decide it was a mistake and ask to have it repealed.

i turned on meet the press yesterday morning just in time to see ralph nader tell tim russert that he’s going to run for president.

i disagree with ralph nader on most major issues, but i say “good for you, ralph”. and shame on those people who tried to keep him out. he should be included in the “debates” (which are really more like joint press conferences), as well.

why? even though i disagree with nader and would never vote for him for president, i don’t think he should be excluded from the process because if he were, what would stop the two corporate parties from excluding an independent candidate with whom i sympathized? where does that end?

mr. president and sen. kerry (presuming he’s the dems’ guy), have some class. you know nader isn’t going to beat either one of you. let him participate.

israel is criticized when it defends itself against palestinian gunmen, terrorists, and murderers by using force, and it is criticized when it wants to use a barrier to try to stop the violence.

sometimes i think international organizations like the u.n. and these international “courts” are just tools for western europe and the middle east to find a new way to finish the job they started – to wipe out jews everywhere.

i had a solution (an admittedly non-feasible one) to this problem – or so i thought. what if all the jews in israel were given, say, one or all of the aleutian islands, or some other equally remote territory? would this save them from the western europe/middle east war of extermination against them?

the answer i came to is: probabaly not. overnight alaska would become the world leader in bus bombings on its soil. i think we all know what the common denominator in this problem is. only thing is, no one has the guts to admit it.

i found the following flyer posted on the bulletin board here in the purdue math department:

[5" picture of the man named below]

The purpose of this flyer is to inform you that Mr. [name withheld] owes his wife $3,000 in alimony and has refused to pay a cent.

here’s another story about my favorite lefty fringe group.

apparently, we should apologize to everyone for removing saddam hussein from power.

fine. a number of apologies are in order. i apologize, on behalf of the united states of america, to the following persons:

• old europe: my bad. you really got hosed. saddam owed you billions for all the things he wanted to use to kill our soldiers. i’m sorry your proxy war didn’t go so well. this includes most of the citizens of britain, the majority of whom are cut from the same radical-left, welfare-state-dependent, moral-equivalence cloth as most of the other denizens of old europe, and the majority of whom have turned on the only man on the whole continent with a moral bone in his body, tony blair.
• the american left: i’m sorry you got revealed for the america-hating, craven cowards that you really are. i don’t like it when americans fight against other americans, but i’m not going to back down from you.
• “islamic militants”: sorry for trying to help people figure out what you really are. but most people still haven’t yet.

i hoppe you will accept these apologies. these, together with a dollar, will get you a root beer at the Coke machine.