March 2004
Greetings from
The PublisherRole Reversal; & If not Now,
just when do we get upset?I thought for a moment I had shifted into
an alternate reality. There on page one of USA Today was, "Bush backs gay-marriage ban."Under a picture of the President was the quote "Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all." Well, except for gays, of course. This must be his version of it's "for their own good" applied to relationships.
Under Sen. John Kerry's photo was, "I believe the issue of marriage should be left to the States."
So here's a liberal Democrat waving a State's rights banner and a conservative Republican wanting a federal mandate for a national one-size-fits-all policy. Talk about role reversal!
Personally I've always thought the government should not force laws on us that they aren't willing to abide by themselves. They normally exempt themselves from labor laws, etc., that they consider too much trouble for them to follow, but want the rest us to adhere to. Wouldn't we all like their health care plan?
Role reversal appears okay when it comes to political philosophy, just not relationships. They can do it, gays can't.
In truth, of course, it's not role reversal as much as it is roles reversed from what some think is the only right way.
It's a good thing Republicans are not into social engineering or we might be debating arranged marriages. Perhaps it will be part of Patriot Act 2.
Digressing for a moment, did you see the TV documentary titled Wired for Sex ? A copy was sent to me so I don't know whom to credit for it (other than Marlene). I'm not sure if it was The Learning Channel or not, but it was a learning experience.
The show looked at dating in Japan. It used to be that marriages and introductions were arranged by third-parties. Since not many people want to handle introductions now, they have turned to technology.
The woman in the feature submitted a profile of herself and the person she wanted to meet onto the internet. While at the mall shoppinga farfetched example, but it was the one they usedher cell phone rang. In Japan cell phones are normally connectedto the internet. The computerized call informed her that someone who matched her profile was shopping a few doors away and asked her if she wanted to meet him. Even though they were only minutes away from getting together, she was able to run a cellular background check on the guy before they met.
It takes some of the mystery out of it, and with some mysteriesconvictions, etc.that might be good.
Still, I don't know. I like getting a sense of someone live and in person without projecting too many ideas of what they are like in advance. I have enough trouble with making projections already. In Japan, technology has solved the problem of not having enough people to arrange introductions, and marriages are no longer arranged.
In this country we shouldn't have that problem. The perfect solution would be to give the arranging job to those who care the most about who gets together with whom. The churches of the Religious Right would probably be glad to volunteer to do the counseling and arranging. Who knows, while they're at it we might even consider a few genetic criteria and improve the race at the same time.
Then again, volunteer might be the wrong word. Look at the companies/contractors involved in the Iraq war. By involved, of course, I mean in the sense of benefiting financially, not personally sacrificing. With the largest political contributors to the President getting a return on their investment (campaign contributions), why should the Religious Right be left out? I have to think they would love to offer their guidance. It may be their perfect niche. Consider it part of the job-creation plan.
We won't know for sure whether this is the proper role for them, of course, until we get the final word from our Original Maker. Maybe we could wait until those religious leaders pass over, then have them ask and let us know. Well, maybe not, some claim that ability now.
I admit I'm naive about some things. I had the thought that once the President agreed there were no WMDs, they'd say "oops, never mind" and bring the troops back home.
There seems to be a lot more on the agenda, which we now know was planned long before 9/11. As mentioned in previous columns, the best we can honestly hope for is to get down to the suicide-bomber type terrorism that has existed in Israel for half a century. To stop that would mean controlling every single person there. I'm concerned that we have a government that thinks it has the tools to do that.
Kill someone's parentsinnocent or not, intentionally or notand those kids grow up and remember. We've all seen that cowboy/Bronson movie, haven't we? In Iraq it only takes an accident to give a hopeless person a sense of purpose, and today one person can cause so much pain.
It fascinates me when the world provides a clear example of how energy works. Too much energy pushed in one direction, for instance, tends to create a like force from the opposite direction. At some point some great sage must have likened the world to jello or a water balloon. Squeeze too hard in one place and it leaks out somewhere else.
The group of avengers I just described as emerging already exists in this country. They cannot be written off as left-wing radicals and fortunately what they are afterwith a vengeanceis discovering the truth about 9/11. They are the families of the victims of 9/11the families of policemen, firemen and others. The Family Steering Committee (FSC) is passionately following the actions of the 9/11 Commission. They alone cause a fuss when the President promises the 9/11 Commission meeting transcripts and then substitutes an edited synopsis instead. They constantly challenge and embarrass the Administration. Their objections are far too many to get into here. See www.-unansweredquestions.org for more. They have taken over for the MIA media watchdogs, and don't appear willing to back down like the AARP did.Unanswered questions remain for us/US.
The focus on the war and flow of public money to the previously mentioned corporations has all but destroyed many social programs. Public opinion would never have allowed these programs to be voted out, but coming through the back door has worked. Now, the Fed's Greenspan wants to cut social security benefits and Medicare to make up for deficits. Tax cuts and the war appear untouchable, so far.
Other unanswered questions:
When will we recognize that money for the war/rebuilding Iraq means a Marshall Plan for the President's biggest contributors? Iraq now gets to experience trickle down rebuilding. The most predictable result is that the companies who are benefiting will benefit enough to make substantial political contributions to the candidates of their choice. Guess who? ENRON execs must really be gnashing their teeth for imploding before getting in on this one.
Has there ever been a time in history when the V-P so benefited his "previous" employer by promoting a war?
Can we really rationalize that we needed to go to war anyway and say it's okay for a president to manipulate us into a war that costs American lives? If so, what can't he lie about? Anything? Is there a deceit greater than one that costs American lives? Yes, one that continues to.
If we don't object, we are saying we allow it. It's time to objector be outraged. The media needs to know we want to hear more about this.
Have an objectionable month,
Steve Hays
BACK TO TOP
HOME - FEATURES - NEWS - FROM THE PUBLISHER
LETTERS - COLUMNS - MUSIC REVIEWS - BOOK REVIEWS
PLANETARY CYCLES - CALENDAR - ABOUT TLC - CONTACT US
CLASSIFIEDS - RESOURCE DIRECTORY
ARCHIVES - SUBSCRIBE - ADVERTISE - SEARCH
