Update no.265

Update from the Heartland

No.265

1.1.07 – 7.1.07

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
Whether you support the Battle for Iraq or not, I urge you to watch a CNN special report titled “Ambush at the River of Secrets,” broadcast on Andersen Cooper 360°, 2.January.2007. The story presents a saga, neither for nor against our involvement in Iraq, about the young men who do their duty in service to the Nation and freedom-loving people everywhere. While the entire story has emotional impact, the final segment brings the deep poignancy to a razor sharp point. A mother who had lost her son choked back her tears as she hoped that someday just one Iraqi citizen shakes her hand and says, thank you. A very powerful story and a must-see for all human beings who truly love peace and freedom. We are blessed to have such patriots.

What would we do in the United States if a cleric like Reverend Pat Robertson or Reverend Jesse Jackson led an armed militia of killing squads that terrorized Baptist citizens in various city neighborhoods? That was a rhetorical question. The FBI would infiltrate, develop the requisite body of evidence, put them on trial, convict them, and we would ensure the proper punishment was meted out. Why is Mullah Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr still allowed to spew his vitriol with impunity? Al-Sadr and his followers caused significant problems early on during the aftermath. An arrest warrant was issued for Muqtada by the Coalition Provisional Authority that was not executed. [141-4] As far as I know that warrant is still open. His militia continues to assassinate, murder and terrorize Iraqi Sunnis and rival factions, and worse yet they taunted a condemned dictator at what should have been a somber event. Clerics of all brands and variations are just human beings; they deserve no better or worse treatment than all the rest of us. Al-Sadr and his Mahdi Militia are not helping the cause of peace.

Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte abruptly resigned, to be nominated for the open position of deputy secretary of state . . . I suspect at the pleasure of the President . . . and was reported to be assigned the Iraqi diplomatic mission. While turmoil within the intelligence business is rarely good, especially in wartime, the appointment of Vice Admiral John Michael McConnell, USN (Ret.), former director of the National Security Agency (1992-6), bodes well for the transition. Director of the Central Intelligence Agency General Mike Hayden, USAF, [230] and Mike McConnell share several common elements in their intelligence careers, and hopefully, they can seriously raise the bar of cooperation between the various segments of the American national intelligence system for the collective good.

The 110th Congress has begun. First order of business, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told the President that "it is time to bring the war to a close." I would have respected the two congressional leaders just a little more if they used the word "battle" instead of "war." Their statement is comparable to Parliament demanding Prime Minister Churchill end the war after the Battle of France, or Congress demanding the same of President Roosevelt after the Battle of Corrigedor. As if the Battle for Iraq and the War on Islamic Fascism are not ugly enough, the political foundation is going to get much uglier, and more warriors are going to die. Senators McCain and Lieberman have the proper message. We now enter a very sad period of our history.

I see more than coincidence in the mounting number of occasions when politicians, the Press and individual citizens in opinion columns make statements about the lack of any medical treatments coming from embryonic stem cell research as some kind of rationale for prohibiting the specialty research entirely. The notion seems to be quite popular with those opposed to this particular area of biological research. The argument is pressed forward by noting all the treatments derived from adult stem cell research. Like the Human Genome Project, embryonic stem cell research is about the science, not about economic or medical return. Further, as with any scientific endeavor, unimaginable returns will come in time . . . maybe ten years, maybe several generations. Does the lack of immediate economic return mean we should not pursue high potential but long duration scientific research?

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John M. Shalikashvili, USA (Ret.) [1994-7] wrote a New York Times Op-Ed article, "Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military," that offers a reasoned, rationale, and yet incomplete argument for a more realistic policy toward homosexuals in military service. The general worked his way through the Clinton administration's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy compromise. I wanted to see more of his reasoning especially regarding some of the practical aspects associated with lifting the ban on homosexuals in the military. Hopefully, we will see more in the near future.

In Wednesday's "Best of the Web Today," James Taranto drew attention to haggling in the Massachusetts Legislature over a series of votes to put a marriage protection amendment before the voters in 2008. Taranto concluded his paragraph with, "The resistance in Massachusetts to putting same-sex marriage to any sort of democratic test only reinforces the perception that its proponents have contempt for the consent of the governed." The truly sad part of Taranto's argument can be reflected in the context of woman's suffrage at the turn of the last century or the racial civil rights struggle of 50 years ago. If the majority wishes to discriminate against a segment of the citizenry for what is predominately a private behavior, then it must be acceptable. It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is for a willful majority to deny "equal protection under the laws." This debate continues the historic demonstration of how slow and painful societal change is . . . equally sad.

News flash: no one has claimed a constitutional right to marriage -- same gender or otherwise. The only claim non-heterosexual citizens have made was to "equal protection of the laws" for all citizens regardless of any of the social factors -- age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, language, or disability -- as guaranteed by the Constitution. Let us confine this debate to the facts and keep emotion out of the public intercourse.

Comments and contributions from Update no.264:
“Let's here it for Iraqi justice. They didn't wait 15 to 20 years to put Saddam to death, like we do with our scumbag death row inmates in this country. The UN, EU and NY Times may be upset Saddam has joined his two psychotic sons in the great beyond, but who gives a rat's ass what they think. Where was their outrage when those three wantonly murdered hundreds of thousands of their own people?
“I never in my life thought I'd say this, but I must give mucho props out to, of all people, Danny Bonaduce. The former Partridge kid was confronted by some numbnuts from a blog that accuses the U.S. of masterminding 9/11. Unlike other celebrities who parrot such bullcrap, Danny Boy lit into the guy. For a guy who's practically lived in rehab for the past 25 years, he made some damn good sense.
“Brittany Spears . . . oh my God I am so sick of hearing about her and Tomcat and Branjolina and all that other crap. I honestly cannot believe so many people are that interested in their lives. And the paparazzi make me want to vomit. Even celebrities are entitled to some privacy.”
My response:
You are not alone in your view of Saddam’s execution.
I had not heard of Danny Bonaduce’s interview, but I think you are quite correct in his crass expression of resentment of such ridiculous accusations . . . conspiracists gone wild.
I am certainly not a fan, proponent or supporter of Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, or any of the other untalented celebrities. And yet, I am an advocate for their right to privacy and the right to their pursuit of Happiness. I do not condone their actions, but I choose to ignore them. And, I publicly condemn those paparazzi parasites who feed off the weaknesses and impropriety of celebrities. If Britney feels better without panties, that should be her choice; she does not deserve having a camera jammed up her skirt no matter how much of a bimbo she might be.
On a related note, I am glad Angelina Jolie has the resources to adopt children around the world and fly off wherever she wishes to have a baby with Brad Pitt, but I see her actions as a very public indictment of our grossly fragmented, parochial, and grotesque adoption laws in the United States. I find it quite sad that we make adoption of children in need in this country so bloody difficult. But, that is how we are; we protect unworthy parents and make it nearly impossible to find homes for all innocent children with “worthy parents.” Such is life.

This contribution from another person:
"Bush Silences a Dangerous Witness" by Robert Parry (December 30, 2006)
<http://consortiumnews.com/2006/123006.html>
"Like a blue-blood version of a Mob family with global reach, the Bushes have eliminated one more key witness to the important historical events that led the U.S. military into a bloody stalemate in Iraq and pushed the Middle East to the brink of calamity."
My response:
Parry’s article reminds me of Yellow Journalism from a century ago – just enough facts to make it plausible. As with most human affairs, there are positives and negatives to every person and every situation; and, we always have choices to see what we wish to see.
I would quibble with numerous points in the Parry article, but that would only be my opinion. Let it suffice to say, I do not agree with the tone or content of the article. And yet, part of my thinking on the Saddam execution recognized that Saddam met his fate for one of his lesser crimes, but still sufficient to warrant execution for crimes against humanity. He was a mass murderer plain and simple. The U.S. relationship with Saddam Hussein spans every administration since Nixon, so singling out the Bush family hardly seems appropriate or fair. Nonetheless, the secrecy of the Bush 43 administration, while justifiable as a wartime measure, breeds suspicion especially after the debacle of the Nixon insults . . . and I did mean plural. All that said, the weakest part of Parry’s argument rest in the notion that Saddam might have or could have been compelled to spill his guts on the table for all to see; our inherent compassion as a society prevents us from compelling a man like Saddam to talk. Bottom line for me: I am glad we are rid of him; he met a far more humane fate than did the majority of his victims.
. . . with this follow-up:
"I think Parry was referring to Saddam talking in a court of law, not being tortured as we are now doing to prisoners that we interrogate. Thanks for reading the article, and I respectfully disagree with your take. I think the Yellow Journalism comment is really off the mark. Are you in favor of Bush going with the Keane/Kagan approach to the Iraq war, 30,000 or so more troops? If so doesn't this just prolong it so he can dump it on the next admin and say they lost it, not him?"
. . . and my follow-up response:
I’m sure Parry meant that as well, however I would have had no confidence Saddam would have admitted his culpability in court any more so than he did in public. In his trial, he was given far too much leniency in making ‘speeches,’ far beyond anything a U.S. judge would have tolerated. Further, I have no interest in giving Saddam another political stage from which to spew his vitriol. Anyway, the deed is done.
I appreciate your rejection of my Yellow Journalism comparison; we shall respectfully disagree.
No, I am not in favor of the Keane/Kagan approach . . . like a bucket of water on a conflagration. I am advocating 10 to 20 times that number of ground combat troops with a mission to secure and CONTROL the ground including the borders, along with a rather ruthless marital law in appropriate areas and cities.
Regardless, I too have doubts about our will to truly win the Battle of Iraq. And, if we truly do not have the will to win, then I fully support withdrawing our troops and leaving the Iraqis to bleed until they sort out their situation. My generation endured the bloodletting when the American People and the political establishment lost the will to win a fight; I have no interest in repeating that lesson ever again, and yet, here we are.
. . . and another round:
"I think Parry meant in future trials that might have been possible outside the Shiite controlled Occupation overseen trials that did occur. The business associations Saddam had with prominent Americans and the encouraging of his war with Iran and invasion of Kuwait will remain un-reviewed due to his demise. It was as Parry says a pretty good way to avoid some serious questioning. I think an international court would have been the place to have this done. You seem stuck in the mind-fog that Vietnam was a good war, and that perhaps this war is, or could have been a good war. With all due respect to your military background- I have not served in the military- I got a teaching deferment in 1971-I think the political lies (Gulf of Tonkin, Powell's embarrassment before the UN) were as responsible for these wars as any real patriotism or national security interest. The military industrial complex is a whale that no leader has been able to tame. It is a non-thinking force critical, now, to our economy, but in the end a force that will bankrupt us if we don't change ourselves from war-making, weapon building, non-productive foreign financed shortsightedness. I know how you feel about Islamofascism, or whatever you call it, but it is just another -ism like communism to justify our war machine. I love this country for what it could be- and what it stands for- not the war machine it has grown into since the Pentagon took over. The Battle of Iraq was an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, and those who fooled us into it should be held accountable. That is the American way."
. . . along with my reply:
Here is an odd thought for your critical cogitation. In a different thread, the question of perception and perspective became essential factors in the debate. I have long held the view that in our many choices in life, we have the opportunity to see the positive and/or the negative in any person or situation. So it seems to be here. We choose to see that which we wish to see.
I make no excuse for and offer no defense of Dwight Eisenhower’s illuminated military-industrial complex. But, I do know more than a few generals/admirals and a few politicians. They are men of integrity and conviction, and not particularly prone to capricious or avarice conduct. Further, they are of my generation and lived the consequences of Vietnam. To suggest these men took us to war to feed the military-industrial complex is fundamentally wrong and does extraordinary disservice to these honorable leaders.
For the record, those of us who served the Nation during the Vietnam years know quite well the failure. The purpose was noble, if perhaps naïve. The men and women who fought that war were committed to the noble purpose . . . at least the citizens I knew . . . excluding the Hollywood exaggerated proliferation of druggies and miscreants. As I have written numerous times, the military fought valiantly despite the shackles, gags, and blinders imposed by politicians half a world away. The military was abused, and we did not like. I do not see the same or even remotely similar factors in today’s conflict.
That said, the oddity in this debate is the negative view of the American purpose in contrast to the sanctity of Saddam’s Iraq. I have been and remain critical of the administration’s hobbles placed on the military and the apparent narrow path for execution of the plan. I could construct excuses, but I am but a single citizen who is not in the corridors of power; so, perhaps my opinion is irrelevant. However, I must object to the accusation of illegality in the Battle for Iraq. To do so discounts or negates the body of evidence as to Saddam’s culpability, his crimes against humanity, and his very real threat to the United States of America. I am not suggesting that Saddam is the modern day version of Adolf Hitler or Hideki Tojo, but he was comparably evil and threatening; he just chose to do his evil deeds via alternative means. Forgive me, but I am still not seeing the illegality ascribed to the Battle for Iraq.
. . . and this final round:
"Even the guys being charged of various crimes- murder, rape- (in the heat of warfare) I do not blame as much as the people who sent them over there- and that is where we differ-I do think the war was illegal- not simply because the UN and Kofi Anan said it- but because there was no reason- no threat to our national security- and especially no threat from the reasons given at the time- WMD, 911, etc. If I could come to that conclusion from the open source reading that was available to me at the time- 2002- I can not fathom how wise Congressmen could justify giving the carte blanche to Bush that they did. It was a travesty of American principles- in my mind. The only comparisons in history that are actually close are the invasion of Poland and the invasion of Kuwait. Not very good company- but I say this meaning to show how much contempt I hold for this admin and its war mongers- all chicken hawks- neocons-and I think un-American. I believe you feel that the threat was real. That is where we disagree. You are thinking that had we not acted then we would have had to act later and it would have been even tougher. I respect that opinion- but I disagree. - I am of the perception that the Gulf of Tonkin was a fabrication to justify a war in the East- to show force in the Cold War- The men and women who fought the war are not to be blamed- it is the old men in suits who send the young men to the "glory" of war that I disparage- The Lyndon Johnsons, the Dick Cheneys- not the soldiers. I don't think the American purpose in Iraq was noble. I think there has been an attempt to spin the effort and justify the sacrifice after not finding WMD by those who are responsible. We had inspectors there- Bush gave them 48 hours to get out before he was going to start bombing. We could have avoided this travesty. Now we have emboldened Iran. We have weakened our military. We have turned Iraq into a place that even our Iraqi friends wish Saddam was back in charge. Assuming the invasion was wrong- that it broke international laws, treaties, UN resolutions- doesn't that make the war a crime? We have allowed ourselves to stoop to disregarding habeas corpus- using torture, and I understand Bush has even given himself the right to read our mail-these things are what we fought wars in the past to stop. We fought totalitarian regimes to protect what we perceived as threats to our principles- our constitutional protections. If our leaders had said give us your sons and daughters to sacrifice in a cause to remove the evil dictator Saddam Hussein, would anyone have gone along? If they had said let us sacrifice our youth and treasure in an effort to control the largest deposits of oil on the earth, would anybody have gone along? Instead they said the evil dictator has the nukes and the mushroom clouds are on their way- so give up your money and your children to save our way of life. It worked- and it was a lie. I believe many at the highest levels knew it was a lie. They could not persuade the American people with debate and reason and facts, the foundations of a democracy, so they - Bush, Cheney, Rice, Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, and even Rumsfeld- had to use fear and hype. I am not hopeful that the Democrats are going to honor the electorate's mandate. I also think they may give in to Bush's bandaid- buying time to hand this mess over to another administration to blame for the loss. I agree with you that most men and women in uniform are noble people doing their duty and serving their country. Because this is America- because this is the land of the free and the home of the brave- it is everyman's duty to speak his mind- question his government- accuse his leaders of subterfuge, illegality, and contempt for our Constitution- Only Congress can declare war- if that is the way he sees it. To do any less would be un-American. It was Unconstitutional for Congress to vote away its power and put it in the hands of a single spoiled rich frat boy. Now we are paying the price. Please take no offense at my disagreement with you about the war- and I trust you know I mean no ill to our sons and daughters fathers and brothers, aunts and uncles, nephews and nieces who are bearing the brunt of this mistaken bush policy."
. . . and my response to this round:
Disagreement, debate, and compromise are the essence of democracy.
First, I know of no warrior who seeks to glorify war – quite the contrary actually. And yet, we who are of the warrior class do seek to glorify the warriors who stand in harm’s way in selfless service to this Grand Republic. Please do not confuse honoring the warriors with celebrating war. Every warrior will tell you that war is an ugly, nasty, disgusting business – best avoided if possible – but, what the warriors do is of the noblest endeavors.
You asked:
“Assuming the invasion was wrong – that it broke international laws, treaties, UN resolutions – doesn't that make the war a crime?”
Perhaps the question was rhetorical, as it is fraught with a myriad of presumptions. And yet, I cannot resist the urge to respond. This is one of those situations where I am left with a strong perception-perspective impression that somehow Iraq’s sovereignty is sacrosanct and the United States’ sovereignty is not. I can understand the confusion; this is not a war of armies or conventional battlefields. Concomitantly, Article 51 of the UN Charter clearly states that any nation has the right to defend itself. I continue to ask, what law – national, international or otherwise – has the United States and our Allies violated? The War Powers acts were constitutional – precisely in accordance with the Constitution; they were not far enough in my opinion. However, the President acted appropriately within the powers authorized by the Congress; that’s the way it is suppose to work.
I have joined you in being critical of the administration, Congress, and many others regarding the prosecution of this battle, but from a different perspective. Bush 43 should have sought a full declaration of war [but we’ve discussed the pitfalls there], should have recognized the inherent weakness in the aftermath portion of the plan, and should have done a better job of preparing the People for this battle and this war. Hindsight may eventually tell us we made a grave mistake in Iraq, but I respectfully submit, criticism should be in the prosecution, not the objective or mission. As I have said before, if I had to pick a battleground upon which to fight the War on Islamic Fascism, Iraq was it for a host of reasons.
One factor often overlooked in the War on Islamic Fascism remains the nature of our enemy. We are not fighting Iraq, Afghanistan or even al-Qaeda. We are fighting a broader class of Saudi Wahabists, Egyptian fundamentalists, mad clerics everywhere including the United States, Iranian agents, jihadistanis, and other radicals who share one common element – fascism, the domination of Islam over all people. Their brand of fascism is no different from the versions proclaimed by Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Hideki Tojo, Benito Mussolini, and all the other megalomaniacal madmen throughout history. The driving force behind radical Islamic fascism is centered upon religious beliefs rather than geography or political objectives. All brands seek the same thing – imposition of their rules, their beliefs, and their vision of life as they wish it to be.
We fight an enemy who has chosen to hide in the shadows, to hide their faces like cowards, to kill as many innocent people as possible with the tools of terror, to use innocent, peace-loving people to protect their dastardly deeds. They use the open communications of democracy and the financial networks of international commerce to further their violent objectives. This is not a conventional war; this is about as unconventional as wars can get.
I wish the President had done a better job explaining these things to the People, but alas, it is what it is. His failures and weaknesses do not alter the context of the war or our objectives. And, I believe we would have done a better job with more ‘constructive’ criticism rather than the selfishness of partisan political rancor.

The last contribution from last week's Update:
“A couple of other thoughts on the Episcopal Church in Virginia. It wasn't just the gay bishop, but also women in senior positions in the Church. When they first ordained a woman, this caused a number of parishioners from Trouro to leave and form their own congregation. Strong feelings about women in senior church positions, much less the clergy, combined with concerns over gays in the church have been the cause of strong concern by ultra-conservatives. There appears to be more to their agenda, but these issues were seized upon to create a crisis.”
My reply:
Truth be said, they are entitled to define their church however they see fit. I just find it sad when people become so bloody parochial -- sad, very sad. C'est la vie.

A continuation from Update no.263:
"I'm not a proponent of violating the law ever, unless, of course, that violation brings the law into court for review if the law is wrong. In the case of behavior versus public view, when we behave in public, we subject ourselves to public judgment and all the consequences that emerge. Enforcement of laws is the rule of law. I'm always bothered by who is deciding what is in the public good. Regardless, the germane concept is for people to know that what they do in public is going to be judged with consequences as well as what they do in private is their own business."
My response:
Here, here! I am an absolute supporter of the rule of law, without it we would have anarchy, chaos, and simple survival of the fittest. And yet, we have a fraction, in some cases a majority, of our citizenry who seek to use the instruments of State (the law) to project their moral values into the private lives of every citizen, and to impose their will upon anyone and everyone who does not ascribe to their views. That is not the Grand Republic envisioned by the Founders who risked everything including their lives and the lives of their families to establish a nation for every citizen to realize their vision of Life, Liberty and their pursuit of Happiness. As you note, I continue to struggle with the boundary between the public and private domains, and with the definition of the public good. I do not object to any citizen judging me as unworthy because of any of the social factors, but I shall vehemently resist any attempt by another citizen to dictate how I should live my private life or behave in public when there is no harm to the public good.
In the exchanges of last week, you said, “The gay debate is fraught with danger.” Would you be so kind to expand on this thought? What is the danger? What is the threat to the public good?
. . . with this follow-up:
"Like you I am also suspicious of anyone using their moral standard to regulate my private life and will resist any attempts to do so. The gay debate being fraught with danger centers around who is debating and where. For gays to be left alone in this current social climate, privacy in their behavior is the most useful solution to live their lives as they choose without interference even when they do not enjoy all the rights and privileges of married couples. The point is they can still live their private lives. When behavior becomes public, judgments emerge as well as interference from those who would regulate their lives. While the public good is always served having a debate, the other side of the coin is that gays are exposed when they participate in the debate or attempt to seek universal approval for their behavior from those who disapprove. I can imagine that is a frustrating dilemma for gays as it would be for anyone faced with making their lives more public and, unfortunately, more difficult at the same time. For a new law to take hold socially, the time frame is long and arduous. I suspect that is why "don't ask, don't tell" is the best gays can hope for in the military in this lifetime. In effect, you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Participate publicly in the behavior and debate, risk the condemnation of those who disapprove in one form or another, legally and/or socially. Maintain private behavior and don't participate, live your life the way you wish but risk leaving your legal and social fate in the hands of others. Fraught with danger..."
. . . with my follow-up response:
Yes, there is danger, as Matthew Shepard learned the hard way. And, of course, you are correct; those who are different from societal norms attract the condemnation and retribution of the majority who seek the normality of everyone as affirmation of their values. I was not smart enough, courageous enough, or perceptive enough in the 1950’s and 60’s to add my voice to those daring to demand equal treatment and an end to discrimination simply because of the pigmentation some of us were born with in our skin. We should all ask, how would I feel if I was a homosexual? How would I feel if I could not enjoy the simple privileges of a contractual relationship with the person I love simply because s/he happens to be of the same gender? Since the public voice of homosexuals is fraught with danger, we must all speak out for the disadvantages, the underprivileged, and indeed in some cases, the oppressed. Thus, to the self-proclaimed ‘strict constructionists’ like Antonin the Impaler and his ilk, I stretch the Equal Protection Clause to the strict interpretation of the English language in the 14th Amendment as written and beyond the judicial constraints retrospectively applied by those who seek to deny equal protection to those who have different choices for bedmates or life partners. I see this issue in very clear terms, and while the circumstances are different, the consequences are the same as those faced by citizens of color but a few decades ago. So, yes, you are precisely correct; homosexuals risk violating the law and the condemnation of society for daring to demand the same rights and privileges of citizenship afforded heterosexual citizens. If they don’t speak up and stand up, who will? I am one who has chosen to not stand in the shadows as I did during the fight for racial equality 50 years ago. Perhaps naïvely, I hope to convince others by my words to add their voices to the small choir, and let us correct this indignity and this wrong.
. . . and another round:
"Agreed. Here's one more thought coming from a realist. No law will ever eliminate bias and prejudice nor will a law change minds for most people as history teaches us. Besides, the strength of the debate is enhanced when good people like you and this blog bring it to the forefront, not from those who may suffer more because of doing so. Racial prejudice is alive and well in the world and so it is with religious, ethnic, and sexual differences among others. Expecting a public outcry of support for homosexual rights may be naive, but I'm glad you do not stand in the shadows and continue to produce a forum for all of us to speak out. The world may or may not change regarding their acceptance and rights in our lifetime, but they can still choose to live in peace together privately, regardless of what others think. Such is the nature of being free to choose in a free society. Let's hope we stay free."
. . . and my response:
A few follow-up points:
1. I have not heard any homosexual asking for any new law . . . to protect them or otherwise. My opinion: homosexuals just want to enjoy life as everyone else does; they do not want the law to discriminate against them or deny them rights and privileges available to heterosexuals. It is just that simple. They do not seek affirmative action, just equal protection under the laws – the same as all other citizens expect and enjoy.
2. Homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals; they just want to live their lives in peace, and prosper. In the ordinary routine of life, homosexuals live their lives quietly and unobtrusively, but then they are confronted from time to time with the simple privileges denied them – visitation, inheritance, children, family night, and so many other little elements of life. Heterosexuals simply do not see the discrimination felt by homosexuals, largely the little privileges they enjoy every day are taken for granted.
3. Homosexuals are just ordinary people like all the rest of us, who want to be recognized for their performance, their contributions to society, and appreciated for who they are. They know some folks despise and resent who they are; they are not asking for acceptance – just tolerance. They are asking for nothing special – just equality.
4. As you note, bias, bigotry, discrimination and prejudice will not go away. People are taught to condemn those who do not embrace their values, who are not like them. So be it. I have no problem with the bigotry, hatred and prejudice people are taught to hold in their hearts. Where the bigots cross the line is when they seek laws and the employment of the instruments of State to project their bigotry on others who do not share their values, which returns us to the definitions of the boundary between private and public domains, and of the public good.
We have a long way to go. The journey continues . . . one small step at a time.
. . . the thread continues:
“My thoughts on your points are:
“1. Homosexuals are asking for marriage laws to be enacted in their favor as noted in the news. The opposite is occurring across the country in many states. Right or wrong, that's the rub for many people.
“2. Homosexuals are different from most people just as is any minority. To ignore differences contributes to the lack of tolerance in my view. Recognize differences and find a way to work together is a functional way to move forward. Ignoring them has never worked in my experience. Recognizing them does not demean either party - on the contrary, it emboldens both, celebrates both, and encourages finding common ground. Demands for tolerance and agreement won't work.
“3. Homosexuals who parade their behavior in public demanding acceptance is what prompted my original response in the first place. Tolerance for private behavior is available to all and practiced by most. Tolerance and lifestyle agreement are not the same. What is needed is time to see if the rights issue is going to change. It may not.
“4. The jamming of values down the throats of others spans many issues over many people. The majority may always have the upper hand, but private lives can flourish regardless in a free society.
“In effect, screams for tolerance are less effective than time and respect for our differences.
“The debate rages on and keep up the good fight...”
. . . along with my response:
I'm afraid we shall respectfully disagree. I do not think homosexuals want new laws enacted. I think all they want is the current laws neutralized and discrimination against them removed. These marriage amendments are just the current version of Jim Crow laws, passed in the name of protecting marriage and family values, but for only one true purpose – to segregate and isolate homosexuals. I do not think homosexuals are demanding acceptance, only tolerance and equal treatment. I think if you asked homosexuals you would find them to be compassionate, tolerant, and respectful of the values, mores and beliefs of citizens who do not like them or accept them. I also think you would find them to be far more tolerant and respectful of heterosexuals than the other way around. And, no, homosexuals are not different; no more so than people of different ages, or different skin pigmentation, or different hair color, or different languages, are different. One thing I have learned in all my travels, to Japan, to the Soviet Union, to the Philippines, to Germany, Great Britain, France, China, Italy, and all the other countries where I have visited and lived in my life -- people are all the same. They share 99.99% of exactly the same DNA sequences. They all have exactly the same parts, indistinguishable on the inside, and differentiated only by gender. And, from my observation, they also share the same life desires -- they want to live in peace, to prosper, to be happy, and to have their children grow up to have a better life than they had. Homosexuals are not different – they are you and me – and, they deserved to be treated fairly and respectfully, as we wish to be treated. Homosexuals have made extraordinary contributions to the betterment of mankind, just as heterosexuals have; they deserve the recognition for their performance, for their contributions, not for whom they choose to enjoy sexual pleasures with.
. . . another thought:
"Sanctimony has no place in our colloquy. Moral high ground includes tolerance for all views, even mine when correctly interpreted. And as I always say, screams for tolerance from the manifestly intolerant make me deaf."
. . . and my thoughts:
I had no intension whatsoever to be sanctimonious, aloof, separatist, or anything else other than as an exchange of political opinions. Further, I suspect any attempt to explain my choice of words would be counterproductive and off the mark anyway.
My general objective in this particular topic is quite simple – homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, et cetera, are just human beings who feel different attractions and relationship needs than heterosexuals. I have felt for some time that if we could just see homosexuals in human terms, we might be able to see the equal protection argument just a little more easily.
. . . and the last round of this thread in this Update edition:
“As I review the thread, I conclude that our compassion for people is much the same. I want equal protection as do you. But, I see the cure being time, not demands or laws that people will not follow until time passes. But that does not diminish people like you from taking the debate up front to speed it up and am encouraged when you do. Regardless, I find common ground emerges when differences are recognized and resolved, not denied. “We both want the same thing - equality for all. How we get there is at issue?”
. . . the last of my thoughts for this edition:
Perhaps we are only talking about the means rather than the objective. I wish that was true for all of our society. Unfortunately, I do not believe that is the case. An overwhelming majority in numerous states have been led us to believe this is about marriage and the future of the American family, when the reality is, they think homosexuals are deviant, miscreants who deserve condemnation and ostracism. We should explore this aspect of the issue more, but that will have to wait. I need to get this Update in the can.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)