Redstate

HOOAH!!!

streiff and trevino can translate, Kos Kidz

My recurring nightmare: the Democratic organization never repairs itself, Howard Dean does so-so, but alienates about 85% of the U.S. and remains as Chair, Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, Michael Moore does something stupid again, Clinton inevitably gets pounded in November, Democrats continue to do stupid things throughout the next 4 years achieving very little, we nominate Dennis Kucinich in '12...the vicious cycle continues.

I wake up in a cold sweat every time.

We're not worried that Hitchens will cease being liberal.

He boiled over a few years back. He's always been a fairly vitriolic person, and now he turns all the vitriol on anyone who doesn't support the war on terror. That's his right, of course, but when he was an avowed Trotskyite, I'm sure many here would have picked out flaws in his reasoning and reporting, neither of which have gotten better since his "conversion."

amazing how we seem to eat our own?

we could only hope, eh?

Joking aside, I seriously do hope the more reasoned heads take back control of the donks.  Our country will be the better for it.

...not with the assertion that Hitchens has ceased being liberal (I argue much the same here), but with your casual dismissal of his reasoning and reporting...examples, please! For myself, I find Hitch refreshingly original, unerringly quickwitted, erudite beyond most all commentators, and a helluva writer, to boot...

It's not really fair to argue with Ron Reagan, (unless you have one arm tied behind your back) but...pretty funny.

Following your link to the transcript, I was very surprised by the vehemence and the eloquence of Hitchen's disgust with the radical MP...so typical of pacifists the world over.

Hitchens:  "I mean, according to him, it's not the  perpetrators who are responsible.  They didn't kill anybody.  The murderer is Tony Blair.  I mean, that's all you have to believe, really, morally to agree with a man like him.  Well, you should additionally believe that the root cause of terrorism is the resistance to it."

Very elegant: you would have to believe that the root cause of terrorism is the resistance to it.

Hitchens remains entirely liberal in American terms, with the notable exception of his views on civilization-- he is for it.  I rarely agree with his domestic (US) political analysis, but ....

I agree with Austindeadhead, he is always worth reading and usually thought provoking.  He is the embodiment of everything that was ever right with the left-- he refuses to allow complacency to be the basis for the future.

His replies to Ronnie are dead-on.

I have a question:

If throwing money at a problem is no way to fix it, then why is it that the US military budget is the highest, by far, of any in the world?

And is there a connection between that fact and the fact that the US military is by far the most advanced and effective in the world?

It seems to me that throwing money at the military problem has, indeed, been quite effective in many, many ways.

There are other examples.

I'm a NC Democrat and I've been called a Blue Dog by some folks, so I argue with Democrats about as much as anyone else :)

I think lefties should have representation (that's what Ted Kennedy is for), but I think they get far more in the Democratic party than they represent in the general public.  Hopefully that trend will reverse itself in the coming years.  

if you don't have a well thought out plan, outstanding personnel to carry it out or a top rate organization to sink the money into, it's a waste.  I don't think anyone could say the military isn't a worthwhile investment in these terms.  It's not simply an issue of money, but what's done with it in terms of it's value as a resource and tool to build the necesary organizations to deal with problems.  

That's--if it could be stopped with extra expenditure, there would be nothing to worry about. We are vulnerable precisely because we live in an open society. Surely, that's the root problem, to begin with. You can't spend your way out of that.

There is an enormous difference between recognizing that you have an open society that is protected by the most expensive and most competent military in the world and claiming that you can have one without the other.  In fact, you can't.  We spend so much money on the military (and I don't want to get into an argument about military waste or body armor) because it protects the open society that is so vulnerable otherwise.  

Hitchens is talking about the non-military component of the society - the civilan part of society.  And there is no amount of money you can throw at that to prevent the people within it from wrecking it if they so choose.  

Authoritarian societies are safe from this problem of the "enemy within" because they simply do not allow it to occur.  Saddam's old regime relied on systematized murder and oppression to maintain its stability.  He also had a fearsome (at least to his neighbors) military, but the hope that Saddam would be toppled from within obviously ran out shortly after the conclusion of the first gulf war.  It wasn't going to happen.  In fact, along with all the other things Hitchens mentions, we couldn't stop him from dealing with North Korea.  We enforced no-fly zones at enormous expense, and even that did not bring his regime down.  As long as the Ba'athists were in power in Iraq, it was never going to happen, and had we not invaded, today Iraq would be well on its way to being transferred into the hands of Uday and Qusay.  

This problem of the United States' internal vulnerability for quite some time.  To one degree or another, all Western societies that aren't authoritarian suffer from it.  I used to talk with my father about these kinds of problems:  "What would happen if terrorists cut the high-voltage power transmission lines leading into New York City in the middle of the day?"  The fact that liberals have so far refused to recognize is that they actually live in the most open, least oppressive society in the world -- and their answer to terrorism is to make it opener and to debilitate the military that protects it.  This is why we have a fundamental disagreement with them -- they are simply not attached to reality.

Hitchens laid into Galloway last month at the Weekly Standard.

EVERY JOURNALIST HAS A LIST of regrets: of stories that might have been. Somewhere on my personal list is an invitation I received several years ago, from a then-Labour member of parliament named George Galloway. Would I care, he inquired, to join him on a chartered plane to Baghdad? He was hoping to call attention to the sufferings of the Iraqi people under sanctions, and had long been an admirer of my staunch and muscular prose and my commitment to universal justice (I paraphrase only slightly). Indeed, in an article in a Communist party newspaper in 2001 he referred to me as "that great British man of letters" and "the greatest polemicist of our age."

No thanks, was my reply. I had my own worries about the sanctions, but I had also already been on an officially guided visit to Saddam's Iraq and had decided that the next time I went to that terrorized slum it would be with either the Kurdish guerrillas or the U.S. Marines. (I've since fulfilled both ambitions.) Moreover, I knew a bit about Galloway. He had had to resign as the head of a charity called "War on Want," after repaying some disputed expenses for living the high life in dirt-poor countries. Indeed, he was a type well known in the Labour movement. Prolier than thou, and ostentatiously radical, but a bit too fond of the cigars and limos and always looking a bit odd in a suit that was slightly too expensive. By turns aggressive and  

unctuous, either at your feet or at your throat; a bit of a backslapper, nothing's too good for the working class: what the English call a "wide boy."

This was exactly his demeanor when I ran into him last Tuesday on the sidewalk of Constitution Avenue, outside the Dirksen Senate Office Building, where he was due to testify before the subcommittee that has been uncovering the looting of the U.N. Oil-for-Food program. His short, cocky frame was enveloped in a thicket of recording equipment, and he was holding forth almost uninterrupted until I asked him about his endorsement of Saddam Hussein's payment for suicide-murderers in Israel and the occupied territories. He had evidently been admirably consistent in his attention to my humble work, because he changed tone and said that this was just what he'd expect from a "drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay." It takes a little more than this to wound your correspondent--I could still hold a martini without spilling it when I was "the greatest polemicist of our age" in 2001--but please note that the real thrust is contained in the word "Trotskyist." Galloway says that the worst day of his entire life was the day the Soviet Union fell. His existence since that dreadful event has involved the pathetic search for an alternative fatherland. He has recently written that, "just as Stalin industrialised the Soviet Union, so on a different scale Saddam plotted Iraq's own Great Leap Forward." I love the word "scale" in that sentence. I also admire the use of the word "plotted."

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a "leftie at RedState," and let me tell you, lefties think of Hitchens as a neocon.

He's a contrarian and a seeker of controversy, which is fine and makes for lively writing, and he's certainly entitled to support whatever policies he want to support, but it's just inaccurate to present this as a case of a liberal suddenly "boiling over."

It's as if someone were to drag out Richard Clarke as an interesting case of republicans losing faith in Bush "right now." It's old news, and they invite him on shows like Scarborough Country to be inflammatory. In the first excerpt he's asked a direct question "Is she correct?," His answer is that he doesn't know (fair enough) but that he presumes she lying because "he can't stand the sight of her." That doesn't stand up as any kind of reasoning, debate, or erudition.

....you're right, this is nothing sudden, and yes, I freely admit that I missed the relevance of the 'I couldn't stand the sight of her' comment, right under my very nose...but give me at least this much...even when he's wrong (not that often) he's very clever about it (almost always)...

when you're talking about funding "counterterrorism" are you talking about securing the holland tunnel or are you talking about funding special forces and CIA operatives to infiltrate al qaeda?  or both?  

is that they have let the loons take over the party, and the loons do not appeal to the typical moderate (and I mean true moderate no the "I am a moderate, because I don't want to use the L word) democrat.

If the Zell Miller's, Evan Byah's, and Lieberman's of the party were given the party, the dems could probably win elections again, but as long as the loons are in charge and defining the platforms, they are going to have a hard time getting control of anything.

If the dems win any of the branches of government back, it is going to be due to the fact that the GOP hasn't figured out how to be a majority party more than the fact that average voter supports the current DNC policy.

they aren't the same thing.

The military tends to operate with plans and structure and personel, and the money goes towards that cost.

Something like how you stop a terrorist from putting a bomb on a train or in a tunnel is fairly vague and doesn't have much of a "plan," so just tossing a few million dollars towards the "goal of stopping terrorists" isn't really the same.

Now if the congress with the INS came up with a workable plan to find and boot out overstayed visas, and a real immigration policy, then you would have a plan, at which funding would be important to see the plan through.  But just tossing money at an agency in the hopes that they can meet a goal without a plan, isn't doing much to really meet the goals, it is just throwing money in the hopes that something might work.

...I'll give you that much.

Nobody wants to see special forces patrolling the Holland Tunnel unless it's absolutely necessary.  If we were in a state of war or emergency within the United States itself, then sure, I wouldn't mind them being there at all.

As far as having the CIA infiltrate Al Qaeda, I think the problem so far has been that we haven't been able to do that well enough.  But then, I'm not one of the people who is afraid of the CIA.  I don't mind the spooks, as long as they're on our side.

Heh. You can tell where a person stands based on why they invoke that anecdote. I personally think Hitchens showed a certain magnamity there. Too many of my fellow lefties think Galloway socked it to Hitchens, whom they dismiss with a tossed off and lazy mention of his alcohol use. Nope, Hitch was in the right. Galloway was just a drunken jerk barking the same slur a few times. Poor Chris.

I've been a fan of Hitchens for a long time -- considering that I'm only 23 anyway -- and despite the fact I disagree with him somewhat on war-related issues and his filtering of information; and he's usually 100% correct, but dismisses counterarguments with flair and prolixity more than argument sometimes. But the man's a great essayist and political successor to Orwell, another crotchety gadfly socialist who was disgusted by inaction.

So, anyway, Hitchens is needed by the right and the left, and thank God for him.

Hitch deserves, indeed requires, a better foil than Ron Reagan.  I'd like to see him go a few rounds with Bob Novak or Pat Buchanan.

There's this strong plea, this urging by many of the extreme right for the moderates to take control of the left wing of American politics.  And yet when they ask for 'moderates' they mean 'conservative elements' or 'people willing to koutow to right wing authority'.  This is to say that when Republicans show a great deal of dissatisfaction at Dean being elected Chair of the party and Clinton becoming the new baston for a Dem President, they show an incredible desire for Democrates to abandon their core ideologies and just become Republican Lite.

This amuses me for two reasons.  Firstly, the Democrats are beinging to discover that the march towards the middle of the political spectrum only works when both parties are marching.  Clinton's success in '92 and '96 came from his vaunted bipartisanship.  But that bipartisanship only succeeded because Republicans were willing to bend along with the Democrats.  Kerry proved that playing the Blue State Republican (many of his platforms were clones of Bush policy, just with the Dem stamp of approval instead of a Rep one) just doesn't bring in the votes.  Why vote for Republican Lite when you can get the real thing?  

Secondly, it reminds me just how out of the mainstream many of the extremists on the right really are.  Despite a public that has grown disgusted with Congressional attempts to legislate us on a person-by-person basis (Shavio) and a Social Security plan built on the bedrock of flawed reasoning, so many seem to point to '04 as some sort of blank check to railroad the nation into an extremist niche.  While the rest of the civilized world moves towards legalization of gay marriage, expanding universal medicare, and improving international relations (we might hate France, but Russia, Germany, India, and China seem to get along with the country well enough), our nation has spent the past five years stagnating or regressing into the nineteen hundreds in terms of culture and public policy.  And people don't like that.

Nixon once talked about a Silent Majority in America.  A majority made up not of the fanatical religious right or the wingnut hippie left, but the true sane and educated individual.  I suspect that the Republicans will find their Mandate from Heaven lacking in '06 when this Silent Majority turns on a Beltway gone batty.  But only time will tell.

Till then, Dems, stay the course.  True Blue.

also fascinated by lefty logic.

"While the rest of the civilized world moves towards legalization of gay marriage, expanding universal medicare, and improving international relations (we might hate France, but Russia, Germany, India, and China seem to get along with the country well enough), our nation has spent the past five years stagnating or regressing into the nineteen hundreds in terms of culture and public policy.  And people don't like that."

First, I'll address gay marriage-just how many states took measures this election cycle to ensure that gay marriage would not soon become a reality in thier state?

Second, universal medicine-yes, Hillary care was such an overwhelming success, yet the conservative extremists blocked it.  Mmm 'kay.

What do France, etc...have to do with what happens in our country?

What culture elements of the 20th century do we seem to be regressing back to?

I'll give you one-Schiavo.  That was a strange one.  As of today, it is a non-issue.  Guess you didn't get the memo.

port security technology and personnel?

Money for rail security technology and personnel?

There are plenty of ways to spend money very, very wisely with respect to security - ways that neither infringe upon our open society nor violate any of the implied points regarding efficiency, programs, planning, and etc that folks are saying sets the military apart when it comes to "throwing money at the problem"...

The idea that we can ever eliminate terrorism completely, by killing all the terrorists or somesuch, is an illusion and something I have never heard espoused from the Left.

When John Kerry said that we need to get back to the time when terrorism was a nuisance, he was ridiculed.  Yet, that is the only rational goal of a War on Terror.  We will never live in a world where no one wishes us ill, no matter what we do, and bombs will always be relatively easy to make.  But we can hope to reduce terrorism to the point where attacks are rare and not something ordinary Americans have to worry about from day to day; that's what our government is supposed to be doing for us.

How we get from A to B is the subject in dispute, of course (I recommend therapy).  But I don't think there can be any reasonable dispute as to what the best-case outcome is.  As Hitchens suggests, unless we're prepared to live in a police state, we can never have complete security, particularly for "soft" targets.

But there is a hole in his logic.  Just because you cannot make something 100% safe from terrorism does not mean that it's pointless to spend more money.  There's countless things we could do to make things more secure, if not perfectly secure; we could have more police patrolling the mass transit system, for example.  Those who favor immigration reform probably stay awake at night wishing we would spend more money on securing the borders - again, something we will never accomplish 100%, but we could definitely make better.

I do think there has been a lack of seriousness towards the nuts and bolts of homeland security.  At the federal level, homeland security funding has become just another pork-barrel item for everyone to send back to their home states on projects that may or may not have anything to do with protecting us from terrorism.  When Bloomberg said at the Republican convention that homeland security funds should be allocated based solely on threat level, you could have heard a pin drop.  It was considered a non-serious suggestion.

There has been no call for sacrifice in the name of homeland security, no suggestion that we all might have to pay a little more in taxes so that we can have more police on the streets, more investigators at the FBI, more Arabic translators at the CIA, more guards at the border.  And on the state level, we see governors in New Jersey and Kentucky handing out homeland security positions, which ought to be among the most important jobs available, as perks for friends and lovers.

Maybe Hillary was right that the extra cash would help, maybe she was wrong, I have no idea.  But the generally cavalier attitude our elected officials have displayed towards these issues makes it hard for me to have much faith that the money is all in the right place.

The military is good because it had money thrown at it. And here all my years I thought we were good because of training. Guess I was wrong.

costs money.

Equipment costs money.

Education and research into new tools, new weapons, new strategic and tactical outlooks all cost money.

I am not denying or denigrating any of the other reasons why people are pointing out that the military may be "different"...

But I am pointing out that one of the reasons why our military is so good is because we have spent a LOT of money on it over the years.

A corollary to that observation would be that it is not necessarily the case that various security measures, anti-terrorism measures, border control measures, immigration measure...and etc...are somehow "not solvable" with money.

In fact, I would argue that, yes, indeed, throwing money at those problems is very, very important - as long as, like the military, planning, structure, framework, and outlook are taken into account and paid careful attention to.

pretend to lecture or educate me on the subject.

No you did't say the military was good because a lot of money was spent. You said it was good because money had been thrown at it. So don't try to backpedal out of a profoundly uninformed statement by morphing it into something else because I'm not in the mood to stand for it.

Money hasn't been thrown at the military. Even during the Reagan era money was tight in the military. Especially money spent on OPTEMPO. The reason why Hitchens is right and Clinton is a moron is because the money the military spends has outcomes attached to it.

First, I'll address gay marriage-just how many states took measures this election cycle to ensure that gay marriage would not soon become a reality in thier state?

Eleven: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah and Oregon.  Most of which not only banned gay marriage, but also banned civil unions, and in many cases banned contracts between homosexuals (one or two had such broad definitions that it's possible they banned power of attorney contracts between any two people of the same sex).

Let me draw an analogy.  This June 4th I took an action that was illegal in many states until the late 1970's: I married someone with skin color radically different from mine [1].  There was a time when this was viewed with shock, dismay, and alarm by many people.  In the 1950's I'm sure that many states would have passed constitutional ammendments banning interracial marriage.

I really can't see the difference between the struggle against my marriage and the struggle against gay marriage.  From my POV in both cases people said "eew, that's gross" and called on the government to stop the gross people from doing their gross thing.

I figure that it isn't the government's business who you marry [2].  That's part what I mean when I say "I support personal liberty".  Some people won't like who other people marry, and that's ok.  Personal liberty also means that if you don't like who a person marries you have a right to express that view.  From the standpoint of personal liberty I'm utterly against a law here in Texas that says that a minister [3] is not allowed to refuse to wed people if he disapproves of the proposed marriage.

Marriage has two meanings today: on one level its a religious ceremony [4], on another level marriage is a purely civil affair granting any number of rights and privilages to the married people.  Take the simple matter of hospital visitations, many hospitals won't allow visitors for critical cases unless those visitors are family.  Unfortunately for a homosexual couple they aren't technically "family" so if one is dying of cancer all it takes is a nasty head nurse and the other will never see his partner alive again.  Or the matter of inheritence, many younger people haven't drawn up a will (I keep meaning to get around to it myself, but I haven't yet) if you're married and have no will your spouse automatically inherits.  Again, we see a problem for homosexual couples here.  Even something as basic as the question of what is done with the remains when one partner dies is affected by marriage.  Since homosexuals cannot marry if one partner dies and that partner's family chooses to be vile they can sieze the remains, and exclude the surviving partner from the funeral.

To me that's not right, its a violation of personal liberty.  Obviously you have a different view.  But I don't understand how someone who believes in smaller government can accept government involvement in something so personal.

I'll give you one-Schiavo.  That was a strange one.  As of today, it is a non-issue.  Guess you didn't get the memo.

Perhaps we don't choose to allow you to decide what the issues are.  I'm hoping that every Dem running against Republicans who voted "yes" on the Schiavo bill will bring it up repeatedly.  I think it makes pretty good campaign material: "My opponent didn't think [inert important local issue here] was important, instead he wasted valuable legislative time trying to circumvent the law!"  I think the best chance Dems have in '06 is to run against Dobson, DeLay, and the Schiavo vote.

[1] I'm "white", she's "black".  Actually, she's more of a milk chocolate and I'm kinda pinkish tan.

[2] As long as all parties are consenting adults.  Forced marriage is naturally a violation of the liberties of the person being forced, and children are (rightly) considered to be unable to give meaningful consent.

[3] Or judge, retired judge, priest, rabbi, or anyone empowered by a religious organization to perform wedding cerimonies.

[4] Though that meaning is lessening, many people are choosing to marry without any religious involvement.  In Texas you can apply for a cerimonial marriage license, which must be signed by an authority figure after a ceremony to be valid, or a non-cerimonial marriage license which is valid after you and your spouse sign it.  I know three couples who married with the non-cerimonial license.  We went for a cerimonial license and were wed by the president of our local Unitarian Universalist Church, who's also the head of a Zen group, he took part of his speech from Iroquis weding ceremonies, and we jumped the broom.  How's that for a liberal marriage?

or educate.

I was using the term "throwing at" as a stand in for "spending".

Spending for the military has been a very mixed bag, from profoundly intelligent and useful application of resources to profoundly stupid wastes of time, energy, and cash.

Overall, in part because of the massive volume of money spent and the wide variety of programs pursued, the net effect has been extremely positive - our military is the best in the world, bar none, and by many orders of magnitude over the next best.

Intelligent, informed spending on port security, to name only one example, could and should be a priority.

And, as a final note, I have neither been insulting nor condescending to you or to any here, I have not brought in the name of any political figure for either praise or condemnation. I had a question, a point upon which I disagree. I raised my disagreement in a respectful, open fashion. Please don't jump down my throat.

I appreciate that tempers are high, that emotions and anger run very deep.

I am not trying to provoke.

Port Security would be a good thing to spend money on, but is it going to stop a guy from carrying a backpack onto a bus or a subway?

The fact is that in order to really get a bus or subway secure to the point that a bombing is unlikely is to introduce security checkpoints (and even that isn't going to catch everything) and I think it is doubtful that the citizens are going to go for that kind of delay everyday for the morning commute.

There needs to be a plan and a goal and a purpose.  Sure money may still get wasted, but just saying "if we give X more money it is going to make us more secure" is just plain silly.  While we spent a lot of money on the military, there was always a plan, purpose and stated goal in mind.

legal remedies.

A gay partner wanting to make decisions for their other gay partner can sign a durable power of attorney giving them the right to make any and all those decisions.

A gay partner can also write a will.  Shoot even married couples with any kind of assets should write wills-wills are always good things to have.

Now you may argue that a gay person has to jump through more hoops to get these things, and I would agree, but don't pretend that they have absolutely no remedy either, when they do.

security.  I just want it to spent on things that actually work.

Case in point, the dems insisted that the new airport security screeners be made full unionized employees (I still laugh at the idea that somehow federalizing the security would make it better) and now we learn that the private security screeners (who are still in some airports) do a better job than the federal employee ones.

Federalizing everything doesn't neccessarily make it better.

If we are going to spend money on things for security, we need to make sure that there is a real plan for the money to be spent, with a stated and hopefully some measurable goal, and if said plan isn't working-then the plan should be cut (one problem with government budgets is that once you get a line item, it is next to impossible to remove the line) or adapted.

I think one move we could make that would increase security is cleaning up the INS, and actually setting a real immigration policy.  There are tons of workers/students here on overstayed visas, the INS should actively look for these people and seek to deport them.  Immigration is the biggest hole to our security at the moment, and nobody in the government wants to touch that elephant in the kitchen.

stopping the material that goes into that backpack from crossing the border is one way.

Tagging or otherwise controlling the sale and use of materials that could go into that backpack is another way.

I am just pointing out some aspects, not pretending to be an expert, or pretending to have all the bases covered.

I think that there are lots of smart people thinking about the proper framework within which money could and should be spent  - one example would be having all the emergency responders on the same radio frequencies, for starters, with modern, up to date computer services for GIS, mapping, and route control and monitoring, for another.

Again, there is no question that a rational framework is required before spending money can have any real or useful impact...but I think that the characterization that people wanting to spend money on security lack that framework or don't understand the need for it is unfair and inaccurate.

funding was in reality throwing money at a problem without a plan.

I think the whole "federalizing security screeners" was a stupid bandaid that did nothing more than change who wrote the paychecks.

Just having money isn't the answer here, there has to be a plan, and an ability to evaluate and eliminate that plan (something Democrats rarely like to do, unless it actually is defense spending then they are all for those cuts).

Also, note that the budget wasn't eliminated, Hillary is complaining about a 50 million cut, in government dollars that doesn't mean much.  

Quite frankly, Hitchens is an ally that I would rather not have.  In his career, he has made shockingly wrong, biased, and cruel attacks upon Mother Theresa (!), Pope John Paul II, and Henry Kissinger.  Until he retracts and apologizes for his malicious lies, it's best that we not embrace him.

Hitchens is just one of those guys that enjoys saying shocking things.

The reason throwing money will not work with passive terrorism defenses is because the terrorists always have the initiative. There are virtually an infinite number of potential targets to strike in the United States. How many shopping malls are there coast to coast, any one of which could serve as a good suicide bombing target? How many miles of border do we have over which terrorists could come into the country? How many miles of coastline where a terrorist could offload explosives? Unless we're willing to eliminate most of our freedoms, spending money on homeland defense serves only to rechannel where the terrorists will strike, and maybe not even that. Take a look at what a lot of 'homeland defense' dollars are going for and ask yourself how much safer you feel.

His militant atheism is also really beyond the pale.  

to a man who spoke at the Republican National Convention and challenged a reported to a duel would be a step towards taking back the party and winning elections.  If that is the case I would rather we kept losing.  

The average voter knows very little about DNC or RNC policy.  

You put me in mind of an old Family Circus cartoon I remember reading as a kid. One of the kids (Billy?) is defending himself to the parents over a fight he's had with his sister...his explanation:

"It all started when she hit me back!"

This cartoon has popped into my head fairly often over the last few years : )

necessary but not sufficient.

First he makes it abundantly clear that his bias against Clinton is driving his point.  He says that throwing money at a problem won't fix it.  Ummmm, ok.  How does he determine that 175 million is sufficient funding but 500 million is 'throwing money' at the problem?  He doesn't say.

He becomes completely unhinged when talking to Ron Reagan. Abu Nidal blew up the WTC?  Well then why did we convict Ramzi Yusef for that crime?

Ron Reagan is a lightweight but Hitchens is more shrill than thoughtful in these comments.

I agree that he too quickly dismissed the FACT that obviously more money WISELY spent could reduce risk.

However, given the methods of terrorists and the infinite targets and times of attack available, too much spending on such a futile exercise is folly and we don't want to let Hilary and the dems and repubs for that matter turn homel;and security into welfare largess for them to use to get votes.

Hitchens got mixed up in the rant about abu nidal and wtc but if you look at the complete interview and others

and the 911 COMMISION REPORT AND NUMEROUS NEWS REPORTS BEFORE 9-11 AS WELLAS THE CLINTON ADMIN'S STATEMENTS

SADDAM WAS HARBORING ONE OF THE 1993 WTC BOMBING CONSPIRATORS WHOM ESCAPED THE US AFTER THE ATTCACK.

DID YOU KNOW THAT IF THE TRUCK BOMB AT THE 1993 WTC HAD BEEN 100 YARDS CLOSER TO THE BEAM THAT THE TWER WOULD HAVETOPPLED OVER ONTO THE OTHER AND KILLED OVER 50,000?

since we have not had another terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that unless things change drastically here in the very near future, your time here is limited.  That is not a threat, as I have no power to remove you.  Just an observation on my part.

Big point here-

Inter-racial and inter-faith marriage are in no way comparable to homosexual marriage.  You know that deep down.

I don't care what skin color your bride is, nor do I care whether you jump the broom, light the candle, break the glass, or lasso each other.  Marriage is a gift from God and it can be quite wonderful.  I only wish the best for your future together.  Liberal marriage or not.

Hitchens views from The Common Review:

TCR: So, on the one hand you've been consistent in your support for the Kurdish cause going way back. Yet you opposed the 1991 Gulf War. But you supported the 2003 Iraq war.

Hitchens: I argue with people whom I suspect of being more keen on landing a blow against George W. Bush than caring about the realities of the Middle East. I know them when I see them. I know them when I hear them. I can smell them, actually. It's the idea that Bush is the main enemy, and the rest of it is all contingent. One reason I know how to tell them is I used to feel that way about his father....

     [....]So, you know, I really actually wanted to see the guy pummeled. And it was perfectly obvious to me that they had told Saddam Hussein he was entitled to at least a chunk of Kuwait[reference to the April Glaspie conspiracy bunk]. The whole thing had the look to me of a put-up job. I went on Air Force One with Bush to Saudi Arabia and that didn't change my mind. There was something phony about it. The truth was not being told. When the war was all nearly over, I ended up in northern Iraq, where Saddam had made a final attempt to exterminate the Kurds. Eventually Bush and the British had sent in forces to say we'll stop that happening. We'll patrol the air space. We'll draw a line beyond which the Baath Party can't come.

TCR: The no-fly zones.

Hitchens: Yes. And I knew that this was the result of public opinion. People said, we can't end the war against Saddam Hussein seeing him massacre these people and drive the survivors over the border. We can't. And clearly they couldn't. With great reluctance, this policy was imposed. I was bouncing around in a jeep with some Kurdish guerillas at that point. And on my side of the windshield, there was a big laminated picture of George H. W. Bush. And I said to them, "Look, comrades, do you have to do this? For one thing, I can't see out of my side of the windshield. But for another, I know quite a few reporters in this area and might run into one of them at any moment. And I don't want them seeing me in a jeep that has this guy's image on it. So do you have to?" And they said, quite soberly and solemnly to me, "No, we think we should have this picture because we think, without him, we would all be dead, and all our families would be dead, too." And from what I'd seen by then in that region, I thought, that's basically morally true. I don't have a reply to that. I don't have a glib one and I don't have a sound one. It's true. So at that point my criticism of the war became this: that it had not been a regime-change war, that the slogans of liberty and justice that had been used to mobilize it had not been honored. But if they had been, I would have been in favor of it. It's a narrow but deep crevasse to cross, and once you've crossed it, I'll tell you this, you can't go back over it again. You can't find yourself on the other side of it. Some of you may be in transition across this crevasse yourselves or be thinking about it. I warn you: don't cross over if you have any intention of going back, because you can't. You're stuck with it then. You're a prisoner of the knowledge of genocide and fascism, and you'll never break free of it--of that awareness. You will have made friends you can't desert. And that, in simple terms, is what happened to me.

So, needless to say, I disagree with your view of a Hitchens political conversion.  That he can extol the neocon mantra while regurgitating leftist fantasies(Glaspie) shows he hasn't moved very far from his Troskyist roots.  If anything he's gone from idealism to realism with respect to his Kurdish friends atleast but beyond that I don't think much has changed.

A gay partner wanting to make decisions for their other gay partner can sign a durable power of attorney giving them the right to make any and all those decisions.

Actually, that's not so.  In Ohio the ban specifically prohibits those sorts of contracts.  See this Fox News [1] story.  The important bits are the last few paragraphs.  The conservatives in Ohio thought that even letting homosexuals sign contracts to give themselves the same sorts of rights that married streights take for granted was too much.

In Ohio at least they have no remedy.

I'll argue that the whole situation is manifestly wrong simply on the basis of the "jumping through more hoops" part.  When group A gets X privilages easily, and group B either doesn't get them or must pay more and do more work to get them I call that "second class citizenship".  That isn't right.

Now, if you want to get the government out of marriage completely, reserve that word soly for the religious ceremony bit, and let everyone get civil unions I'll go along with that.  But that doesn't seem to be a popular approach.  Many of the states included bans on homosexual civil unions as well as marriage.  So the argument that its all about preserving the word "marriage" for streights only is demonstrated to be false by the actions taken by conservatives in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah.

Back in the 1950's my wife and I could have not married and tried to cobble together a whole raft of other legal documents too.  But that doesn't make it right then, and it doesn't make it right now.  

[1] Normally I avoid Fox News like the plague, but I thought you wouldn't go denying the truth of my statement if I sourced it to the GOP's own news channel.

Big point here-

Inter-racial and inter-faith marriage are in no way comparable to homosexual marriage.  You know that deep down.

Nope, I'm afraid I don't know that deep down.  Explain to me why interracial marriage is not comparable to gay marriage.  To me the fights against both seem quite comparable.

As a modern, non-racist, conservative I can see why such comparisons would make you uncomfortable.  But that doesn't make them false.  Back in the 1950's people wanted to marry in a way that conservativism as a whole disapproved of.  Today people want to marry in a way that conservativism as a whole disapproves of.  Heck, the involvement of government in marriage is linked to preventing interracial marriage.  So please explain to me why the fight against gay marriage is different from the fight against interracial marriage.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, if you want to make "marriage" strictly a religious thing and only allow the government to issue "civil unions" I'd go along with that in a heartbeat.  From my POV the government is supposed to stay out of religious affairs, so if you are going to define marriage as religious then the government needs to be separate from it.  But there are non-religious functions to what we currently call "marriage" and I if those non-religious functions are not  open to all adults then we have a problem.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that unless things change drastically here in the very near future, your time here is limited.  That is not a threat, as I have no power to remove you.

If it isn't a threat, then why are you bringing it up?  I suspect that I've made you uncomfortable and you want to publically reconfirm your status as one of the in group here to make yourself feel less uncomfortable.  If that's not it can you please tell me why you felt it was important to say (in essence) "you're gonna get banned and I'm not"?

The enemy went eight years between the first and second attempts to bring down the WTC. We're dealing with an enemy who thinks on a significantly longer time scale than what the United States is accustomed to dealing with. The fact we have not yet had another attack in the United States doesn't prove a thing about our changes in homeland security measures any more than the argument could be made on 9/10 that the lack of terrorist attacks to that point demonstrated the strength of our defenses.

Further, given that we've taken the fight to the enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's equally possible that we would have had the same number of attacks on U.S. soil without a single move made towards improving homeland security because we're forcing the enemy onto the strategic defensive.

Unless and until there's hard evidence that an attack on U.S. soil was thwarted by new security measures, there's simply no way to prove that they're having any effect at all.

Finally, the enemy we face is an intelligent and adaptive one. If we make it too hard to strike one target, he'll simply strike another, less well-protected target. The offensive is always advantaged over the defense in this type of war, because we have to protect everything with our resources while the enemy can strike just one place where he can gain local superiority.

while some may view interracial and homosexual marriage as the same issue, they simply are not.  If you can not figure out why, then I can not help you.

"If it isn't a threat, then why are you bringing it up?  I suspect that I've made you uncomfortable and you want to publically reconfirm your status as one of the in group here to make yourself feel less uncomfortable.  If that's not it can you please tell me why you felt it was important to say (in essence) "you're gonna get banned and I'm not"?"

Consider it a friendly reminder.

For further questions, please see this here-

 Attn Lefties at RedState:  

By: krempasky

 http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/7/8/181848/0502

I know you can read very well, so this should not be hard for you.

Liberals are sometimes right (Hitchens) and Conservatives are sometimes wrong (McCain and Shayes come to mind).

I don't agree with Hitchens on much, but on the war (and on Michael Moore, by the way) I always want to hear what he has to say. His comments about Hillary were spot on. The position held by most Liberals is that the response to 9/11 should have been limited to the mountains of Afghanistan, and should have only dealt with the attacks of that day. This seems impossibly ignorant to me, because it ignores three decades of escalating attacks that preceded 9/11.

This seems to be Hitchens' point, as far as I can tell.

while some may view interracial and homosexual marriage as the same issue, they simply are not.  If you can not figure out why, then I can not help you.

In other words you can't think of any reasons why the two cases aren't comperable, right?  Because if you can tell me why they aren't comperable then why aren't you?

Seriously.  Look at the two issues.  In both cases a minority [1] wants a privilage held by the majority.  In both cases the majority says, in essence, "if we allow you people equal rights civilization will fall".  Civilization didn't fall because black people and white people "redefined marriage" to include interracial marriage.  Civilization hasn't fallen in Canada.  Yet [2].

You say "the cases aren't similar" but when I ask you to explain why they aren't similar you just sputter.  To me that says "I don't know why, but I want them to be dissimilar so I'll pretend there are reasons I can't explain".  So, have I won this argument, or will you explain to me why I'm wrong?

[1] In the 1950's people who loved people of different races, today people who love people of the same sex.

[2] For a glimpse into the mind of someone who thinks the "gay marriage == end of civilization" argument is silly look here.  The link is to a cartoon that sums up both my annoyance and my urge to mock the idea perfectly.

This is the kind of argument that you might see from the wackos over at Kos.  The obvious difference between gay marriage and inter-racial marriage is that in the latter there is the potential of producing healthy children who will make good American citizens.  Derek Jeter is a good example.  I shudder to think how the adopeted children of "same-sex" couples will turn out.

has two moms. He's not exactly an allstar though.

It has nothing to do with my ability to make the distinction for you.  It has everything to do with the fact that I don't feed the trolls.

Interracial and interfaith marriages are very different than homosexual marriage.  Period.  Comparing the two is just a way to reopen long since closed wounds in order for the homosexual agenda to be advanced.

And in the words of Forrest Gump-

"That's all I'm gonna say about that."

Re: The enemy went eight years between the first and second attempts to bring down the WTC.

But in the meantime they tried and failed to attack us at home several times. Perhaps there have been other failures more recently which, for security reasons, cannot be publicized. Meanwhile we are destroying their bases and their organazation. The one thing they don't have is time on their side.

in the Ohio amendment of power of attorney. Anyone live in Ohio? Is it still possible to draw up a power of attorney and giev it to another person of the same gender as yourself? I suspect so or businesses would be howling bloody murder. In fact even a same-sex attorney could not have power of attorney!

Now, don't get me wrong, I think the Ohio amendment, and those like it, are outrageous, and their vague wording invites judicial meddling of the worst sort-- if you want to keep the courts out of it, keep your laws short, concise and exact in wording. But the wilder claims of what this amendment bans are also over the top.

Zifnab's comments have attracted many responses, and I need not repeat what has already been said.  But this just floors me:

"This is to say that when Republicans show a great deal of dissatisfaction at Dean being elected Chair of the party and Clinton becoming the new baston for a Dem President, they show an incredible desire for Democrates to abandon their core ideologies and just become Republican Lite."

Just whom are you referring to?  This Republican is delirious with joy over Dean's and Clinton's advancement within the Democratic Party hierarchy.  These characters provide comic relief until a solid, serious core develops within the Democratic Party or its successor organization.  Then we can get back to the serious business of running a nation.

Hitchens is one of the best on either the left or right at responding to those crazed moonbats on the left who would have us disarm. He is not interested in being polite like so many on the right seem to be...Ann Coulter excepted. We seem to be too polite to take on the left and he just destroys them. His take down of Ron Reagan is just the latest example.

Regarding the Ambassador Glaspie story, what isnt mentioned is the threat the Saddam made to Ambassador Glaspie. On July 25,President Saddam Hussein of Iraq summoned the United States Ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie If you use pressure, we will deploy pressure and force. We know that you can harm us although we do not threaten you. But we too can harm you. Everyone can cause harm according to their ability and their size. We cannot come all the way to you in the United States, but individual Arabs may reach you.

That is big news.

Pierre

why interracial and homosexual marraiges are not the same issue.

Amendments 13, 14, and 15 to the United States Constitution.

Even as an originalist, I will concede that after the nation fought a bloody civil war over the issue of race, the goal of these Amendments was to make sure that the governments -- especially the defeated Confederate state governments -- do not discriminate against blacks.  It isn't that far of a stretch.  Of course, I do think Loving v. Virginia goes a bit too far with its "Marriage is a basic civil right of Man" language, but I consider that to be dictum.

Race as a suspect classification is a well-settled principle of law having its roots in the above mentioned Amendments.  Sexual preference is not, although I grant that there are those who believe it should be.

The difference, then, is fairly simple.  The Constitution prohibits anti-miscegenation laws; it is no longer a state matter.  It does not, however, prohibit anti-gay marriage laws; that remains a state matter.

I believe New Jersey is currently debating a bill to extend marriage rights to gay couples.  Personally, I say power to 'em; let them join the rest of us in misery.  (Just kidding! Kidding, honey, really! if you happen to be reading this.)

However, I would oppose -- and I suspect a great number of otherwise pro-gay marriage conservatives would also oppose -- finding some Constitutional right to gay marriage that simply is not within the meaning of the Constitution via resort to the courts.

So, um, good luck in your legislative endeavors to formalize gay marriage through the state legislatures.  Or perhaps a gay marriage Constitutional Amendment.  Just not through the courts, thanks.

-TS

rather than an admission of a terrorist response but who knows.  I mean if there was any intent to conspire with terrorists I seriously doubt they'd leave that in the transcript that they themselves released.  Saddam might have been a nutter but I doubt he's a fool.  But if you like the connection Hitchens aims to please here:

I call your attention to a report in the London Independent from Patrick Cockburn, published on Dec. 1, 2004....He reprinted a letter from Naji Sabri, Saddam Hussein's foreign minister, to his supreme leader. It is dated five days before the fall of Baghdad. In the letter, Sabri expresses concern that world opinion is receiving an impression of too much fraternization between Iraqis and American forces. A cure for this, he argues, is "to target their vehicle checkpoints with suicide operations by civilian vehicles in order to make the savage Americans realize that their contact with Iraqi civilians is as dangerous as facing them on the battlefield."

This delightful suggestion possesses many points of interest. It demonstrates that the Baath Party already had organized links with jihadist suicide bombers.

I didn't want to demean Hitchens for still being a leftie.  In fact I think his support in spite of his politics is all the more praiseworthy.  People like the OP just dismiss him as "not one of us any more" and don't think twice about it.  (Righties do it as well by the way)

Taking down Ron Reagan is something I'm sure Hitchens won't be putting on his resume any time soon.  Heh.  

why interracial and homosexual marraiges are not the same issue.

 Amendments 13, 14, and 15 to the United States Constitution.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here.  Ammendment 13 has nothing to do with marriage, or even specifically blacks; it just says that slavery shall not exist in the USA.  The relivant portion of Ammendment 14 reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I see nothing here about blacks specifically.  The portion I bolded sounds like a good argument against both interracial marriage bans and gay marriage bans, but it has nothing specific about either blacks or marriage.

I think you're saying that since the Constitution was specifically ammended with the end in mind of equal rights for blacks that this justifies the Loving decision, but since homosexuals weren't part of the intent back in 1870 the 14th Ammendment doesn't include them?  Or have I completely missed your point?

Now, personally, I've always thought that originalism was a bit odd.  I mean, I haven't heard anyone objecting to the Air Force, dispite the fact that the establishment of an Air Force is not a power granted to the government under Article 1, Section 8.  But if you want to play that game, then doesn't Article 4, Section 1 (the Full Faith and Credit provision) mean that a gay marriage in Massachusetts, or New Jersey if they go that direction, or a Civil Union from Vermont has to be honored here in Texas?

Of course, I do think Loving v. Virginia goes a bit too far with its "Marriage is a basic civil right of Man" language

Why?  I'm asking in all seriousness, do you think that marriage isn't a basic civil right of man?  If not, why not?

I don't agree with you, and I politely ask you to explain why I'm wrong, therefore I'm a troll.  Sorry I thought I could have a discussion with you.

I am surprised that someone who has followed Democrats at all would be surprised that a  liberal "couldn't stand the sight of Hillary Clinton".

Her biggest opposition comes from the left wing of the Democratic party, and many Democrats (especially liberals) blame the Clintons for the Democrats losing control of congress.

marriage amendments on the ballots, is because so many people sense a judicial fiat similar to the Roe one.

The reality is that the gay marriage issue should be argued in the court of public opinion, it should be debated in the state legislative houses, and passed that way.

Good example-the Massachussette's court decision did not go over well, and then the actions by several mayors to give out marriage liscenses also stoked the fire.  Connecticut's legislature recently passed a civil union bill-and I haven't heard too many peeps about how horrible it is (maybe Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson had some words on it, but I admit I didn't seek out their opinion), and that is likely because most conservatives I know, even social conservatives recognize the importance of the legislature in these decisions.

The gay marriage amendments probably wouldn't have passed in all 11 states, and probably wouldn't have even been on the ballot had those opposed to them not sensed a judicial fiat in the works.

I think you're saying that since the Constitution was specifically ammended with the end in mind of equal rights for blacks that this justifies the Loving decision, but since homosexuals weren't part of the intent back in 1870 the 14th Ammendment doesn't include them?  Or have I completely missed your point?

Although I am sure he can clarify if that is exactly what he meant.

I think the issue for originalists is that the intent of the 14th amendment was not intended for sexual orientation (and frankly at the time the congress probably would have been shocked at the suggestion that the amendment they were writing was intended to grant the right to homosexual marriage).

Originalists argue that the place for the gay marriage debate is not in the constitution/courts (as a matter of fact if you want to find the right in the constitution, then by all means petition and lobby congress to amend the constitution to include homosexuals, that is why we have the 14th amendment as it stands-because somebody lobbied congress to write it, and the amendment was ratified), but in the legislatures.

If you want gay marriage or civil unions or anything else, then by all means make your case to the people, advocate your case to the state legislatures to write laws granting them-in the long run it may take longer, but it will do far more for the actual cause than having justices in black robes shove it down somebody's throat.

Connecticut passed a civil union law without any order from the court.  I can't think of a single conservative voice that I trust condemn this action as some kind of horrible thing.

There is currently a proposed bill to allow them in I think Washington State, and no court ordered them to write it.

This is the way it should be, and if you still want it to be a federal requirement that it be recognized in all 50 states, then by all means lobby the congress, and make the case, and either get a bill or amendment passed to make it so.

Not that I feel any obligation to indulge you, nor have any fantasy that anything I say on this subject will change your mind, I have nonetheless taken a little time to answer your question.

What is the difference between homosexual marriage and interracial marriage?

In a nutshell the traditional definition of marriage is built on the principle that when a man and a woman come together in marriage, they do something that is unique, they create a human life.

There is a difference between interracial marriage and homosexual marriage because homosexuals cannot procreate.  Interracial couples are able to still procreate.

Interracial marriage laws were put into place to keep one race pure and superior over another.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Once overturned, they did not change the fundamental definition of an institution that has been defined since the beginning of time.

Quite honestly, I think attaching the homosexual marriage argument to the civil rights' struggle that cost this country many lives does a disservice to how far we have come in knocking down the racial barriers in this country.  I don't think I am wrong in that idea either.  Given that same-sex marriage bans were approved by such significant margins in purple and even blue states leads me to believe it was more than just the white Christian conservatives voting to put them in place.

Alas, I am a Christian conservative and you a liberal, so I'm sure you won't given my reasoning much thought.

"The idea that we can ever eliminate terrorism completely, by killing all the terrorists or somesuch, is an illusion and something I have never heard espoused from the Left."

If you are talking about political warfare generally, yes.  Political terrorism has been with us for thousands of years, like murder and other crimes.

If you are talking specifically, all terrorist movements come to an end; the end comes sooner if the terrorists are resolutely opposed.  See Stalin's Great Terror, the nazis, the Japanese militarists, and the Red Brigades.  

If we follow John Kerry's plan, the Jihadists will be with us for a long, long, long time.  Liberals are not resolute.  See Vietnam.

There is a difference between interracial marriage and homosexual marriage because homosexuals cannot procreate.  Interracial couples are able to still procreate.

My marriage is unable to produce children for medical reasons.  While I will concede that my circumstances are not the norm, they are hardly unique either.  I know several married couples who have (either by choice or through circumstances beyond their control) no children.  How do they fit into your reasoning?  I can follow your reasoning right up to that point.  I've always thought the procreative argument was flawed simply because not all marriages produce children.

The other side is that homosexual couples do sometimes adopt (see Dan Savage), or (if lesbian) use modern technology to artificially insiminate.  While neither is "traditinal" both allow the formation of a family more complete than mine.

Is my childless (and unable to produce children) marriage invalid in your eyes?  Should hetrosexuals who wish to marry be required to take fertility tests before they do to ensure that the ability to produce children is present?

Are we quibbling over the use of the word "marriage"?  That is, would you be satisfied if homosexuals had a legal option that granted them all the rights and responsibilities of marriage but was not called marriage?  Or do you think that homosexuals simply should not have the rights and responsibilities regardless of what name they go under?  Given that many of the states that passed anti-gay marriage laws also banned civil unions I can only assume that the latter is a common attitude among conservatives.

Given that lesbians at least can procreate, and homosexual men can adopt, doesn't that weaken your argument?  Or am I misunderstanding your point?

I must be a stricter Constitutional literalist than I thought, in a certain sense anyway.  I look at the document and I ask: "What does it say".  Not "what might the people who wrote it meant for it to say".  Or, "if these people were transported to the modern time what would they think of the current issues".  If the equal rights provisions of the 14th Ammendment were meant only for blacks then they should have written it that way.  The Constitution as written doesn't say that the 14th Ammendment is for blacks, not gays; so I work from what it actually says.

Sometimes you have to interperate.  The 1st Ammendment doesn't mention radio, television, or the internet, but from what was written and the technology available at that time I think its not unreasonable to assume that it covers those media as well.  It'd be nice to issue a clarifying amendment, something along the lines of "Freedom of communication shall not be infringed", but its not really necessary.

I really can understand the position that there is a need to explicitly ammend the Constitution as times change.  But given how quickly times change, and how broad the language actually written into the Constitution is I can't agree that its necessary for every little thing.  I look at the part where it says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" and I think it means what it says.   All citizens, not just the citizens that they were specifically thinking of protecting at the time.  If they only wanted to protect the rights of blacks, they could have written it that way.  Something like "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States based on color, national origin, or race."  If it were written that way I could see the argument that the 14th Ammendment doesn't apply to homosexuals.  But it isn't.  It says "all citizens", and gays are citizens.

From my POV it looks as if you are doing much more interperation of the Constitution in order to deny rights to homosexuals than I am to extend rights to homosexuals.  I also tend to work on the assumption that those looking to limit rights have a greater burden of proof than those looking to extend rights.  

The fight for the right to interracial marriage was a court fight, not a legislature fight.  Or at least the big victories were court victories, not legislatureal victories.  Yet I don't see anyone here saying that it was bad and that we should have specifically amended the Constitution to allow interracial marriage.  You just argued that the 14th Amendment shouldn't cover gays marriage because the people who wrote and approved of that Amendment would have been shocked to think it would protect gay marriage.  I propose that they would have been equally shocked to think it protected interracial marriage.  On that basis are you going to denounce the Loving decision as the work of judicial activists?

I'm all in favor of fighting in the legislature, but I refuse to accept that its the only legitimate way to fight.  The Constitution as written extends equality to all citizens, I would argue that technically the 19th Ammedment is unecessary because that's covered by the 14th.  Women are citizens, therefore their privilages shall not be abridged.  I'm glad that the battle was won somehow, and its nice to have an Ammendment specifically for you and your purposes, but it seems to me that the courts would have been a perfectly legitimate place to fight for women's right to vote.  

There are so many specifics to freedom that if we amended the Constitution for each one it'd be longer than a Stephen King novel.  That's, IMO, why the founders wrote it in such broad language, so it wouldn't have to cover each and every specific.

I think there is a practical issue here that you are ignoring. You bring us parallels from the fights for civil rights and gender equality, and assert that we should view the struggle for gay marriage as another instance of that class of thing.

But it isn't really, and failure to take that into account could be, literally, dangerous.

The other struggles you mentioned had widespread support, even if there was a struggle over the issue. Which is to say that the country was close to being divided 50-50 on the subject.

We have a long history as a people of being on the winning and losing sides of these things, and we all understand that we don't get our way every time. The Kerry voters lost by a very small margin; but they still lost, and except for some moonbats they accept that.

That acceptance of losing is key to keeping the place going.

These referenda that have been passing in state after state by huge margins are signalling that this is not one of those issues. Gay Marriage is an issue on which an overwhelming majority is opposed. This is not a smart place for a court to insert itself on the side of the minority. I realize that is not an appeal to Justice or R