Friday, August 13, 2004 - Apache Junction, Arizona, USA
SENSITIVITY 101
So many things to talk about today – which should I bring up? First there’s the Court decision in California - who didn’t realize that was coming? This has been covered very well in a lot of other journals though so I think I’ll pass on that for a couple of days. Then there’s the ‘retirement’ of New Jersey’s now out of the closet gay governor. I think I’ll hang on to this one until the smoke clears. No, today I think I’ll talk about Vice President Cheney’s disparaging remarks about John Kerry. I always enjoy it when the Bushie administration buries itself in pig shit up to his pointed big ears.
I’ll bring you up to date in case you haven’t been paying attention with all the goings on lately. Last week at a Kerry conference with minority journalists the Demo candidate said, “I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.”
Mr. Cheney immediately jumped at the remark stating as only Mr. Cheney can, “America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive. Those who threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively. They need to be destroyed. President Lincoln and General Grant did not wage sensitive wars. Nor did President Roosevelt or Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur. As our opponents see it, the problem isn't the thugs and murderers that we face, but our attitude. We, the American people, know better.”
Yes, Mr. Cheney, we, the American people, DO know better. We know that sensitive means being capable of being stimulated by external agents, such as CIA Director George Tenant’s report to President Bush entitled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” which warned that al Qaida might be planning to hijack airplanes. A li’l sensitivity might have been a big help there, no?
We also know that sensitivity means being delicately aware of the attitudes and feelings of others, for instance our NATO partners, and those Middle East countries that helped us in the last Iraqi war. Had President Bush and Mr. Cheney been a bit more sensitive, we might not have had to go it alone in Iraq this time.
Being sensitive would allow one to be capable of indicating minute differences, such as if our intelligence sources showed there were really weapons of mass destruction or not. Being capable of that might have kept us out of the Iraqi mess totally. But it’s hard to be sensitive when you’re so cock-sure that you’ll read anything you want into intelligence sources to prove your own misdirected point.
Also, Mr. Cheney, we Americans know our history a bit better than you give us credit for. We know that President Roosevelt was sensitive enough to the wishes of the American people to keep us out of WWII until we were attacked by the Japanese and had war declared upon us by the Germans. General Eisenhower had to be super sensitive so as not to offend any of his Allies. Case in point – choosing Montgomery over Patton in some cases to quell British anxieties. Yes, and General MacArthur. Wasn’t he the one who wanted to nuke the North Koreans? How many millions of people would that have destroyed? And would Russia have retaliated as soon as they could? Thank God Truman was sensitive.
As for Abe, he had to be sensitive enough to balance the need to reunite the Union with the opposition to the draft. Not all northerners wanted to fight for the black man. There were riots in New York and other northern cities against Mr. Lincoln’s war. How easy would it have been to be insensitive and just let the South have it’s own way? And Grant was much more sensitive than say, General Sheridan, who’s insensitivity during his march through the South after it was all but defeated caused the destruction of property, lives, and morale that probably set back the reconstruction of the Union for years. Grant never allowed such tactics in his Army of the Potomac.
So Mr. Cheny, we Americans would much rather have sensitive leaders than insensitive ones like we have now. The world would be a safer place, the economy would be in much better shape, and Americans wouldn’t be torn apart by fear motivated ideals wrongfully labeled as “Christian.”
In the words of John Kerry’s wife, Teresa – "SHOVE IT."
©2004 Marcia Ellen "Happy" Beevre
(2) comments
So many things to talk about today – which should I bring up? First there’s the Court decision in California - who didn’t realize that was coming? This has been covered very well in a lot of other journals though so I think I’ll pass on that for a couple of days. Then there’s the ‘retirement’ of New Jersey’s now out of the closet gay governor. I think I’ll hang on to this one until the smoke clears. No, today I think I’ll talk about Vice President Cheney’s disparaging remarks about John Kerry. I always enjoy it when the Bushie administration buries itself in pig shit up to his pointed big ears.
I’ll bring you up to date in case you haven’t been paying attention with all the goings on lately. Last week at a Kerry conference with minority journalists the Demo candidate said, “I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.”
Mr. Cheney immediately jumped at the remark stating as only Mr. Cheney can, “America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive. Those who threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively. They need to be destroyed. President Lincoln and General Grant did not wage sensitive wars. Nor did President Roosevelt or Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur. As our opponents see it, the problem isn't the thugs and murderers that we face, but our attitude. We, the American people, know better.”
Yes, Mr. Cheney, we, the American people, DO know better. We know that sensitive means being capable of being stimulated by external agents, such as CIA Director George Tenant’s report to President Bush entitled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” which warned that al Qaida might be planning to hijack airplanes. A li’l sensitivity might have been a big help there, no?
We also know that sensitivity means being delicately aware of the attitudes and feelings of others, for instance our NATO partners, and those Middle East countries that helped us in the last Iraqi war. Had President Bush and Mr. Cheney been a bit more sensitive, we might not have had to go it alone in Iraq this time.
Being sensitive would allow one to be capable of indicating minute differences, such as if our intelligence sources showed there were really weapons of mass destruction or not. Being capable of that might have kept us out of the Iraqi mess totally. But it’s hard to be sensitive when you’re so cock-sure that you’ll read anything you want into intelligence sources to prove your own misdirected point.
Also, Mr. Cheney, we Americans know our history a bit better than you give us credit for. We know that President Roosevelt was sensitive enough to the wishes of the American people to keep us out of WWII until we were attacked by the Japanese and had war declared upon us by the Germans. General Eisenhower had to be super sensitive so as not to offend any of his Allies. Case in point – choosing Montgomery over Patton in some cases to quell British anxieties. Yes, and General MacArthur. Wasn’t he the one who wanted to nuke the North Koreans? How many millions of people would that have destroyed? And would Russia have retaliated as soon as they could? Thank God Truman was sensitive.
As for Abe, he had to be sensitive enough to balance the need to reunite the Union with the opposition to the draft. Not all northerners wanted to fight for the black man. There were riots in New York and other northern cities against Mr. Lincoln’s war. How easy would it have been to be insensitive and just let the South have it’s own way? And Grant was much more sensitive than say, General Sheridan, who’s insensitivity during his march through the South after it was all but defeated caused the destruction of property, lives, and morale that probably set back the reconstruction of the Union for years. Grant never allowed such tactics in his Army of the Potomac.
So Mr. Cheny, we Americans would much rather have sensitive leaders than insensitive ones like we have now. The world would be a safer place, the economy would be in much better shape, and Americans wouldn’t be torn apart by fear motivated ideals wrongfully labeled as “Christian.”
In the words of John Kerry’s wife, Teresa – "SHOVE IT."
©2004 Marcia Ellen "Happy" Beevre
.
Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - Apache Junction, Arizona, USA
KATHY PARKER SAYS JUDGES CREATED SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ISSUE
My dear, sweet, wondrous, favorite li’l columnist, Kathy Parker is at it again. Her most recent article runs under the headline, “Judges, not GOP, created same-sex marriage issue.” Sweet Kathy, of course, was so elated upon hearing of the landslide vote in Missouri to include discrimination in the state constitution, she wet her chair. Sweet Kathy is a right wing columnist with self proclaimed gay friends who follows the Bushie line that “activist judges” are “manufacturing” the push for gay/lesbian marriage.
She says, “The fact that so many voters, both Democrat and Republican, turned out in Missouri suggests that Americans want to have a voice in the marriage debate.”
Sweet li’l Kathy must live in a different America than I do.
You see, Kathy sweetly believes that America should be run by the majority and minorities be damned. Minorities in her America would have no recourse in the court against discrimination and bigotry. It doesn’t matter that good, clean, hard working, people get hurt in the process. The majority should get there way no matter who is harmed.
In Sweet Kathy’s America, women would never have been allowed to vote because activist judges gave them that right by recognizing the fact that the US Constitution says that EVERY citizen of the United States should have a right to vote.
Blacks would only be allowed to vote IF they qualified as intelligent enough through a discriminating and bigoted registration test, which most would fail. They would also still be knee-deep in segregation, keeping to the back of the bus, going to segregated schools, and forget being involved with politics, or playing big league baseball. The majority didn’t want those things and blacks would have had no recourse in the courts of our country had the majority had it’s way as Sweet Kathy so charmingly suggests they shouldn’t have – being a minority.
Back alley abortions would be a mainstay in Sweet Kathy’s America because the courts would have been silenced and there would NEVER have been a Roe v Wade ruling granting women the right to decide what happens to their own body.
According to Sweet li’l Kathy Parker, “Churches urged congregations to vote and, as even non-believers grudgingly might concede, prayer has been known to work wonders.” Two points on this. First, Churches involved in politics should have their tax-exempt certification removed. Second, God could care less about a political campaign, especially one where His own people are being harmed by the outcome. (Yes, Kathy, gays and lesbians are God’s people too.)
Obviously, Sweet li’l Kathy must have slept through her civics class in high school cause she isn’t educated enough to understand the reason America’s judicial system is in place. The courts don’t exist to underscore the will of the majority, Kathy. They’re there to protect the rights of ALL American citizens to ensure that they are treated EQUALLY in accordance with our Constitution.
In other words, Kathy dearest, my sweet li’l columnist with many gay friends, coming out against the courts is like coming out against America itself. Who would keep an eye on the majority if we had the kind of court system you would install in this country?
At the same time as the Missouri vote came in, Judge William Downing in King County Superior Court in Washington state supported gay marriage by deciding:
"On the one hand, it may seem odd in the year 2004 to be taking a fresh judicial look at the institution of marriage, an institution that has served society well for many centuries with its presumptively inherent limitation to heterosexuals. ... Yet, on the other hand, it can also be seen as entirely natural to find ourselves engaged in this exercise. As time marches inexorably on, human society -- its collectively felt needs and its ability and inclination to provide for those needs -- evolves.
"Certainly these plaintiffs have been carefully handpicked to serve as suitable standard-bearers for the cause of same-sex marriage. Their lives reflect hard work, professional achievement, religious faith and a willingness to stand up for their beliefs. ...
"They are law-abiding, taxpaying model citizens. They include exemplary parents, adoptive parents, foster parents and grandparents.
"They well know what it means to make a commitment and to honor it. ... There is no worthwhile institution that they would dishonor, much less destroy.
"After long and careful reflection, it is this Court's firm conviction that the effect of today's ruling truly favors both the interest of individual liberty and that of future generations."
Does this sound like activism or does it sound like a vote for liberty and equality? Please note, Sweet Kathy that Judge Downing says there is NO institution (marriage) that gays would dishonor, much less destroy if they married, as you and so many others have been saying repeatedly in the past months.
In all the time I’ve heard that argument from the majority, NO ONE has put forth one shred of evidence how allowing gays and lesbians to marry would effect the institution of marriage in any way. Without that evidence, Kathy, how would you expect judges to rule? You are correct in saying, “No amount of money or political strategy is likely to change either (people’s beliefs) or the will to preserve (marriage between a man and a woman).” When bigoted ideas are implanted in people, only our court system can remove them. Has Vermont fallen apart since gays were given the right to Civil Unions there? No. Has marriage disintegrated in Massachusetts since gays were allowed to marry? No. How about in Canada? No.
You’re position holds no truth, Sweet Kathy. You and those like you are supporting nothing but discrimination and bigotry. You would change America for the worse. Our court system will not allow that to happen. Thank God.
Sorry Kathy.
©2004 Marcia Ellen "Happy" Beevre
(2) comments
My dear, sweet, wondrous, favorite li’l columnist, Kathy Parker is at it again. Her most recent article runs under the headline, “Judges, not GOP, created same-sex marriage issue.” Sweet Kathy, of course, was so elated upon hearing of the landslide vote in Missouri to include discrimination in the state constitution, she wet her chair. Sweet Kathy is a right wing columnist with self proclaimed gay friends who follows the Bushie line that “activist judges” are “manufacturing” the push for gay/lesbian marriage.
She says, “The fact that so many voters, both Democrat and Republican, turned out in Missouri suggests that Americans want to have a voice in the marriage debate.”
Sweet li’l Kathy must live in a different America than I do.
You see, Kathy sweetly believes that America should be run by the majority and minorities be damned. Minorities in her America would have no recourse in the court against discrimination and bigotry. It doesn’t matter that good, clean, hard working, people get hurt in the process. The majority should get there way no matter who is harmed.
In Sweet Kathy’s America, women would never have been allowed to vote because activist judges gave them that right by recognizing the fact that the US Constitution says that EVERY citizen of the United States should have a right to vote.
Blacks would only be allowed to vote IF they qualified as intelligent enough through a discriminating and bigoted registration test, which most would fail. They would also still be knee-deep in segregation, keeping to the back of the bus, going to segregated schools, and forget being involved with politics, or playing big league baseball. The majority didn’t want those things and blacks would have had no recourse in the courts of our country had the majority had it’s way as Sweet Kathy so charmingly suggests they shouldn’t have – being a minority.
Back alley abortions would be a mainstay in Sweet Kathy’s America because the courts would have been silenced and there would NEVER have been a Roe v Wade ruling granting women the right to decide what happens to their own body.
According to Sweet li’l Kathy Parker, “Churches urged congregations to vote and, as even non-believers grudgingly might concede, prayer has been known to work wonders.” Two points on this. First, Churches involved in politics should have their tax-exempt certification removed. Second, God could care less about a political campaign, especially one where His own people are being harmed by the outcome. (Yes, Kathy, gays and lesbians are God’s people too.)
Obviously, Sweet li’l Kathy must have slept through her civics class in high school cause she isn’t educated enough to understand the reason America’s judicial system is in place. The courts don’t exist to underscore the will of the majority, Kathy. They’re there to protect the rights of ALL American citizens to ensure that they are treated EQUALLY in accordance with our Constitution.
In other words, Kathy dearest, my sweet li’l columnist with many gay friends, coming out against the courts is like coming out against America itself. Who would keep an eye on the majority if we had the kind of court system you would install in this country?
At the same time as the Missouri vote came in, Judge William Downing in King County Superior Court in Washington state supported gay marriage by deciding:
"On the one hand, it may seem odd in the year 2004 to be taking a fresh judicial look at the institution of marriage, an institution that has served society well for many centuries with its presumptively inherent limitation to heterosexuals. ... Yet, on the other hand, it can also be seen as entirely natural to find ourselves engaged in this exercise. As time marches inexorably on, human society -- its collectively felt needs and its ability and inclination to provide for those needs -- evolves.
"Certainly these plaintiffs have been carefully handpicked to serve as suitable standard-bearers for the cause of same-sex marriage. Their lives reflect hard work, professional achievement, religious faith and a willingness to stand up for their beliefs. ...
"They are law-abiding, taxpaying model citizens. They include exemplary parents, adoptive parents, foster parents and grandparents.
"They well know what it means to make a commitment and to honor it. ... There is no worthwhile institution that they would dishonor, much less destroy.
"After long and careful reflection, it is this Court's firm conviction that the effect of today's ruling truly favors both the interest of individual liberty and that of future generations."
Does this sound like activism or does it sound like a vote for liberty and equality? Please note, Sweet Kathy that Judge Downing says there is NO institution (marriage) that gays would dishonor, much less destroy if they married, as you and so many others have been saying repeatedly in the past months.
In all the time I’ve heard that argument from the majority, NO ONE has put forth one shred of evidence how allowing gays and lesbians to marry would effect the institution of marriage in any way. Without that evidence, Kathy, how would you expect judges to rule? You are correct in saying, “No amount of money or political strategy is likely to change either (people’s beliefs) or the will to preserve (marriage between a man and a woman).” When bigoted ideas are implanted in people, only our court system can remove them. Has Vermont fallen apart since gays were given the right to Civil Unions there? No. Has marriage disintegrated in Massachusetts since gays were allowed to marry? No. How about in Canada? No.
You’re position holds no truth, Sweet Kathy. You and those like you are supporting nothing but discrimination and bigotry. You would change America for the worse. Our court system will not allow that to happen. Thank God.
Sorry Kathy.
©2004 Marcia Ellen "Happy" Beevre
.
![[ Registered ]](http://www.ardeon.org/happy/journals/button.jpg)
