Sunday, May 24, 2009

Go Read It!

What's the most exciting thing we'll see on Broadway this year? Probably pedestrian traffic.

• Posted at 11:49 PM · LINK

Recommended Reading

David Brooks, who's one of the New York Times Conservative commentators, has an interesting view on the current arguments being made by people named Cheney. It's that the Bush administration went through two phases in its so-called "War on Terror." The first phase was reckless, confused, destructive to us and full of immoral acts. The second phase, he says, was more intelligent and moral and effective. And what Dick Cheney and his minions are doing now, sez Brooks, is attacking Obama for continuing and refining Bush's second phase.

• Posted at 7:59 PM · LINK

Today's Video Link

From The Frost Report (hosted by now-Sir David Frost) in 1966: Tom Lehrer sings a song that sounds like one of his but is actually by Noel Coward...

• Posted at 6:08 PM · LINK

Frank Talk

I think Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is one of the smartest men in politics today. My friend Roger reacts to this as if I was claiming the hottest woman ever on TV was Moms Mabley...or something of the sort. He hates Frank and pronounces the "D-Mass" as "dumbass" every time he mentions his name, which is great political rhetoric if you happen to be in third grade.

Recently at American University in Washington, DC, Representative Frank received an honorary Doctor of Public Service degree and gave a stirring commencement address. I can't embed it here but if you'd like to watch it, there's a video on this page. The whole thing, including the introduction of him, runs about 19 minutes. I especially liked his comments on idealism versus pragmatism...

I am a great believer in free speech. I would let people say all kinds of things about each other. I would let them show pictures of each other doing various things, as long as we are talking about adults. If I could ban speech I would do a couple of things: First of all, I would make it illegal to use metaphors in public policy debates…that’s a part. I would also make it a felony to say "Oh, you can do that because you are pragmatic but I am idealistic." Understand that the more deeply you hold your ideals, the more you are morally obligated to be pragmatic. Because ideals that are not implemented do nothing but make you feel morally superior. They never fed a hungry kid, they never cleaned up a polluted river, they never built a road that got people anywhere. So yeah, you should be pragmatic after you are idealistic. Pragmatism in the service of idealism is what you need. Idealism without pragmatism is just a way to flatter your ego.

There are other thoughts in his speech that I liked. Watch it and hear some of them.

• Posted at 5:29 PM · LINK

Sunday Afternoon

The California Supreme Court will rule Tuesday on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the recent ballot measure that reinstated a ban on same-sex marriage. The ruling will also determine whether 18,000 (or so) same-sex marriages will continue to be recognized by the state.

As readers of this blog know, I think it's ridiculous that two folks of the same gender who are already "married" in many senses cannot be man-and-man or wife-and-wife in every sense. I also think it's inevitable that gay wedlock will become legal and commonplace, and that we'll look back on efforts to block it with much the same attitude we now have towards racial segregation or not allowing women to vote. But I'm thinking it just might not be a great thing if my state's high court decided to overturn the ballot measure. I think I'd rather see it overturned by another ballot measure...as it will be, next time we're asked to vote on it. Some polls even indicate Proposition 8 would fail if we voted on it today.

I guess I'm wondering out loud here if it wouldn't be better to do it that way, thereby making the decision The Will of the People instead of The Will of the California Supreme Court. If the justices overturn it, they may be legally correct but we'll then have to hear about "activist judges" who think they know better than the citizens of the state and are thwarting "our" decision. That kind of thing could energize the anti-gay forces just as they're losing strength. A lot of people are willing to accept same-sex marriage as something that society has decided is okay but not as something some court has forced upon us. Yeah, I know it might take longer to make gay wedlock the law of our land if we wait 'til it can get on a ballot again...but it also might make people on the fence more apt to be comfy with it and not provide swing votes for its opponents.

On the other hand, I think it would be cruel and inhumane if the court were to somehow void or rescind all the same-sex marriages that have already taken place. Those folks followed the law as it stood on their wedding days. I hope the Tuesday decision doesn't tear them asunder.

• Posted at 3:26 PM · LINK