My marriage is well fortified, but thanks anyway

What the hell kind of person is so scared, so insecure, and so ignorant as to think that allowing same sex couples the right to marry is going to destroy the institution of marriage? I'm going to love and cherish my wife as long as I live whether homosexuals get married or not. I don't understand why the Republican Party thinks that it needs to deny rights to a small portion of the population, especially a group that is already being treated poorly. Love is a good thing. A state recognizing love for some, yet not for others is vulgar and offensive.

Homesick

How is it, that someone can start to get homesick three weeks before moving away from the place that they consider to be home? I'm going to go ahead and blame the writing of thank you notes to very dear friends whom I don't see enough of as it is. It's kind of tough, but nobody ever told me that it'd be otherwise.

Deaniacs

I'm fed up with these stupid Dean supporters who act so put out about having to support John Kerry. Get over it people. Most of you fancy yourselves to be so progressive and liberal, yet Dean was, after Lieberman, the most conservative of the potential nominees. We've ended up with a healthy moderate to liberal ticket which includes a rising star with great appeal in John Edwards. It just wears me out to hear these Dean people whine.

Jonathan Edwards

"There meet in Jesus Christ, infinite justice and infinite grace. As Christ is a divine person, He is infinitely holy and just; hating sin, and disposed to execute condign punishment for sin. He is the infinitely just Judge of the world and will not at all acquit the wicked, or by any means clear the guilty. Though His justice be so strict with respect to all sin, yet He has grace sufficient for every sinner, and even the chief of sinners."

Excerpt from "The Excellency of Christ" preached at Northampton, 1738
Jonathan Edwards

John Edwards

Okay, if you've ever read this blog, which I know you have, because I am the only reader, then you, I, know how much I love John Edwards. I find a great deal of common ground with him on the issues. Like him, I am basically a moderate southerner who cares very deeply for the poor and underrepresented. Some people dismiss Edwards has a faux progressive, but he's the only politician in recent memory to take center stage and have the courage to talk about poverty. He's a brave man and he deserves support. That said, Kerry didn't have to pick Edwards to have my support. I'm young and am leaning towards activisim of the Democratic variety. Kerry had my vote regardless. The pick of Edwards says that he cares about keeping people like myself involved and I respect that. I will now be passionately advocating for the Kerry/Edwards ticket hoping, in part, that it leads to 8 years of an Edwards presidency following Kerry's 8 years.

Cake and coffee?

I know that some people really love punch and pie, but for me, nothing is better than tea and toast. It tastes so good. Buttermilk toast with strawberry preserves and Yorkshire Gold tea make for a nice afternoon snack. Plus, I feel nearly classy drinking tea and reading in the corner. Granted, I'm only killing time whilest waiting to go to work to make the sandwiches, but whatever. It ends soon. It'll be different to not do the same job that I've done for the past 4 plus years, but it'll be a very nice change. By the way, The Roaring Nineties is a great book. It's great for at least the first fifty pages anyway. That's as far as I've managed to get.

Political Dogma sucks

So, there's no doubt that I'm going to vote for John Kerry. I'm going to be very fortunate to do that voting in Wisconsin, a swing state, as opposed to Texas, W country. I think that Kerry is best man for the job that is still running. I'm liberal, so that shouldn't surprise anybody. While I don't disagree with Bush on many things, I don't think that he is evil. I don't think that he's all that bright or skilled either. In my opinion, he's trying to do what he thinks is best for America and the world and none of the negative consequences of his actions ever even occur to him. I miss the days of reasonable people disagreeing about the proper course of action and that not only being okay, but being the preferred way. They point of politics would seem to be to get groups with a common goal yet different views on how to achieve said goal. In this arrangement there would be dialogue and a give and take. That doesn't seem to happen. While we, the people, seem to seek some common ground, our representatives seem to seek out opportunities to thwart the democratic process. (Again, while I like to think of Bush as not evil, I'm very tempted to throw that label at Tom Delay). I, like many people, went to see the new Michael Moore movie this past weekend. Sure, it is an effective piece of propaganda, but it seems to be another example of accusing a group of being evil because they disagree with you. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the left needs someone like Moore so that we get motivated to act. Maybe he is supposed to serve much the same purpose as Rush Limbaugh does for the right. I don't know. I never found Limbaugh to be terribly helpful for the state of things. Anyway, I'm torn. I find Moore's books entertaining and at least in my little world, he's nothing more than a rabble rouser who's not to be taken entirely seriously. I find myself distressed when people afford him the same respect and reverance that they afford to legitamate thinkers and political leaders. If W is a fake man of the people, then what of the millionaire Moore. What's more of the multimillionaire fraud that is Ralph Nader. I don't want to talk about Ralph Nader though, because for all of his ego, Moore seems to care much more about the collective good than Nader ever could. I don't know.

Quel surprise

So, today I look at the New York Times editorial page and what do I see? Barbara Ehrenreich staring back at me. So she's going to be replacing Thom Friedman for a few months on the op-ed page. I prefer to see her as the liberal beacon as opposed to Krugman, who seems to be more about Krugman than about anything else. Everyone should have read nickel and Dimed. And, although Beth Shulman and not Barbara Ehrenreich wrote it, Betrayal of Work should have also been read. Powell's or Amazon or even the wise folks at Bookpeople, where my wife works, should be smart enough to bundle these books together. They go brilliantly together. Poverty and the working poor is a problem that should concern everyone. It is very clear that the typical American, with our willingness to shop at Wal-Mart, Target and the like, is not doing enough to help low wage workers. These stores don't keep the prices low by getting some super secret deals from distributors that aren't available to your local merchants. They take it out on the wage earners. They treat their employees as disposable tools. It's not right or good. It doesn't help society. If this is how we keep prices down, maybe the prices need to come up, not because of inflation though. The government needs to get involved, raise wages, legislate profit sharing. I'm convinced that wages could go up and prices could stay low if there were some mechanism legislating the distribution of profits between manager and worker. It makes sense. All arguments for keeping the minimum wage low is that increases in wages lead to increased unemployment. That's true, but aren't executives compensated? Don't their monies count as wages as well? Wouldn't an increase in their wages lead to increased unemployment? If that's the case, then skyrocketing executive pay should be considered a problem for the public good meriting government intervention. I don't mean to imply that managers and executives don't deserve to be well compensated. Surely they deserve compensation for their expertise, experience and education. But, not hundreds of times that of the typical employee. That's just silly. That will conclude my partially completed thought. The first such post in months.