Wednesday, November 26, 2008


Some of the News
That may be True


In a joint action, the nation's television networks sent a letter of complaint to the Obama transition team regarding the incessant barrage of news conferences now taking place. The letter conceded that President-elect Obama needed to speak out about the current economic crisis and to announce major appointments. However, they saw no need to have a news conference every time a new White House adviser is appointed.

The letter expressed the hope that there would not be a news conference to announce that Defense Secretary Gates will stay on for another year. Also, the letter noted, since the appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State has been going on for over two weeks, therewould really be no need to hold a news conference to introduce her to the American public.

Of particular concern is the practice of holding these daily conferences in Chicago rather than in the news capitols of Washington or New York. In a separate statement, NBC news director Roger Isles said that, in these times of belt tightening, the burden of travel to Chicago was overwhelming. Already, he noted, Andrea Mitchell was complaining bitterly about having to fly in coach and stay in cheap hotels.


A few weeks ago, I heard a commentator state that it was no longer politically correct to refer to a brief warm spell in the fall as an "Indian Summer" . The term "native American" is now the proper one.

Well, I'm not so sure. Often, American Indians call themselves "Indians". Besides, is "native Americans" a proper reference? When the Indians were "natives" there was no place named "America". " Aborigines" could apply, but that has come to mean those people in Australia. Could "Indigenes" be adoped as the right term?

On second, or third, thought, maybe "Indian" is best, since one theory is that these people came to our continent from Asia and India is part of Asia.


Some states have just adopted bans on gay marriage, including the influential state of California, which overturned its court's constitutional opinion and showed a preference to protecting chicken over people. It seems appropriate to repost my long-held views posted here several years ago.
So -


(preliminary material omitted)

The solution - take marriage off the table. Get the body politic out of the marriage business

Let marriage be the private commitment that it really is. Those who wish can choose marriage, and label it as such, in accordance with their faith, spiritual values, ethics, or other personal beliefs. It may or may not be church or religion-related; that depends of the tenets of the religion and the wishes of the couple.

On the other hand, the state should have nothing to do with the institution of marriage. Its concern should only be civil union and the regulation of the legalities of formation and dissolution, basic rights and obligations of the parties, and economic benefits attendant to the union. The state's role as protector of children remains unchanged.

So change the words, get the state completely out of the institution of "marriage".