Friday, December 05, 2008

UPDATE: PA Dems Say Matthews Can Win Senate Race (Huffington Post)

Although Chris Matthews has not confirmed it, he reportedly is planning to run for the Senate seat from Pennsylvania in 2010. He apparently has been meeting with Democratic leaders and is shopping for a house in his old home town, Philadelphia.

Matthews has been advised to resign soon from his position as host of MSNBC's popular Hardball program. This seems wise since the longer he stays there, the more likely he is of making a statement that could jeopardize his campaign. In fact, odds are high that, during a campaign, he will say something that could derail his election chances.

However, I hope that he runs and that he wins. One thing for sure, a debate moderator will not have a problem, as Jim Lehrer did, in getting Matthews to engage directly with his opponent. Note also that his likely opponent, Senator Arlen Spector, is no shrinking violet.

Then if he wins, it will be a treat seeing Matthews in the Senate, continually interrupting senior Senate leaders as they speak. The interruption may well be in the form of a long question that Matthews will then proceed to answer.


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".