Change I Cannot Support

Moving to home-state politics: California Proposition 8, the new, second, again, same ol’, do we have to, stupid judges, Marriage Protection initiative on the California ballot.

David Blankenhorn, a self-described Liberal Democrat, says he supports California Prop 8 and correspondingly does not support homosexual marriage because of the children:

Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.

I like the physical aspects of my marriage, but it is the focus on what is currently mostly a potential for us, the ability to have children and raise them, that directs and focuses our growth as a couple in our marriage. It is because I want her to be the mother of my children that I married her. She’s the right one.

David’s money line:

…Marriage says to society as a whole:

For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.

Up Is Down

A Network World online poll poses the question:

“Hacking into Sarah Palin’s e-mail is…”

1) Wrong under any circumstances
2)Justified given the circumstances
3)We don’t know enough yet

This isn’t a political question, it’s a moral question: “Is action X correct or not?”

A moral person would have little issue declaring that it is wrong to crack email accounts unless there is some criminal action to be detered by doing so and that specific foreknowledge of that criminal action would be somewhat necessary to justify the cracking.

At the time of publising, 2,532 people had responded and only just over half chose the first option.

13% said that we do not know enough yet, 51% said it’s always wrong, and fully 36% said that the crack was justified.

Currently the voting is at 2,822 respondents, and the results are still virtually unchanged.

Over 1/3 of respondents, who, we can assume, are mostly professionals in technology and business, believe it is OK that Sarah Palin’s email was cracked. They are ‘Contributing members of society’, not high-school drop-outs or bachelors living in their mothers basements.

It ought also be safe to assume that generally, it is supporters of Barack Hussein Obama and those against John McCain and Sarah Palin who support these actions in this circumstance.

I fear seeing a similar poll questioning how one would feel if it were a prominent Socialist or Democrat whose email was hacked.

I am afraid for America.

Christians Aid Man Forsaken By Wealthy Brother

If only the papers would run this headline.

Dinesh D’Souza has started an informal charity with the purpose of raising money for George Obama, the other Obama’s poorer half brother.

While Barak cannot spare a few dollars to help his half-brother George, people with much lesser means are even now putting aside a few dollars to help a man they hardly know.

From the article:

Here are some donor comments which I’ll be forwarding to George along with the funds. “This is for the poor brother long forgotten.” “A brother is a terrible thing to waste.” “I wish I had a brother, or even a step-brother. George is not my relative and not my race or religion but I still want to contribute to his welfare.” “When Obama said that not taking care of the least of our brothers is our greatest moral failure, who knew that he was talking literally about the least of his brothers?” “I never thought I’d be writing a check to anyone named Obama, but I do want to be a true Christian and help this man in his shameful situation.” “I’d send more, but I make $9.10 per hour.” “I’m unemployed, but I can spare $5 for the Obama Compassion Fund.”

Is this mostly about politics? Yes.

Is it massively amazing PR? Yes.

Does it benefit George? Yes.

Does is embarass Barack? Yes.

Where do I sign up?