Protecting the sanctity of marriage against threats until death (or my serial cheating) do us part

So I noticed that Republican Sen. John McCain's wife and daughter have appeared in photos opposing California's gay marriage ban. While anyone supporting equal rights is obviously a good thing, I've never been one to overly care what the family members of politicians think; I vote for or against the candidate, not his spouse or children. But in response to the story, the legislator's spokesman said, "Sen. McCain believes the sanctity of marriage is only defined as between one man and one woman."

That California's definition of marriage as one man and one woman was most aggressively pushed by Mormons is an irony to discuss another day.

But I suspect that loving, committed gay couples may wonder if a once-divorced man who reneged on his oath to love his first wife until death do them part really knew enough about the "sanctity of marriage" to deny their participation in it. As for the current Mrs. McCain, who's never been divorced, they might give a little more credibility to her views on the topic.

North Country Public Radio's excellent In Box blog had a piece on the topic in which it mentioned that one of the most prominent Republican mayors in the country, San Diego's Jerry Sanders, broadcast his own support for gay marriage, after discovering that his daughter is a lesbian in a committed relationship.

It made me remember how Joe Bruno changed his tune on equal rights for gays when he discovered he had a gay relative (a brother, I think). The then-majority leader helped pass the state's Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act through a GOP-controlled state senate and has come out in favor of in favor of marriage equality. Even someone as normally opposed to human rights as Dick Cheney, who has a lesbian daughter, has never engaged in the sort of populist gay bashing designed to pander to the most, small-minded and hateful of his own party. It seems it's a lot easier to demonize gays when they are just some crude, generic stereotype, when they are The Other... but much harder when they are the kind, honorable son/daughter/brother/sister you've loved all your life.

Convention of whores

I listened to a little of St. John McCain's speech at the Republican National Convention until my blood started boiling. After watching his and other speeches from Minnesota, I came to a conclusion. My dad is a better man than St. John. So is my brother.

The convention ramped up the party's recent tradition of canonizing soldiers... provided that they are or support Republicans. Democratic candidates have always been exempt from this canonization, even if they were wounded in service. Just ask John Kerry or Max Cleland.

I heard Mike Huckabee do this. I heard 9/11 Giuliani do this. I heard former mayor Palin do this. It was non-stop.

I get sick and tired of this crap. I get sick and tired of watching a bunch of ambitious, self-interested political whores having the audacity to lecture Americans on selfless service.

IT'S NOT SELFLESS IF YOU REGULARLY EXPLOIT SOMETHING FOR PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN!

And that's why I'd never in a million years vote for St. John, even if he weren't the most militaristic major party candidate for president in decades.

My brother and father both served in the military. So did my late grandfather. My father and grandfather both chose to enlist during wartime. My brother tried to re-enlist during wartime.

One of the big differences between my family members and St. John is that my family members aren't constantly about their military service, nor did they ever get others to brag on their behalf. They are bringing it up all the time to show how much better and more patriotic they are than everyone else. They have more decency and honor than that.

The reason for this is that, whatever their various reasons for joining, they believe the point of any kind of service is to serve. A good deed is its own reward. My dad has run for public office twice and I don't recall him ever mentioning his veteran status. Maybe it might've helped him gain a few votes. But he was better than that.

St. John isn't. It doesn't bother me that he spoke of his military service and prisoner of war time. I'm sure it was a very important in shaping the person he became. But the amount of time that he and his minions in Minnesota spent shoving his 'selfless' service down our throats was repulsive. According to one analysis, St. John invoked his being a former prisoner of war in 43 sentences of his convention speech. He spoke of his quarter century-long record as a Washington politician in only 8 sentences.

That's whoring out your service for votes.

That's electoral pandering first, not country first.

That's not honor.

My family members occasionally tell stories about their time in the armed forces but it's always been in a reminiscent way and not in a superiority complex way. They never acted like they were better than me because they served in the military and I didn't. I remember my dad saying he envied me because I had the opportunity to serve in the Peace Corps.

Probably the most important difference, and this is what I loathe about the mentality that St. John panders to, is that my family has always valued ALL kinds of public service. They respected my service in the Peace Corps or my sister's service as a teacher and crisis counselor just as they respected my brother's service in the Marines. They respected my service in Big Brothers/Big Sisters just as they respected my brother's service in the Boy Scouts. My mom was a social worker. My dad taught church school. We've given back to our communities and country in many ways, none of which were trivialized.

And ultimately, this is what I resent most about this mentality. There are many ways to serve this country. That includes military service, but St. John and the militarism he represents prop up the idea being a soldier, sailor, airman or marine is the ONLY way to serve your country.

I know this is politically incorrect but soldiers do not have a monopoly on service nor on honor. It's very dangerous when we present soldiering as the only way to contribute to this country. It devalues other, equally crucial, kinds of service.

There are many other ways to make important contributions to this nation. Be a teacher. Be a volunteer firefighter or EMT. These people are the backbones of small towns across this country, both in self-sainted Middle America and the apparent fake Americas on the coasts.

Be a Big Brother or Sister. Volunteer at a soup kitchen. Join a literacy program. If you belong to a church, they probably offer social service programs that you could help out with.

Laud those who serve.

Laud ALL those who serve. But don't leave the improvement of this country to other people. If it's so important, so noble, so worthy, be a part of it yourself.

And if you do so, have the decency and honor to not whore out your service to advance your political career. To do otherwise dishonors that very service.

The gaffes of St. John

If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.

I was amused to read somewhere that as soon as Sen. Barack Obama announced Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate, the GOP unveiled a Biden 'gaffe-meter.' This is from the party whose own standard bearer has made a current reference to a country that dissolved 15 years ago, doesn't know who is the president of the world's largest and one of its most dangerous countries and is going to sell us an Iraq strategy (well, at least empty slogans portrayed as a strategy) without knowing the difference between Sunnis and Shias.

But I guess you can't say anything about any of Saint John's gaffes on serious questions for fear of being accused of ageism and of smearing a former POW... (checks The Script) I mean, war hero... (remembers John Kerry) I mean, REPUBLICAN war hero.

A kinder, gentler Empire

This year's version of the empty 'vote for the lesser of two evils' blackmail is that a McCain administration would be Bush lite and soooooo much worse than a Clinton or Obama adminstration, especially in international affairs, that we have to vote for Democrat no matter what.

Turns out foreign policy experts disagree with this 'conventional wisdom'.

They echo the Naderite contention that while both Democrats might tweak foreign policy around the largely inconsequential edges, neither would change it in any fundamental fashion.

Sweeping oratory aside, a President Barack Obama or a President Hillary Rodham Clinton -- let alone a President John McCain -- might chart a course in the world that's surprisingly similar to that of George W. Bush in his second term, summarizes Washington Post writer Michael Michael Abramowitz.

As I've mentioned in this blog before, neither Democrat offers any substantive challenge to the American empire's core tenet. They merely offer the same old militarism but with a more charismastic face. They'll meddle in other countries' internal affairs for the benefit of the multinationals that own them, but at least they'll do it with a smile!

Philip Zelikow, a University of Virginia professor who served for two years as counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, echoed that thought. Obama and Clinton's "critique in general of the administration, aside from Iraq, is we are going to be more competent and collegial," he said. "They don't really debate many of the underlying premises of the administration's current policies."

This shouldn't come as any surprise. Both John Kerry in '04 and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in '06 made the basis of their campaigns the premise "Bush's foreign policy is fundamentally right. It's just the execution that needs work."

Sadly, many desperate, self-described progressives bit on this hook, line and sinker.

A kinder, gentler empire is still an empire.


Reminder: if you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.

Republican follies

Remember the furor over Sen. Larry Craig's incident in the Minneapolis bathroom regarding which he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor? Remember how so-called conservatives fell over themselves to condemn him while feigning to portray themselves as merchants of righteousness? Remember how they insisted it wasn't "a gay thing" but a "morality thing."

The whole saga over the sexual dalliances of Louisana Sen. David Vitter, another Republican, makes a mockery of these claims.

The difference: Craig was accused of soliciting another man. Vitter is accused of regularly seeking the comfort of women prostitutes.

The result: Top Republicans fell over themselves to crucify Craig and drum him out of office. Their silence of the hypocrites over Vitter has been deafening.

***

House Minority Leader John Boehner recently stuck his foot in his mouth, which is apparently an acceptable body part for the morality brigade. He recently said that the 3780 US military deaths (and counting) were "a small price to pay" for stopping al-Qaeda and stabilizing the Middle East.

I suppose he might not think it was a small price if he had a son in Iraq right now.

Or in a coffin returned from Iraq.

Then again, Republicans in Washington have spent most of the last six years showing callous indifference toward human life. So Boehner's comments are within that tradition.

His comment might be slightly less outrageous if the US aggression against Iraq weren't so evidentally encouraging al-Qaeda and destabilizing the Middle East.

***

Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign bus was called the Straight Talk Express during his 2000 run against Gov. George W. Bush. He's renamed it to something else, which I suppose is appropriate since the old motto clearly no longer applies. I think Tool Time would have been a more appropriate name given how his personna has morphed.

On one hand, he struck back at those who want to promote sectarianism in this country by insisting that his particular demonination is not as important as his overarching Christianity.

But only a few days earlier, he launched a contemptible attack on the Democratic activist group MoveOn.org. Not so much on the liberal group, but on the 1st Amendment.

MoveOn themselves ran a vile attack on Gen. David Petraeus. The ad, which ran before his testimony to Congress, called the Iraq commander "General Betray-Us."

This 'if you disagree with me, you're traitor' filth is something we've come to expect from the far right. It's sickening to see a left-wing organization adopting these disgusting tactics.

It would have been fair to criticize the general's comments, in less inflammatory language, if MoveOn had bothered to actually wait until the general testified. Instead, the smear ads ran BEFORE he even said a word to Congress.

But McCain, pandering to a VFW crowd, reportedly called for MoveOn to be "thrown out of the country."

(Raw video here)

It's bad enough that MoveOn has adopted the 'dissent=treason' line. What's worse is that a potential future president of the United States wants opponents to be exiled.

I assume this is just an emotional McCain pandering to his audience. But it doesn't say much for the judgement of a potential future commander in chief, especially one who'd follow someone who's already seriously undermined the Constitution.

Or perhaps is says a lot more McCain's judgement than he might like.

As they say, a 'gaffe' is what you call it when a politician accidentally speaks his mind.