So it's Friday. I'm still not super pumped up about the blogging (taking a few days off has been pretty nice, as it turns out- I enjoy writing, but it's a bit of work, also), but I wanted to comment on a thing or two.
First off, let me say how infuriating I find it that Bush has the gall to be critical of Obama's foreign policy stance. Bush has done nothing but get us into a pointless war and implemented countless policies that have overwhlemingly turned international global sentiment against the U.S. (including human rights violations, disastrous enviromental policies, and a demonstrated willingness to have our leaders lie stand on the floor of the U.N. security council and lie to the entire world) , and now he deems himself fit to be critical of a more open, honest dialogue as part of our foreign policy? I am literally counting down the days until Bush is out of office, and I will be throwing a party to celebrate his departure if I have any money left to do so once he's done driving our economy into the ground.
If the U.S. is going to actually demonstrate an ability to perform a leadership role within the global community, the lines of communication with other countries have got to remain open. This doesn't mean we have to buy into ridiculous rhetoric or tolerate unethical behavior on the part of other nations, but we have to show a willingness to listen. The willingness to listen is part of what constitutes the difference between an equitable leader and a self-serving despot. (a distinction which Bush may have some difficulty in recognizing) It's pretty hard to maintain the position that we're trying to be fair and equitable when we're not even willing to listen to what the other side has to say.
Anyway, just for the record, I fully support Obama's position in seeking an open dialogue with Iran and other "problem" countries. I know that I'm just a wild-eyed liberal, but it sort of seems like it's at least worth the effort to try to resolve some of our difficulties through conversation before we start sacrificing American lives in a full blown war (which Bush seems intent on having, by the way- I'm not sure how statements that compare other countries to the Nazis can really be seen as anything other than inflammatory. I don't get it. Do we need another country to invade? Are Halliburton stock values dropping off?).
In other news, the California Supreme Court has rolled back their ban on gay marriage, and I think that the ruling constitutes a civil rights victory, not only for gay people, but for anyone who's interested in living in a country where all people are treated equally and fairly. Obviously the ruling doesn't effect me, personally, (or maybe it's not that obvious to anyone who reads this blog but who doesn't know me personally- I'm not gay- I'm just another straight, white, boring ol' middle of the road American male), but it just has always bothered me that any group of people in this country are singled out on the basis of something like sexual orientation and are then told that they don't have the same rights as everyone else. I just think all people deserve the same civil rights as everyone else (unless they've actually committed a crime or done something that hurts other people). I've heard the argument that marriage is a special commitment that's only meant to be shared between men and women, but I think that argument carries with it, by implication, the assertion that gay relationships are not as meaningful as straight ones, and, therefore, the implied assertion that gay people are sort of second class citizens when compared to straight people because they're not capable of having relationships that have the same level of meaning as straight relationships. I really don't care for that line of reasoning, and I've been witness to some gay relationships that were as strong as any straight marriage that I've seen. It disappoints me that none of the three people currently running for president supports gay marriage. I know that Obama's position is that he would like to maintain marriage as a right reserved for straight couples, but that he supports civil unions (with all of the lagal rights that accompany marriage) for gay people. Civil unions are better than nothing, I guess, but the whole thing sort of smacks of the "separate but equal" mindset, doesn't it? (I mean, black people were still getting the same water as white people when they had to drink out of a different water fountain than white people, but the implication that they were second class citizens was still sort of there, wasn't it?)
Anyway, that's it for now. I guess blogging sucks me in sometimes, whether I mean for it to or not.