The Moderate Republican

Great site, well done. I enjoy beeing here and i´ll come back soon. You do a great job. Many greetings.

Great information here. Just what I needed to complete my essay. Thanks. In my opinion the internet is the key to success!

Relationship problems - Letter to the Editor.

In 1998, President Bill Clinton was famously impeached for claiming that he had no “sexual relations” with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton defended himself, saying that his use of the words sexual “relations” and “relationship” was equivocal, but not false. What Clinton was judged upon was not his “relationship,” but upon the fact that he should have come clean earlier. He has since admitted his mistake.

In 2004, after going to war in Iraq, Bush realized that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs and was not a threat to the United States. In defense, Bush issued statements connecting the war in Iraq with something that he knew the American people wouldn’t question: Al Qaeda. President Bush claimed that there existed ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. To the American people, on June 17th, 2004, George Bush claimed there existed a “relationship” between the two.

Technically, there were “contacts” shared by Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. There existed a “relationship.” But what is most disturbing is not whether the “relationship,” but how President Bush has used the word deceptively to ensure his own political survival. By using ambiguous and suggestive language time and time again, Bush has succeeded in convincing us, contrary to fact, that this “relationship” exists, just in time for the election. With one misleading word, Bush is able to frighten us and cover up his great mistake: that his reasons for going to war were simply wrong. Although both Presidents were proven false by non-partisan commissions, in the end only President Clinton was impeached. For Clinton, it was Kenneth Starr; for Bush, it was the independent 9/11 commission, which found this summer that if there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Hussein, there was definitely no “collaborative relationship."

For our collective dignity, I must ask, what is worse: equivocating about an affair, or the cover-up of a war that is costing thousands of lives and our future economic prosperity? I can never put my seal of approval on George Bush again after he has lied to my face. I cannot forgive this president for looking into the camera and telling me that there is a “relationship” between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda to justify his mistake and get my vote. It takes a strong leader and a stronger man to admit that he has made a mistake. This year, Bush has shown me he is neither. As an independent, I must choose this election not between Democrat and Republican, but between proven deception and a chance for redemption.

My last question to the American people is: what is our “relationship” with the one individual we choose for President of the United States every four years. Should we expect honesty? Should we demand it? I say yes, at a minimum. If somebody you trust lies to you repeatedly, they aren’t right for you. On Nov. 2nd, I am voting this year to begin and end the impeachment of George W Bush the only way as a citizen I know how: with my vote.

-Henry M Rich
Hopewell, NJ

After a long search, I finally found your site. My granny used to say, that you
I love your site. It´s really a pleasure to read through all this interesting stuff and it home.

This law would completely undermine the rights of gay and lesbian citizens of Virginia to enter into private contracts with one another. It states that contracts (including private contracts) between people of the same gender are null and void in Virginia if the contract bestows any of the same benefits that a marriage would.

A national boycott has been called to counter such blatant anti-gay discrimination. The boycott is against Virginia and Virginia-based companies. J. Crew, headquartered in Virginia, is being targeted along with other companies.

The boycott is here:
Virginia Is For Haters
http://www.virginiaisforhaters.org

Dennis,

I would like to make two comments about your post, without actually discussing my opinion of the law in Virginia (after all, I might run for office one day). By the way, props for the title of this post: very funny.

The first is that you say you "don't see how people who call themselves Christian could do this." I think you might be confusing Christianity with the theory of "I'm ok, you're ok." You probably won't find that thought in many churches in Virginia. Unfortunately, you're more likely to find "I'm ok, everyone else isn't," which also is not the message of Christianity (which is that nobody is ok, except Christ). But expecting people to agree with (or even tolerate) your social view because they are "Christian" is a little naive. My guess is that the lawmakers and their "Christian" constituents are asking the same question about those involved in homosexual relationships: How can people who call themselves Christian do this? Whatever your belief about homosexuality in the context of Christianity there is no escaping the fact that Christianity is a religion of absolutes. Jesus said "Be perfect" and "I am the only way to heaven." So those who believe absolutely that homosexuality is a sin, and that marriage is between a man and a woman are likely to act in that manner, using the legislature as a way to insure that the beliefs of the "majority" are preserved in law.

Secondly, this law is hardly comparable to the ownership of slaves or even keeping Japanese people in confinement. While it might take away some of the priveleges that heterosexual married couples enjoy, there is not a move to forcefully take away the personal liberties of gay Virginians. This particular law doesn't make it illegal to be gay, just to have a formal marriage acknowledged by the state. Certainly, for those same-sex couples in Virginia who want to get married, this law would be hard to swallow, but I am fairly confident that the light of history will show that it doesn't compare to the evils of slavery.

Ultimately this law is not so much an attempt to legislate morality as it is to impose the political will of people who believe in moral absolutes.