Skip to main content

Rev. Warren and Policy

Do you know what the best part of this site is? It's that no one can argue with what I say. And if they do, and irritate me enough, I will delete them. HA! That said, here is my two cents on the whole Rev. Warren issue.

The fact is that it isn't an issue. The real issue is that a bunch of people who support Obama and "change" do so because they believe that the change proscribed would be pro-them. Who is them? "Them" is anyone who thinks that they were morally or ideologically wronged by allowing Warren to give the invocation (ie. pre-approved prayer) at Obama's inauguration. "Them" is not the GLBTQ community as a whole, first, because that is cookiecuttering everyone in a diverse community and second, that does not include women whom he also has some less than favorable things to say about.

That said, he should be allowed to give the invocation. Of course, I don't think there should be one at all, regardless of who is giving it, but I digress. If someone must give it, then they might as well be someone who is NOT your ally. Why? Because you don't need to convince your allies that you're going to support them and help them. Obama ran on the theme of a united country that puts partisan politics aside. "They" forget that this means that "they" will be putting aside their politics as well if "they" are going to be part of his administration. Oops!

The issue isn't whether Warren is a bigot or whether he's made bigoted statements. This is about unity. You cannot unite without bringing everyone to the party. The Warren case (as well as some of the Cabinet appointments made) has brought to light the realization that EVERYONE will have to come to the table for this nation to be united. Note that Obama did not say that he would solve all of the nation's problems (racism, sexism, et al); he just said that he'd try to bring the country together so that it could heal itself. And, simply, if we do not invite people we wouldn't normally invite, then who are we to say that anyone is equal or anyone is united? We can't.

So, this is what's going to happen: Obama is going to be inaugurated and Warren is going to give the invocation. Additionally, a pro-GLBTQ minister (whose name I bet you don't even know) will be giving the benediction. With Warren there, the Obama administration will reach a hand out to a sect of society that we as liberals have shunned for generations. He will try to heal this nation. by bringing both sides together, not in agreement ideologically but in mutual respect for each other as Americans. Whether he succeeds or not is equally our responsibility as it is Warren's and his allies. If we succeed, then we have a new nation to look forward to, one that IGNORES the parts of society that we don't like, but does not shun them. And that's a step in the right direction.

Only once we come together as Americans regardless of our difference, will we be able to save this nation from the foolish policies of voodoo economics and deregulation. If all we do is in-fight, America will not deserve -- and indeed will likely not -- be a profitable venture much longer. So everyone, on all sides of this nation's arguments, bite your tongues and work together. The result if we don't is potentially far worse than being friendly to our neighbors.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

My Last

 My previous post was found as a blank page in draft form this evening.  I found the existence of it to be rather poetic.  So I published it blank as is over a year later.  Seems fitting to be honest.
Post a Comment
Read more

Reagan, Deregulation, and the Fruit It Now Bears

President Reagan had an idea about how the world should run. He deregulated Big Business. That is, he removed the restrictions put in place that kept companies from cheating. He removed, primarily economic oversight. He said that it was unAmerican that in this capitalist society that such oversight, such restrictions should exist. To him, these concepts flew in the face of that illusive, figmentary idea we like to call freedom. He wanted Big Business to have the freedom to do what it will and believed that in doing so, said companies would check themselves. They would check themselves because it was in their best economic interest to do so. Yet, what he didn't realize is that what was in the best interest of Corporate America could be unknown to Corporate America itself! That Big Business could be akin to a compulsive gambler who as they fall further and further into the hole panic and begin making riskier and riskier bets, thus then subjecting themselves to even more debt ...
2 comments
Read more

36

Navigating life into your mid and eventually, ugh, late 30's is much different than your mid/late 20's.  Artificial time limits that we impose on ourselves for many of life's milestones seem increasingly close and their goals seem increasingly distant as the years tick forward.  It is important however to remember that these milestones are not actually set in stone.  They take work.  Sometimes a lot of work.  And they don't have an actual timeline. In my 20's I believed by 36 I would be married to a good man.  Have a family.  A career.  A home.  And that things would be, in all, pretty decent.  All the hard work of my early 20's would pay off and all of these milestones would be reached.  But of course, we're all a little naive about these things.  We have emotional responses to them which sometimes cloud logic. Three years back, I was in a relationship.  I had a good paying job.  And, as should come as a surprise to ...
Post a Comment
Read more