I have not participated in the political discourse taking place this week in the local blog community, partly because I have been unable to provide a comprehensive outline of my political views.

But, I will say this:
John Edwards says "hope is on the way." Well, if we hope to change our country, if we hope to change the world, (and we must for our survival now clearly depends on it) that hope for change cannot be embodied by any man or woman that has or ever will come to the podium at a party convention. Whatever progress in human history that has made our world less vulgar, less cruel; that has subdued iniquity or expanded opportunity, has only come about through the constant and difficult struggle for freedom. If we have become more civilized it is not because civilization was bestowed upon us by a sovereign power. It is because we have demanded justice and equity wherever these fundamental human values have been absent.

When the government does not speak in harmony with your voice, it is necessary to vote for change, but this is not sufficient. Government is a war against the people. Democracy is our strongest weapon in this war and our only hope. But, the struggle does not end in the voting booth, it only begins anew.

This picture relates to this article, but feel free to create your own impressions of the scene.

"PARIS -- Lance Armstrong raced onto the crowd-lined Champs-Elysees as a yellow blur, bathed in the light of a 24-carat, gold-leaf bike, a golden helmet and the race leader's yellow jersey."

A gold bike and a golden helmet? That's a bit ostentatious, isn't it?

"The ride into Paris and its famous boulevard was a lap of honor Armstrong savored with champagne."

Drinking and biking? Isn't that a bit dangerous, not to mention perhaps slightly pompous?

"Taking advantage of the leisurely pace of the final stage, Armstrong sat up in the saddle and held up all five fingers on his black-gloved right hand and the index finger on his left.

'I was surprised that some of the rivals were not better. Some of them just completely disappeared,' Armstrong said."

Well, it's nice to see that Lance has remained humble through all of this.

Alright, so the aforementioned schema, in brief, is as follows:

The fact that the legal status of marriage can be extended or denied to some relationship forms and not others means that the legal status of marriage is inherently arbitrary in its application.

As soon as you have the debate about whether to extend legal marriage status to non-heterosexual couples, you are forced to confront the fact that this status is arbitrary. Some people think you can unring that bell by arbitrarily limiting that legal status rather than arbitrarily extending it. Maybe they're right, but I don't believe it will happen.

Now you can either take the position that it is acceptable for government to enact laws that arbitrarily extend or restrict legality to certain conditions and not others, or you can believe as a matter of principle that the law should not be applied arbitrarily.

If you take the latter position, then the government can have no role in conferring legal status on the relationships of individuals. (I'm not raising the issue of the legal and financial rights of spouses here because it seems the gay marriage debate is distinct from the issue of those rights which can be conferred through other legal structures.)

Clearly, marriage is more than just a legal institution, but its social significance is buttressed by the authority of the state. If the state is forced to cede that authority, the significance of marriage in society would slowly decline.
(I have no opinion as to whether a decline in the significance of marriage would be a favorable or unfavorable outcome.)

It is unlikely that the state will simply give up its relationship ratifying authority. However, that authority will always be arbitrary and any arbitrary application of authority loses legitimacy over time.

I thought John Kerry could use a little political advice. Here's the problem: what do you say about the situation in Iraq besides the war should not have happened? How do you articulate a policy going forward that is distinctly different from what is now taking place? I don't think you can. I don't think that, at this point, there is a reasonable alternative to the present situation.

So what do you say? Well, you say there aren't many good alternatives to the present situation which is difficult and dangerous, but the policies that led to this war could lead us again into another unnecessary and dangerous conflict. You come out against the policy of preemptive war and make it a central foreign policy issue.

And then I read this:

"Democratic candidate John Kerry said in Washington on Friday he would be willing to launch a preemptive strike against terrorists if he had adequate intelligence of a threat.
Kerry offered some support for one of the most controversial aspects of Bush's national security policy"


Well, so much for my advice. What is he going to say now, "If I had been President, I would have had better intelligence?"

I think I may have worked out a schema whereby Gay marriage "damages" the institution of marriage. Maybe it is something that opponents have envisioned that proponents have not considered. I will share that with you when I acquire an opportunity.

I have a John Kerry hunk, too. Which would you prefer to see addressed here tomorrow? Gay marriage or John Kerry?

If we have a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, I'm leaving the country.
The government should just admit that it has no real role in ratifying individual relationships.

I don't have cable, which is mostly fine with me because I don't watch much Tv anyway, but I do subsist on streaming video clips of The Daily Show.
Perhaps you have already seen this clip. It appeared two years ago, but I've only just discovered it and I find it to be extraordinary.

There's some sort of NASCAR race going on Joliet at the "Chicagoland Motor Speedway." The NASCAR people like to pretend the event is in Chicago, even though Joliet is 45 miles away.

I always thought it was a bit of an unspoken secret that people watch NASCAR not because they like to see cars go around in circles, but because of the prospect of a potentially lethal crash. I imagine Dale Earnhardt brought more people to the 'sport' by dying than through any of his competitive accomplishments. But I did hear a commentator last week say "The fans like to see the big crashes." They may pretend they're in Chicago, but maybe they don't deny auto racing is part death sport.

I don't really know anything about NASCAR and I don't care, but if I ever, Ganesh forbid, get involved in a technical discussion on the subject, I'll just say the words "restrictor plate" and I'll sound like I know what I'm talking about.

alpha charlie bravo news is freshly updated with some good stuff.

I just realized that I've read this book, and I don't remember a damn thing about it. If you know what it's about, please tell me; and tell me if it's any good or not.

On my way home last night, I was thinking about stopping for some fast food, which I probably wouldn't have done it if there hadn't been a frieght train in my path a block away from a White Castle. So I pulled into the White Castle "drive-thru" since my progress had been stopped anyway. (Why is it "drive-thru" not 'through"? Does 'through' not fit on the sign? Why is Wendy's open "late at nite" and not at 'night'? What's going on with this cutesy illiteracy?)

I made my order, pulled around and waited, and waited. Did I mention I waited. I was thouroughly engaged in the process of waiting. I did not look at the clock, but I waited so long I started to think it might be a heroic act to warn the cars pulling up behind me to get out and save themselves while they had the chance.

Some "drive-thrus" are constructed in a way that physically traps the vehicle into the queue, but this one provided an avenue of escape if I chose to take it. I had not yet paid, so there was nothing preventing me from simply leaving the "drive-thru" and resuming my life.

I believe the purpose of the "drive-thru" is to provide the customer with fast and convenient service. It is not simply intended for people who are too damn lazy to get out of their cars. In this way, White Castle had broken their contract with me. I no longer held any obligation toward the restaurant. But I did not leave.

So would I have been breaking some sort of social convention by getting out? Would I have suddenly veered out of line with social norms and onto a path of deviance?

I suspect that, purely by accident, I'm developing a particular useless talent.
So to find out, let's play a game:

Give me a zip code and I'll name the State where that zip code can be found.
For example, you say "90210" I say "California."

It's nice to see that Saddam kept the beard. I think it's a good look for him in this stage of his career. Although he does look a bit like the 'before' picture in the "Just For Men Beard and Moustache" ad.