Thursday, November 04, 2004

 
Dat's Kapital

[I apologize for the following cheap shot about the President's prior alochol abuse, given that he won an important battle against the bottle many years ago. It was a smear that should(and still might)have come from the likes of the coprophagic Molly Ivins-however clever it seemed to me at the time. Oh well, who reads this here vanity journal, anyway? No harm, however foul the smear, if it goes unread.. And I should have made it clear that while I favor civil unions, I haven't made up my mind about gay marriage. My comments should make it clear that I haven't given a whole lot of thought to the subject, and that I don't know diddly about law in general. And lastly, I love to see(but almost certainly won't)the President *build up* his political "capital" in gaining the support of "lunchpail" and "laptop" Demorats by doing the right thing for the country: expelling some 10 million plus illegal immigrants, and drastically curtailing legal immigration from populations hostile to us and our beliefs and reducing the numbers allowed under the H1-B program.]

I'm not sure what Bush II means when he talks about "spending" his political capital, but he sounds a little like a drunken Yalie legacy. Sheesh, even the lefties use the word "investing" when proposing to throw more money down one of their pet ratholes.
-Hope it doesn't mean, "doin' stuff that will drag my opinion polls to Nader-like levels."
Although I've successfully avoided reading or thinking almost anything about gay marriage issues(viewing Bruce-Bruce propositions as lose-lose situations), Bush could do worse than to "spend" some of his Christian capital in putting his capital where his Log Cabin er, mouthpieces are, by reafirming his support for civil unions. Kerry also supported them, of course, but perhaps just as "only Nixon could go to China," only Bush II could bring some china to a gay civil union(attending a gay *wedding* in a state which validated it not through its *courts*, but through a referendum or legislature might spend *too* much capital)-or perhaps a "chafing dish." Like most red-blooded, gun-owning, mildly homophobic(I suspect that Derbyshire is correct that "homophobia" is genetically encoded-that is something we're born with; not a "choice," however much I might disagree with him regarding some public policies)right-wingers, I know the function of a chafing dish only because of "Hot Shots Part Deux."
And speaking/droning on about of a chafing dish: I don't think that Andrew Sullivan's(whose site claims some 300,000 hit-ons(sorry, it must be that homophobic thing or a latent desire to be more festive), but still leaves him far from Washington's Corduroys of Power)thighs would warm to my suggestion that he rename his site, "The Daily Chafing Dish."
Btw., said site seems to have er, gone down this afternoon.
I hope that someone from the "fifth column of goat-fuckers" hasn't taken him out- er, I mean- harmed him. Seriously.
As rambled earlier, Kerry avoided a McGovern-magnitude defeat only by moving his lips in claiming to hunt down and kill terrorists and do something other in Iraq than apologize and offer reparations. If Democrats realize that they owe some of their support to writers such as Sullivan and to "liberal hawks," and if Bush realizes that he and his party risks losing more of the support he's had from like-minded, as well as conservatives if he fights terrorism too ineffectively or "compassionately," why then Sullivan's walk on the "other side" will not have been in vain. (I agree with the assertion made elsewhere that the defection of some "liberal hawks" was despicable, and will grant that Sullivan's defection, while based upon hopes that struck me as unrealistic, was principled.)
At any rate, "Welcome Back!" Andrew "Sodysseus"(it's been like a week) Sullivan.-not that he's likely to approve of the above messages. I've run out of time-trying to remember something said, I think, by Christopher Hitchens about er,(oops, did it again) embracing gays in order to piss off the Islamofascists. Oh, and not just to show my boner fides, many of the policies(in the areas of employment law and public health) I favor would *not* be *perceived* as friendly to gays. more later -maybe....