There were some interesting events in the news this week that really made me stop and think about whether it was a situation of Tolerance or Intolerance. I guess it's just which side of the issue one is on. The national Christmas Tree was lighted this week, and I'm personally glad they called it a Christmas tree, rather than a holiday tree. I don't celebrate Christmas and the holiday I do celebrate doesn't have a tree, so this year when the attempt to raise the argument of tolerance vs. intolerance, I thought "let the Christians have the tree, it is part of their holiday." What's the big deal? I don't expect Santa to pull a menorah out of his gift bag! I do get a bit confused as to how a Christmas tree and Santa makes a Savior the reason for the season, but they don't answer to me, so I'm glad they didn't have to use the term "holiday tree," because a holiday tree means nothing to everyone.
Another interesting paradox this week. The Cheney's are going to be grandparents again, but this is a first baby for this daughter. I've never understood why the gay issue has been openly and vehemently discussed by the conservatives, until it comes to Mary Cheney, then they are just abhored that anyone would even mention her "alternative lifestyle." These same people said horrible and unfounded things about the last president's daughter. Chelsea Clinton was actually still a child and just happened to be the offspring of very controversial parents. But the conservatives were just aghast and deeply offended when Kerry mentioned the fact that 35 year old openly "out" Mary was a lesbian. So what will the discussion be, now that the conservative camp has someone calling this alternative arrangement a family? I'm going to go ahead and put my foot in my mouth in this deal because there is an obvious matter here that just has to be noted. These two women have openly declared their alternative lifestyle and the right to be diverse from the majority heterosexual definition. So why should we see this the same or use the same terms? It is different. And basic reproduction 101 really hasn't changed. There is a man in this situation somewhere, so don't tell the rest of us two mommies is the same thing as a mom and a dad, because babies just don't happen with just two mommies. And gay couples never want to be called single parents, so it isn't the same thing. It doesn't mean I'm going to be as mean as Mary's dad's croneys have been, but it really isn't the same.
Which brings me to the topic I probably harp on the most. How in the world did we go from "Mission Accomplished" to "Stay the Course," to the "situation is grave and deteriorating?" So, if we were really going to just call it what it is, what would we call it? I've been kind of torn between WWIII and precurser to Armegeddon, all along. And I think this latest assessment to call it what it is indicates if the mission were accomplished there would have been no reason to continue to hear "stay the course." In this basic concept of calling things what they are, when something is accomplished, there is a finality of the activity or effort. How does anyone continue doing something that has been accomplished? Now, I am not in politics so all I can do is compare this to the average mundane things of life, but I think the point can be made. When my daughter was young and I told her to clean her room, she wouldn't have had to spend the entire afternoon "staying the course" if her mission had been accomplished, when I first sent her. And you can bet, when her mission was accomplished, she was "outta there!" If I come out of the laundry room and say the laundry is accomplished, that means there is no reason to "stay the course" at the washer and dryer. Of course the main difference in my mundane examples of life and the politics of war is there was no delegating the duty. Perhaps if our politicians actually had to face what they send others into, they would be more circumspect.
Having your conversation honest . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment