The Washington Times
I really like the Washington Times. It is well written. It is a Conservative Newspaper. However, that doesn't mean it is a Republican Newspaper.
The Washington Times is an Equal Opportunity Critic. They don't care who you are. Read the Opinion Section and sometimes you would think it was the New York Times bashing George W. Bush again. Don't take my word for it. It is a free read online.
The only thing going against it is that it really isn't a local paper. It is a national read. It does cover DC issues, but not to great detail. They did a great series of articles on Clarksburg's development fiasco and broke the story. (I wish they would do the same in Howard County). If they increased local coverage I think they could easily take market share away from the Post and the Sun.
The Washington Times
In today's Commentary Section we get two different views of the new Federal Reserve Baoard Chariman, Ben Bernanke. One optimistic and one cautious.
They also go into great length of an alleged cover up of Able Danger by the Bush administration.
They pointedly tell President Bush to quit relying on Gozales, Cheney and Rumsfeld as constitution scholars - because they aren't. The opinion piece also explains why gun rights advocates are siding with the ACLU on NSA wiretapping.
A revealing piece on Iraq and WMD. I have heard these allegations before - this is new background information. I don't say I believe the new information I am just saying read it for yourself.
Finally, in my opinion they nailed it on the head with this piece.
Ehrlich and the Democratic Left
Here is the first paragraph...
BTW: What is wrong with giving homosexual couples the same civil rights as married couples? The Washinton Times reported this from The National Review. This is what I have advocated all along as long as it guarenteed other protections for joint property, children, etc. and not just medical issues (although it is a start). If Gov. Ehrlich is truly a moderate he should consider similiar legislation.
Go ahead, call me a Moonie. I don't care. It is still a great paper.
The Washington Times is an Equal Opportunity Critic. They don't care who you are. Read the Opinion Section and sometimes you would think it was the New York Times bashing George W. Bush again. Don't take my word for it. It is a free read online.
The only thing going against it is that it really isn't a local paper. It is a national read. It does cover DC issues, but not to great detail. They did a great series of articles on Clarksburg's development fiasco and broke the story. (I wish they would do the same in Howard County). If they increased local coverage I think they could easily take market share away from the Post and the Sun.
The Washington Times
In today's Commentary Section we get two different views of the new Federal Reserve Baoard Chariman, Ben Bernanke. One optimistic and one cautious.
They also go into great length of an alleged cover up of Able Danger by the Bush administration.
They pointedly tell President Bush to quit relying on Gozales, Cheney and Rumsfeld as constitution scholars - because they aren't. The opinion piece also explains why gun rights advocates are siding with the ACLU on NSA wiretapping.
A revealing piece on Iraq and WMD. I have heard these allegations before - this is new background information. I don't say I believe the new information I am just saying read it for yourself.
Finally, in my opinion they nailed it on the head with this piece.
Ehrlich and the Democratic Left
Here is the first paragraph...
Thanks to Maryland Democratic Party chief Terry Lierman, House of Delegates Speaker Michael Busch and Senate President Mike Miller, Gov. Robert Ehrlich will have no shortage of issues to run on this year. If Mr. Ehrlich is to win re-election in a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by nearly 2-1 (and, equally important, enable Republicans to gain seats in the General Assembly) he will need to show voters that the Democratic Party establishment has swung so far to the left that it is out of touch with the values of Marylanders on subjects like felon voting, homosexual "marriage" and illegal immigration.
BTW: What is wrong with giving homosexual couples the same civil rights as married couples? The Washinton Times reported this from The National Review. This is what I have advocated all along as long as it guarenteed other protections for joint property, children, etc. and not just medical issues (although it is a start). If Gov. Ehrlich is truly a moderate he should consider similiar legislation.
A new idea
"The debate over gays and marriage in Colorado has recently taken a different turn from the national debate," Ramesh Ponnuru writes in National Review Online (www.nationalreview.com).
"Until a few weeks ago, the debate looked familiar. Gay-rights advocates were trying to get the legislature to enact a bill recognizing civil unions (or 'domestic partnerships') for same-sex couples. Social conservatives were trying to get voters to adopt a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Now conservative state senator Shawn Mitchell has changed the script by introducing legislation that grants some benefits to same-sex couples — with the support of James Dobson and Focus on the Family," Mr. Ponnuru said.
"His legislation results from an asymmetry in the debate. One of the reasons many people support civil unions or same-sex marriage is to get certain practical advantages for gay couples. The main reason other people oppose these policies is that they do not want the government to recognize homosexual relationships as marital, or even as akin to marriage.
"Mitchell's idea is to make certain benefits available to gay couples — and to many other pairs of people. His legislation would make it easier, for example, for gay men to arrange to give each other a say in their medical care by becoming 'reciprocal beneficiaries.' But two brothers, or a brother and sister, or two male friends, could enter the same arrangement. Thus there would be no recognition of homosexual relationships as such. (Hence Dobson's support.)
Go ahead, call me a Moonie. I don't care. It is still a great paper.
posted by hocoblog at 5:08 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Here is an argument that may sound odd at first, but the more I ponder it, the more intuitive it becomes.
Years ago with some time on my hands, working in Riyadh, I began a genealogical hobby and was proud of the approximately 500 individuals, back to Jamestown and before, that I had discovered. I had seen how, not just arithmetically, or geometrically, but exponentially do the cousins and grandparents and branches and twigs grow into a tree, that were it to be taken back twenty or so generations would have encompassed most of the then population of the then Europe. This may be the core unconscious draw to genealogy.
It is this realization of the connectedness we constantly deny. We stop at a traffic light and are indifferent to the “relatives” in the car next to us. Or we haven’t a clue as to our relative who lives a few inches away in the next-door apartment. Or the very distant cousin who is the annoying salesperson we dealt with recently. It is this realization on which I’d like to weave this rather odd but encompassing argument – the argument that, to have the civil right of civil marriage forever denied to homosexuals, is abhorrent to the reality that all gays are from families and that almost everyone has a homosexual in their family (in fact with the new UK government survey that showed six percent in their population, we can assume that there are tens of millions of homosexuals in our American population). And it is consistent, rather than inconsistent, with not just family values but with “Tradition American Family Values”, that we do not undervalue any American and certainly not any member of our family. As we are all family in the truest sense.
Our founders used no word or phase more forcibly, more courageously, more passionately – then they did the word “we” and the phrase “we the people”. We are one large family – or should be. And a family would not act to deny the civil right of a relative they loved. They would want that person to have as full a citizenship as they have. And they would want the protections and rights and responsibilities to be equally assessable.
Ergo, in the most fundamental of fundamental arguments, traditional family values should rule the day. Certainly it would not be family values that would lobby to amend a constitution in this land, the primary aim of which was to prevent two heterosexual lovers who wanted to get married from getting married - and to thus effectively promote sex outside of marriage.
A note to the religious right. You have yet to provide one reasonable argument to describe in any believability how amending our constitutions will bring about a favorable change in your lives. And you have yet to acknowledge any damage this action may bring upon tens of millions of your blood relatives – if not in blood, certainly in the blood of Christ.
Ok...?
Post a Comment
<< Home