Bing Crosby - A Hot Time In The Town Of Berlin
The World Cup is starting tomorrow, so I guess there will definitly be a hot time in the town of Berlin, even though slightly different than Bing Crosby imagined it (who historically was wrong anyway, since not the Yanks but the Red Army had to bear the brunt of taking Berlin).
You have to be kind of amazed at how the Republicans manage to give the impression that 'activist judges' are to blame for the surfacing of gay mariages and/or unions in the United States. This completely diverts from the actual topic which is that the GOP wants to limit the constitutional rights of one group of people (to put it into context, just what is the difference to Bush asking for a constitutional amendment to define mariage as a union between a white woman and a white man (which is the way it was perceived until late in the 19th century)?).
This kind of reminds me of this whole issue of states' rights in the run-up to the Civil War. Yes, some people were supporters of a union of states rather than the union which began to emerge during the first half of the 19th century (like John C. Calhoun or Thomas Jefferson for example) and I can understand their ideal and point too (and truth to be told, I think history has proven them right, especially Thomas Jefferson's vision of preserving the historical exception (I don't want to use the word novum) of an egalitarian society has been destroyed)), but most defenders of slavery especially in the later stages of the game (meaning the Dred Scott Case or the Fugitive Slave Act) happily took advantage of federal regulation solidifying their position as slave-holders or traders.
Point in case, basically talking about states' rights being infringed upon diverted from talking about the moral (and unconstitutional initially) wrong of slavery. A master stroke of PR back then with the intended result of making it difficult for abolitionists to argue against it. Same thing with today's activist judges. The only thing these people are doing is defending people's right that all men are created equal (I am not even bothering to put citation marks on this), yet pretending that they are somehow part of a liberal conspiracy makes it possible to divert from an argument that the Republicans would like to take away the right to pursuit of one's happiness from some people.
That is why the title of that Washington Post article is completely misleading, there really is no debate on gay mariage, there is a debate about excluding people from their basic human and constitutional rights.
Finally, I hope that you are rejoicing with me, that the current administration has seemingly come to its senses and started offering a deal to Iran. I wonder whether Rice is to thank for that because she seems to have more leverage than Powell did or whether some people (Bush maybe? since Cheney apparently is too old to actually change his opinion according to facts on anything anymore) actually learned anything from the disaster called Iraq.