In light of Curt Schilling’s recent retweet suggesting that Florida high school student David Hogg was simply a “crisis actor,” investigators have been looking into Schilling’s infamous “bloody sock” incident in 2004. At the time, the Red Sox were embroiled in an ACLS battle with the Yankees and Schilling pitched a strong 7 innings to bring the series to 3-2 in New York’s favor. It was hailed as a courageous performance by the hobbled pitcher, the “blood” seeping through his sock via an apparent cut on his ankle. But people are saying new revelations have suggested that the bloody sock incident was really a “false flag” – that Schilling dabbed ketchup – sometimes called catsup – on his sanitary hose to create a false impression that he was hurting in order to psyche the Yankees out. People are saying doctors with no knowledge of the actual situation can confirm this allegation. Schilling has not tweeted about this as of yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwjJg3vmM_Y
Monday, February 26, 2018
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Marriage and the role of government
Well Spring is here and along with the robins, the “god hates fags” people recently turned up here in the Athens of America. This is a piece I wrote in May of 2004 when same sex marriage was first legalized.
It has since been pointed out to me that being a married hetrosexual male, I don't have a dog in this fight.
I disagree.
If we let the religious right dictate who can marry who, whats to stop them from successfully lobbying that only religiously santified marriages should be legal.
It seem unlikely the with the current administration such a thing could happen.
Had this been a McCain/Palin administration, this would not have been out of the question.
I live in Cambridge Mass, which is debatably the capital of same sex marriage. My attitude on same sex marriage is its none of my business (or anyone else’s) who marries who. However the current discussion got me thinking that, as who marries who is really no one else business but the parties involved, what is the appropriate role of government in regulating marriage and should the government even be in the marriage business?
Concerning protection of the parties entering the marriage, the first of these is that both parties must be of an age to give informed consent. Eighteen seems a bit young to me for this, but that’s where society has drawn the line for just about everything (except drinking). Also there needs to be assurance that the marriage is being entered into free of coercion. Both of these are appropriate areas for government oversight.
(Note to members of the religious right: Yes this does prevent someone from marrying a barnyard animal. Barnyard animals are not capable of giving informed consent. What is your obsession barnyard animals anyway?)
One can argue that there is also a public health angle that needs to be addressed, hence we have the pre marriage STD screening and blood tests. This doesn’t seem like such a bad idea as it ensures the informed consent of both parties in this area and rh factor matching is important for couples planning on having kids. It also addresses public health concerns about the spread of disease.
A similar argument can be made for government regulations preventing close relatives from marrying. This is pretty well handled by the social taboo against such things (one apparently not held by the “god hates fags” people), but is probably also a good area for government regulation. Children of close relatives generally have serious developmental problems and are likely to become a burden on society.
Once a marriage is performed the parties get some benefits: tax breaks, death benefits, ability for one partner to get the other on their health insurance etc.. On tax breaks, I think the logic was that the state should encourage marriage. You may recall there was some yelling and screaming by the republicans in the senate about the “marriage penalty” which effected couples whose combined total earnings pushed them into a new tax bracket . Now here’s the thing, a couple living together already has significant economies of scale and also have the option of filing separately. I’m not sure this tax break needs to be extended to married couples in the first place, especially since, like all tax breaks pushed by the right, it probably favors the rich. So if Paris Hilton marries Donald Trump they pay less taxes. In the case Ms Hilton, I would advocate granting her tax free status for life if she would just have herself spayed or neutered. I would also advocate extending the same benefit to the Bush twins as well as to Anne Coulter, but in Ms Coulters case I am not sure that she is A) Female or B) Human.
It has since been pointed out to me that being a married hetrosexual male, I don't have a dog in this fight.
I disagree.
If we let the religious right dictate who can marry who, whats to stop them from successfully lobbying that only religiously santified marriages should be legal.
It seem unlikely the with the current administration such a thing could happen.
Had this been a McCain/Palin administration, this would not have been out of the question.
I live in Cambridge Mass, which is debatably the capital of same sex marriage. My attitude on same sex marriage is its none of my business (or anyone else’s) who marries who. However the current discussion got me thinking that, as who marries who is really no one else business but the parties involved, what is the appropriate role of government in regulating marriage and should the government even be in the marriage business?
Concerning protection of the parties entering the marriage, the first of these is that both parties must be of an age to give informed consent. Eighteen seems a bit young to me for this, but that’s where society has drawn the line for just about everything (except drinking). Also there needs to be assurance that the marriage is being entered into free of coercion. Both of these are appropriate areas for government oversight.
(Note to members of the religious right: Yes this does prevent someone from marrying a barnyard animal. Barnyard animals are not capable of giving informed consent. What is your obsession barnyard animals anyway?)
One can argue that there is also a public health angle that needs to be addressed, hence we have the pre marriage STD screening and blood tests. This doesn’t seem like such a bad idea as it ensures the informed consent of both parties in this area and rh factor matching is important for couples planning on having kids. It also addresses public health concerns about the spread of disease.
A similar argument can be made for government regulations preventing close relatives from marrying. This is pretty well handled by the social taboo against such things (one apparently not held by the “god hates fags” people), but is probably also a good area for government regulation. Children of close relatives generally have serious developmental problems and are likely to become a burden on society.
Once a marriage is performed the parties get some benefits: tax breaks, death benefits, ability for one partner to get the other on their health insurance etc.. On tax breaks, I think the logic was that the state should encourage marriage. You may recall there was some yelling and screaming by the republicans in the senate about the “marriage penalty” which effected couples whose combined total earnings pushed them into a new tax bracket . Now here’s the thing, a couple living together already has significant economies of scale and also have the option of filing separately. I’m not sure this tax break needs to be extended to married couples in the first place, especially since, like all tax breaks pushed by the right, it probably favors the rich. So if Paris Hilton marries Donald Trump they pay less taxes. In the case Ms Hilton, I would advocate granting her tax free status for life if she would just have herself spayed or neutered. I would also advocate extending the same benefit to the Bush twins as well as to Anne Coulter, but in Ms Coulters case I am not sure that she is A) Female or B) Human.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
To go to NCTA or not
Thinking about heading to DC for the NCTA show next week. Thing is its a lot of money and I got no one to pick up the tab these days. The other thing is that I'm pretty sure that, like the music industry, the cable industry is basically a zombie business model stalking the earth until someone puts a stake through its heart. Internet based XOD (everything on demand) is going to take them down sooner or later and thier ownership of the pipes wont be worth squat.
Well it couldnt happen to as nicer bunch.
Well it couldnt happen to as nicer bunch.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
