Gay Marriage Killed the Dinosaurs July 3, 2006 Jill Why things like same-sex partnerships get us all up in arms, but we couldn’t care less about actual threats to our safety, well-being and way of life. A must-read article, which I am not excerpting because the whole thing is so good.
Some of us were, and still are, up in arms about Kyoto, and care about all of those things. Sadly, this cause is still mostly a left cause and the left is not nearly as organized as the right. The right has a cause, it gets talking points and all of a sudden every news channel is spouting them, every Christian pastor is preaching them – a Federal Marriage Amendment becomes news. The left has a cause and – maybe someone will report on it, maybe some churches will take up the cause, but for sure there will be a group of people against it just because the left is for it. There will be no one amendment (or protocal) that both the right AND the left wont discuss – the right to decry and the left to bring into doubt whether the amendment will be strong enough, effective enough, good enough. And let’s face it, sexy sells, personal sells. There is a ton of money available for Breast Cancer research but I know plenty of people researching basic things which could lead to curing all cancers who cant get funding – because funding basic research is not as sexy, doesnt sell as well as Breast Cancer, or Prostate Cancer. All you can do is keep bringing it to people’s attention and keep sponsoring amendments that would help change it.
From the article: We are the progeny of people who hunted and gathered, whose lives were brief and whose greatest threat was a man with a stick. This may be a really pedantic quibble, but generally hunter/gatherers lived longer, healthier lives than early “civilized” people. In fact, it took “civilization” thousands of years to catch up to hunter/gatherer life-spans. (Of course, those life-spans varied widely, but as an average….)
I question the entire premise. Give some evidence that it’s more likely that the odds that Manhattan goes under are “better than the odds that a disgruntled Saudi will sneak onto an airplane and detonate a shoe bomb.” Reads like a real hack.
I question the entire premise. Give some evidence that it’s more likely that the odds that Manhattan goes under are “better than the odds that a disgruntled Saudi will sneak onto an airplane and detonate a shoe bomb.” Reads like a real hack. It was an op-ed piece, that means the writer was making an observation that is of their own. If you wish to find the evidence, go find it yourself, there’s plenty of information out there on global warming and other issues. I, in fact do worry about global warming, the end of nonrenewable energy resources, how money is corrupting our political and social system, lots of things. But the writer blames the victim a lot (the citzenry), where I don’t think all the blame lies squarely there. And I don’t think finding blame or over analyzing the ‘why’ is going to get anyone to get to doing something anytime soon either.