Declare victory, says James Fallows in this month’s Atlantic magazine, on the war on terror. Why not? Unlike at World War II’s conclusion, when Americans saw pictures of German and Japanese leaders signing surrender documents, it’s highly unlikely we’ll ever see Osama bin Laden or his henchmen capitulate to the United States or its allies in a formal surrender ceremony.
We’re fighting a rogue enemy that doesn’t play by the rules, which gives the Bush administration freedom to declare victory. And maybe with good reason: Al-Qaida hasn’t struck the United States in more than five years and their organization has been severely damaged.
Still, it’s not quite down and out. Bin Laden, although likely isolated in some remote hideout in either Afghanistan or Pakistan, remains at large. The worst thing the West has to contend with isn’t so much bin Laden’s Al-Qaida but, rather, his licensees in Asia, the Middle East and Europe or those who claim some sort of affiliation, Fallows writes.
While there’s always a possibility of an attack from terrorists, writes Fallows, we’ve achieved a number of victories against Al-Qaida since 9/11, harshly reducing their capabilities. We have killed or captured Al-Qaida’s leaders, wiped out their training camps in Afghanistan, and become smarter about what to look for when they communicate among themselves, travel or attempt to transfer money.
The biggest disturbance lately from Al-Qaida affiliates was in the United Kingdom a month ago, when the government announced that it had foiled a terrorist plan to blow up 10 jet liners headed to the United States. Like the London attacks during the summer of ’05, this one was presumed to have been carried out by Muslims born in the United Kingdom or who had, at the very least, been living in the UK for quite some time, which, needless to say, comes as quite a shock to British citizens.
Unlike their UK counterparts, Fallows writes, Arab and Muslim immigrants to the United States are far different than the “estranged Muslim underclass of much of Europe.” Arabs and Muslims living here are like any “well-assimilated ethnic group” in the United States; in addition, they own businesses and hold college degrees. Finally, second generation American Muslims “are culturally and economically Americanized” while “many European Muslims often develop a sharper sense of alienation.”
And, say what you will about George W. Bush, one of his first actions, shortly after 9/11, was to extend the proverbial hand to American Muslims. He visited mosques and made it a point of telling the country that the war against terror was not a war against Islam. This action alone likely gave American Muslims assurances that they were not about to be jailed like their Japanese-American counterparts during the Second World War.
So, yes, given that we’ll never likely hear or see much from bin Laden, President Bush might as well declare victory against Al-Qaida. Other than issuing a video tape, announcing that they’re not about to give up the fight, there’s not much the terrorist group’s leaders can do to dispute our claim.
And if we’ve truly won a military and intelligence victory over Al-Qaida, then it’s time to initiate the political and economic victory. We need some sort of Marshall Plan for Afghanistan. In addition, American, European and Asian companies need to invest in Afghanistan so it’s no longer a breeding ground for terrorists.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Monday, September 11, 2006
September 11th
I hope everyone cherishes the memories of those who died in those attacks five years ago. And, regardless of where you stand on the war against terrorism, you should salute those who are serving.
Friday, September 08, 2006
President Bush: No need to concern yourself about our war dead
Reinstating the draft, while a long way off from becoming a reality, would make today’s anti-war movement relevant, forcing Americans to realize that there’s a possibility that they or a loved one could wind up being sent to some distant, Middle Eastern battlefield.
The protesters aren’t striking fear in the hearts of President Bush and his top military commanders. Unlike their Vietnam War predecessors, Bush and his commanders have an all-volunteer force at their disposal, not conscripts, and the result is that most Americans are unaware or, worse, apathetic to the plight of our soldiers.
With the exception of Cindy Sheehan, today’s anti-war movement has no recognizable faces or leaders. College campuses, unlike in the late 1960s and early 1970s, are pretty calm, at least when it comes to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is one of the great unintended tragedies of the draft’s demise: A citizenry that is so far removed from its military that it doesn’t care how many troops are deployed, killed or wounded. So long as our civilian lives aren’t too inconvenienced, the fighting hardly merits a trickle of a thought among any of us here at home.
Why do I say this? Take a walk down any street in America and other than the occasional flag hanging from a house or a building, or the bumper sticker that says “Support Our Troops,” you’d never know that our soldiers are in harm’s way.
The other troubling unintended consequence of the draft’s downfall is that it gives President Bush the ability to use our military nearly any way he sees fit – without having to concern himself too much with public opinion. It’s almost as if he has mercenaries at his disposal.
In fact, if there’s any one person who would fight the draft’s reinstatement tooth and nail, it’s likely to be President Bush himself. A conscripted military has the potential to become a political liability, forcing the administration to become accountable to all the families with a son, father or husband in uniform and, possibly, forcing the administration to curtail its actions.
Today’s all-volunteer force allows us to dismiss the war from our daily lives. Because unless you have a loved one serving in either Iraq or Afghanistan, it’s very likely the war is as remote to you as any other event overseas.
And that’s the problem. If we want to win this war, or force the President to end our overseas military operations, then many more Americans need to put their lives at risk; and the only way to do that is through the draft.
The draft would also bring us closer to having a citizen-army. It was this kind of army, made up of Americans from all walks of life, which brought fascism to an end in Europe and Japan and ended slavery in the United States. Whatever your opinion is on the war in Iraq, keep in mind that fascism and slavery were brought to their knees with bullets and bombs – not with economic sanctions or an international peacekeeping force.
As it was last constituted until 1973, the draft, while not exactly egalitarian, required 17-year-old boys to register with their local draft board. A year later, if that 18-year-old man wasn’t in college, wasn’t a family’s lone son, wasn’t in poor physical condition, or wasn’t married, it was very likely that he’d be called up for military service.
Two million men were drafted to fight in Vietnam, writes James Ebert in his book, “The American Infantryman in Vietnam, 1965 – 1972.” In 1965, draftees made up 21 percent of the force deployed against the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. By 1970, 70 percent of the combat force had been drafted.
The hardest question to answer about reinstating and implementing the draft is how we ensure that one generation does not unfairly hand off this obligation to another. The best way to avoid the problem is to draft all men between the ages of 18 – 50, regardless of their marital status or whether they’re in college. Only prior military service should prevent a man from being drafted.
Conscripting 50-year-old men comes as close as possible to ensuring that an older generation does not unfairly throw this obligation onto a younger one. And while it might seem unfathomable to see a 50-year-old man in basic training, keep in mind there are many men that age and older who work out regularly. While not every 50-year-old will be fit for combat duty, there’s likely a military job they could handle, given their advanced age.
Of course, reinstating the draft would be highly controversial. It might be met with riots just as it was when Abraham Lincoln and Congress instituted the draft during the Civil War. But it’s the only way to stop the apathy that most Americans suffer from when it comes to being aware of the risks our soldiers face. If would also force President Bush and his commanders to come clean with their plans for the Middle East.
A larger cross-section of the country will be represented overseas in a conscripted military force. That should help us win the wars we’re fighting; and it may just give Iran and North Korea pause. We’d appear to be ready to fight them because we mobilized. And, quite possibly, a conscripted military force just might give the anti-war movement significance.
The protesters aren’t striking fear in the hearts of President Bush and his top military commanders. Unlike their Vietnam War predecessors, Bush and his commanders have an all-volunteer force at their disposal, not conscripts, and the result is that most Americans are unaware or, worse, apathetic to the plight of our soldiers.
With the exception of Cindy Sheehan, today’s anti-war movement has no recognizable faces or leaders. College campuses, unlike in the late 1960s and early 1970s, are pretty calm, at least when it comes to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is one of the great unintended tragedies of the draft’s demise: A citizenry that is so far removed from its military that it doesn’t care how many troops are deployed, killed or wounded. So long as our civilian lives aren’t too inconvenienced, the fighting hardly merits a trickle of a thought among any of us here at home.
Why do I say this? Take a walk down any street in America and other than the occasional flag hanging from a house or a building, or the bumper sticker that says “Support Our Troops,” you’d never know that our soldiers are in harm’s way.
The other troubling unintended consequence of the draft’s downfall is that it gives President Bush the ability to use our military nearly any way he sees fit – without having to concern himself too much with public opinion. It’s almost as if he has mercenaries at his disposal.
In fact, if there’s any one person who would fight the draft’s reinstatement tooth and nail, it’s likely to be President Bush himself. A conscripted military has the potential to become a political liability, forcing the administration to become accountable to all the families with a son, father or husband in uniform and, possibly, forcing the administration to curtail its actions.
Today’s all-volunteer force allows us to dismiss the war from our daily lives. Because unless you have a loved one serving in either Iraq or Afghanistan, it’s very likely the war is as remote to you as any other event overseas.
And that’s the problem. If we want to win this war, or force the President to end our overseas military operations, then many more Americans need to put their lives at risk; and the only way to do that is through the draft.
The draft would also bring us closer to having a citizen-army. It was this kind of army, made up of Americans from all walks of life, which brought fascism to an end in Europe and Japan and ended slavery in the United States. Whatever your opinion is on the war in Iraq, keep in mind that fascism and slavery were brought to their knees with bullets and bombs – not with economic sanctions or an international peacekeeping force.
As it was last constituted until 1973, the draft, while not exactly egalitarian, required 17-year-old boys to register with their local draft board. A year later, if that 18-year-old man wasn’t in college, wasn’t a family’s lone son, wasn’t in poor physical condition, or wasn’t married, it was very likely that he’d be called up for military service.
Two million men were drafted to fight in Vietnam, writes James Ebert in his book, “The American Infantryman in Vietnam, 1965 – 1972.” In 1965, draftees made up 21 percent of the force deployed against the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. By 1970, 70 percent of the combat force had been drafted.
The hardest question to answer about reinstating and implementing the draft is how we ensure that one generation does not unfairly hand off this obligation to another. The best way to avoid the problem is to draft all men between the ages of 18 – 50, regardless of their marital status or whether they’re in college. Only prior military service should prevent a man from being drafted.
Conscripting 50-year-old men comes as close as possible to ensuring that an older generation does not unfairly throw this obligation onto a younger one. And while it might seem unfathomable to see a 50-year-old man in basic training, keep in mind there are many men that age and older who work out regularly. While not every 50-year-old will be fit for combat duty, there’s likely a military job they could handle, given their advanced age.
Of course, reinstating the draft would be highly controversial. It might be met with riots just as it was when Abraham Lincoln and Congress instituted the draft during the Civil War. But it’s the only way to stop the apathy that most Americans suffer from when it comes to being aware of the risks our soldiers face. If would also force President Bush and his commanders to come clean with their plans for the Middle East.
A larger cross-section of the country will be represented overseas in a conscripted military force. That should help us win the wars we’re fighting; and it may just give Iran and North Korea pause. We’d appear to be ready to fight them because we mobilized. And, quite possibly, a conscripted military force just might give the anti-war movement significance.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Our Next President Should Be ...
It’s coming upon that time again when we need to start thinking about who the next president will be.
Sure, the election is two years away, but that’s not stopping politicians like Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, as well as a few others, from jockeying for position. Fund raising dinners are being held and top political consultants are choosing which campaign to milk for every last dime.
In more sober quarters of the American electorate, people will soon be asking, given the challenges that the United States faces today, who’s the best person for president?
After eight years of George W. Bush, I say we need someone – who at the very least – can speak English. And not just speak English – actually enunciate and have command of the language.
And, as always, given these treacherous times, we need someone with experience in foreign affairs.
And, finally, we need someone who can effectively straddle both the Democrats and the Republicans so they can meet the difficult tasks ahead of them.
So who is the best candidate for this difficult, thankless and often unforgiving job?
Tony Blair!
Yes, that’s right, the British Prime Minister should be elected president of the United States in 2008 because he’s the most qualified candidate for the job.
Blair has everything going for him: Executive experience and knowledge of foreign affairs because, well you know, he’s a foreigner. He’s basically a centrist when it comes to his politics, and he speaks English fluently but with a British accent, which would be a nice touch after eight years of mumbo-jumbo Texan.
Now, of course, there are those who will argue we can’t possibly elect Tony Blair as president because, even if he becomes a naturalized citizen, he’ll never be a native-born American, a key qualifier for the job of president, as laid out in the United States Constitution.
That’s strictly a technicality, I say, that should be overlooked. After all, our first 10 or 11 presidents weren’t native-born Americans – and the nation survived them. Yes, George Washington was born in Virginia, but he was born there when it was ruled by the British crown, effectively making him and a number of his successors native-born British subjects.
And, yet, no one ever accused George Washington of confusing his loyalties. So if George Washington could keep his allegiances straight more than 200 years ago, Tony Blair can certainly do the same two years from now.
So join me in voting for Tony Blair for president in 2008. He’s the best candidate for the job.
Sure, the election is two years away, but that’s not stopping politicians like Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, as well as a few others, from jockeying for position. Fund raising dinners are being held and top political consultants are choosing which campaign to milk for every last dime.
In more sober quarters of the American electorate, people will soon be asking, given the challenges that the United States faces today, who’s the best person for president?
After eight years of George W. Bush, I say we need someone – who at the very least – can speak English. And not just speak English – actually enunciate and have command of the language.
And, as always, given these treacherous times, we need someone with experience in foreign affairs.
And, finally, we need someone who can effectively straddle both the Democrats and the Republicans so they can meet the difficult tasks ahead of them.
So who is the best candidate for this difficult, thankless and often unforgiving job?
Tony Blair!
Yes, that’s right, the British Prime Minister should be elected president of the United States in 2008 because he’s the most qualified candidate for the job.
Blair has everything going for him: Executive experience and knowledge of foreign affairs because, well you know, he’s a foreigner. He’s basically a centrist when it comes to his politics, and he speaks English fluently but with a British accent, which would be a nice touch after eight years of mumbo-jumbo Texan.
Now, of course, there are those who will argue we can’t possibly elect Tony Blair as president because, even if he becomes a naturalized citizen, he’ll never be a native-born American, a key qualifier for the job of president, as laid out in the United States Constitution.
That’s strictly a technicality, I say, that should be overlooked. After all, our first 10 or 11 presidents weren’t native-born Americans – and the nation survived them. Yes, George Washington was born in Virginia, but he was born there when it was ruled by the British crown, effectively making him and a number of his successors native-born British subjects.
And, yet, no one ever accused George Washington of confusing his loyalties. So if George Washington could keep his allegiances straight more than 200 years ago, Tony Blair can certainly do the same two years from now.
So join me in voting for Tony Blair for president in 2008. He’s the best candidate for the job.
Monday, August 28, 2006
The fate of Knight Ridder
Please, God, don’t let anyone feel any sympathy for Tony Ridder, Knight-Ridder’s former chief executive officer. The demise of his company was written up in yesterday’s New York Times.
Perhaps it’s a shame that Tony lost his job, but keep in mind that he never winced once – well, maybe he did a few times – for the people whose jobs he eliminated or fired during his tenure running the company.
When he did eliminate jobs, he did it with the understanding that he was ridding Knight Ridder of people who had failed or were redundant. And so what happened to Mr. Ridder when he lost his company was nothing more than the business cycle getting even with him. Or, as the adage goes, what comes around goes around.
Where Mr. Ridder failed was capturing Wall Street’s imagination. Yes, Knight Ridder published fine newspapers and, yes, they even had Web sites. And, yes, Knight Ridder even owned a third of Career Builder. But so what said Wall Street. The only initiative the print editions had shown for the last five years was how small they could be.
He didn’t try anything dynamic with his print products. He simply managed them as a lean as possible so he could extract as many profits as possible. That, apparently, was supposed to keep Wall Street and his institutional investors happy.
Well, it didn’t. Knight Ridder’s single, largest shareholder was upset with the results, forcing the company to be sold to McClatchy. In other words, Tony was fired because Bruce Sherman, his largest shareholder, thought someone else could do a better job.
Besides being unemployed, Tony is counting his millions. The word was he grossed around $80 million as a result of the sale. What’s that after taxes and fees? $30 million? There are a number of people who’d sign up for that deal – lose the job but receive multiple millions as they walk out the door.
Had Tony tried something dynamic – like turn The Philadelphia Inquirer into a tabloid newspaper – he just might be sitting in his office today in San Jose, California. He could’ve killed off The Philadelphia Daily News and converted the highbrow Inquirer into a tabloid along the same lines as The Times of London.
Yes, it’s hard to say if this would have worked. But by doing something like this, he would have at least shown that he was prepared to take a risk in an attempt to make one of his finest print products healthy.
But he couldn’t be bothered. Instead, it was business as usual at Knight Ridder – sell ads, write stories, put things up on Web sites and, then, when the results he didn't like materialized, cut some more.
Tony, you earned your fate.
Perhaps it’s a shame that Tony lost his job, but keep in mind that he never winced once – well, maybe he did a few times – for the people whose jobs he eliminated or fired during his tenure running the company.
When he did eliminate jobs, he did it with the understanding that he was ridding Knight Ridder of people who had failed or were redundant. And so what happened to Mr. Ridder when he lost his company was nothing more than the business cycle getting even with him. Or, as the adage goes, what comes around goes around.
Where Mr. Ridder failed was capturing Wall Street’s imagination. Yes, Knight Ridder published fine newspapers and, yes, they even had Web sites. And, yes, Knight Ridder even owned a third of Career Builder. But so what said Wall Street. The only initiative the print editions had shown for the last five years was how small they could be.
He didn’t try anything dynamic with his print products. He simply managed them as a lean as possible so he could extract as many profits as possible. That, apparently, was supposed to keep Wall Street and his institutional investors happy.
Well, it didn’t. Knight Ridder’s single, largest shareholder was upset with the results, forcing the company to be sold to McClatchy. In other words, Tony was fired because Bruce Sherman, his largest shareholder, thought someone else could do a better job.
Besides being unemployed, Tony is counting his millions. The word was he grossed around $80 million as a result of the sale. What’s that after taxes and fees? $30 million? There are a number of people who’d sign up for that deal – lose the job but receive multiple millions as they walk out the door.
Had Tony tried something dynamic – like turn The Philadelphia Inquirer into a tabloid newspaper – he just might be sitting in his office today in San Jose, California. He could’ve killed off The Philadelphia Daily News and converted the highbrow Inquirer into a tabloid along the same lines as The Times of London.
Yes, it’s hard to say if this would have worked. But by doing something like this, he would have at least shown that he was prepared to take a risk in an attempt to make one of his finest print products healthy.
But he couldn’t be bothered. Instead, it was business as usual at Knight Ridder – sell ads, write stories, put things up on Web sites and, then, when the results he didn't like materialized, cut some more.
Tony, you earned your fate.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Saving the Country
After Al-Qaida, the next greatest threat to the United States, as President Bush sees it, is the potential downfall of traditional marriage. It’s under siege, taking fire from people who want to see it changed.
Fueling this assault is the fact that heterosexuals are divorcing in droves and gays want to get married. Nothing could be worse for the country, says the President. And it begs the question, how can we save marriage before it becomes irrelevant or, worse, obsolete?
Well, let’s take a look at the current state of traditional marriage. According to the Centers for Disease Control, about 2.2 million marriage ceremonies are performed annually. And every
year, the Census Bureau reports, there are about one million divorces.
There’s always lots of speculation as to why people divorce but the reasons likely include infidelity, falling out of love, boredom, lack of communication, and the arrival of children.
The only thing that’s surprising about the debate on gay marriage is why so many gays want to get married in the first place. If you’re gay, take a good look at the nearest married, heterosexual man. Nowhere will you find a more sexually frustrated human being. Consider
that before you run off to the altar or join the protests to legalize gay marriage.
Your average married heterosexual man is sexually stifled because his wife works, in or out of the home, and her headaches increased exponentially since the day they lucky couple said, “I
do,” meaning he’s not getting, well you know, as often as he’d like. In addition, if they’re blessed with children, matters have only become worse. Colds, homework, play dates have
taken their toll on the romance.
That said, traditional marriage provides a man and woman with a stable home life and also ties them to one another emotionally, financially and, sometimes, physically; and, also, each spouse
knows who’s parenting the offspring produced as result of this union.
But, let’s face it, there’s a nagging strain on marriage, and it’s called monogamy. Who doesn’t want to have a quick fling? It’s not like you want to leave your spouse, you just want to check out, as the song goes, the fruits of another.
And now there’s a University of California-Santa Barbara study reporting that women want different kinds of men in their lives. They want a testosterone-filled guy for a “short-term” relationship, which likely means something quick and physical; but they also want, for the long term, a nurturing guy who will father their children and assist in their upbringing.
If my wife had her druthers, she’d marry four different men. She’d marry testosterone-filled
guy for the great nookie; she’d continue with me because I’m the father of her children; she’d also marry a handyman to do all of those household projects that usually cost a hefty buck when I call the local professional to handle the job; and last but not least, she’d marry a younger man to make her feel attractive and desirable as she advances toward middle age.
So what’s the solution to saving marriage? Polygamy!
The Mormons are onto something. Of course, officially, the Church of Latter Day Saints doesn’t condone polygamy, but let’s consider that polygamy, as it’s currently practiced by rebellious sectors of the Mormon Church, or even in certain parts of the Arab world, recognizes that men have certain desires: They want to fool around. And those Mormons and Arabs are willing to pay a high price for these trysts – they’re prepared to marry these women.
We just need to Americanize polygamy by making sure it meets all of today’s civil rights requirements. That means that federal legislation needs to be passed giving women the right to practice polygamy with as many husbands as they want; for that matter, guys should also be
able practice polygamy with as many wives as they’d like.
I see no reason why we can’t let gays in on this practice. If gay men and gay women want more than one husband and wife, power to them. I’m still not sure about the bisexuals. We’ll need to
convene a Congressional task force to consider that one.
Polygamy is the only rational way to save marriage and rid the United States of this pending threat. Both men and women will attain a higher level of satisfaction within marriage, and
polygamy should bring us closer to our Arab brethren, thereby improving national security.
If you're curious as to what affect, if any, polygamy has on children. Well, over the weekend, in Salt Lake City -- where else! -- there was a protest on behalf of polygamy by the children from these unions.
As for the political landscape, polygamy promotes marriage – something that should make
President Bush and his band of Republicans happy – and it allows a certain amount of sexual
variety within the confines of a committed relationship. I see no reason why the Democrats should withhold their support for this legislation.
Fueling this assault is the fact that heterosexuals are divorcing in droves and gays want to get married. Nothing could be worse for the country, says the President. And it begs the question, how can we save marriage before it becomes irrelevant or, worse, obsolete?
Well, let’s take a look at the current state of traditional marriage. According to the Centers for Disease Control, about 2.2 million marriage ceremonies are performed annually. And every
year, the Census Bureau reports, there are about one million divorces.
There’s always lots of speculation as to why people divorce but the reasons likely include infidelity, falling out of love, boredom, lack of communication, and the arrival of children.
The only thing that’s surprising about the debate on gay marriage is why so many gays want to get married in the first place. If you’re gay, take a good look at the nearest married, heterosexual man. Nowhere will you find a more sexually frustrated human being. Consider
that before you run off to the altar or join the protests to legalize gay marriage.
Your average married heterosexual man is sexually stifled because his wife works, in or out of the home, and her headaches increased exponentially since the day they lucky couple said, “I
do,” meaning he’s not getting, well you know, as often as he’d like. In addition, if they’re blessed with children, matters have only become worse. Colds, homework, play dates have
taken their toll on the romance.
That said, traditional marriage provides a man and woman with a stable home life and also ties them to one another emotionally, financially and, sometimes, physically; and, also, each spouse
knows who’s parenting the offspring produced as result of this union.
But, let’s face it, there’s a nagging strain on marriage, and it’s called monogamy. Who doesn’t want to have a quick fling? It’s not like you want to leave your spouse, you just want to check out, as the song goes, the fruits of another.
And now there’s a University of California-Santa Barbara study reporting that women want different kinds of men in their lives. They want a testosterone-filled guy for a “short-term” relationship, which likely means something quick and physical; but they also want, for the long term, a nurturing guy who will father their children and assist in their upbringing.
If my wife had her druthers, she’d marry four different men. She’d marry testosterone-filled
guy for the great nookie; she’d continue with me because I’m the father of her children; she’d also marry a handyman to do all of those household projects that usually cost a hefty buck when I call the local professional to handle the job; and last but not least, she’d marry a younger man to make her feel attractive and desirable as she advances toward middle age.
So what’s the solution to saving marriage? Polygamy!
The Mormons are onto something. Of course, officially, the Church of Latter Day Saints doesn’t condone polygamy, but let’s consider that polygamy, as it’s currently practiced by rebellious sectors of the Mormon Church, or even in certain parts of the Arab world, recognizes that men have certain desires: They want to fool around. And those Mormons and Arabs are willing to pay a high price for these trysts – they’re prepared to marry these women.
We just need to Americanize polygamy by making sure it meets all of today’s civil rights requirements. That means that federal legislation needs to be passed giving women the right to practice polygamy with as many husbands as they want; for that matter, guys should also be
able practice polygamy with as many wives as they’d like.
I see no reason why we can’t let gays in on this practice. If gay men and gay women want more than one husband and wife, power to them. I’m still not sure about the bisexuals. We’ll need to
convene a Congressional task force to consider that one.
Polygamy is the only rational way to save marriage and rid the United States of this pending threat. Both men and women will attain a higher level of satisfaction within marriage, and
polygamy should bring us closer to our Arab brethren, thereby improving national security.
If you're curious as to what affect, if any, polygamy has on children. Well, over the weekend, in Salt Lake City -- where else! -- there was a protest on behalf of polygamy by the children from these unions.
As for the political landscape, polygamy promotes marriage – something that should make
President Bush and his band of Republicans happy – and it allows a certain amount of sexual
variety within the confines of a committed relationship. I see no reason why the Democrats should withhold their support for this legislation.
It's great to be here
I go through about five newspapers a day, so it's nice to be able to have my own place in which to tell the world exactly what I think. With any luck, you'll find this blog fun and interesting to read. Thank you for your time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)