the clintons, the gays, the born-again, and polygamists...

i'm not a fan of hillary rodham clinton...i get the impression she is just as much a scumbag as her husband. and, to me, her "stand by your man no matter what" routine is not only contrived, but it reinforces double standards that make it seem acceptable, almost expected, for men to cheat on their spouses and significant others...especially men with power. i think it is unfortunate, i think she could have set an example by standing up and telling the prick "enough is enough, regardless of the convenience of our marriage, you made a promise to god and the world that i would be the one...and your escapades are embarrassing to everyone involved and humiliating to the partner at home...these boots were made for walking asshole, and i'd say they are gonna walk all over you but you would probably like that too much...so instead, i'll just say fuck you, and enjoy the curb." instead, she set the example of "girls, it's ok if your husband can't keep his dick in his pants whenever an unattractive intern offers a cigar...afterall, he is only a man, and one can't expect a man to be faithful."

that being said, i was reading a column in the albuquerque tribune today about hillary and her (un)fitness for the presidency. the author, who's name i do not know, started off with his worries over the ex-president and the senator disagreeing over the dubai port mess...and went on to say something along the lines of "if she can't lead her own husband, how can she lead the country?" wow. first off, since when is it ever the job of a wife to "lead" her husband...or a husband to "lead" his wife for that matter? and why do we always seem so shocked when couples disagree on some issues, especially political ones? haven't we figured out by now that it is possible for two people to disagree on whether a dubai company should take over in ports without it turning to fisticuffs and ruining a marriage? i mean, hell, if decades of infidelity didn't ruin it...how is a minor political disagreement going to do it?

speaking of the clintons, a recent supreme court decision upheld a law requiring schools to allow in military recruiters if they want to keep their federal funding...even if they don't like the military's policy on the gays. first off, "don't ask, don't tell" was one of the worst ideas ever during the clinton administration...up there with nafta...it has done nothing to solve the problem, and it is a shame that the institution that has been ahead of the rest of society at times in the past should be clouded by such an assinine policy. seriously, this is like telling blacks they can be in the military, but only if they wear white makeup and don't ever mention that they were born with more pigment in their skin. still, this was the right decision. federal monies come with strings attached...they always have...they always will. congress gets to decide who gets money...and congress can get lots of otherwise unconsitutional authority that we take for granted now simply by tying requirements to federal monies. my question is...which school/state will decide to truly take a stand and tell the recruiters they can't come on campus? my money is on not a damn one.

the recent law in south dakota banning all abortions not necessary to save the life of the mother will not end abortion...if anything it will come back to bite pro-lifers in the ass. this law is so incredibly over done it is doomed to failure...in a big way. whatever possessed pro-lifers to abandon their bit-by-bit approach i will never know...an approach that was slowly getting them closer to what they wanted, and getting the country closer to a middle ground that might end this ridiculous "all or nothing" debate on abortion. suppose they decided to take a page from gay rights activists without noticing the backlash that recognizing gay marriage as a right...and they shot their wad too soon. mark my words...in the end, this law will strengthen roe v. wade...too much, too soon.

speaking of gay marriage...bill maher made a good point this weekend. if you are going to recognize that marriage is a right owed to all consenting adults, if you are going to say that people have the right to marry who they choose, how they choose...and if you are going to defend gay marriage that way, than you have to say the same for polygamists. something to think about...

i've got souvenirs, but yesterday can't mean too much...(which makes me wonder if there weren't some pro-choice folks in on this as saboteurs)