TheOmahaChannel.com
This whole gay marriage amendment thing smells like theocracy. And it's being pushed by a leader who smells like monarchy. As much fun as Europe was back in the days when Kings tried to be Pope, I'd like to move on to more inclusive administration. Why don't we nip it in the bud? Instead of a "no gays settling down" rule, let's amend the Constitution to ban presidents from having their siblings, offspring, spouses, cousins or any blood relations within two degrees of separation from taking their place. It would help ensure that our future leaders be of talent, not dynasty, and it could have gotten McCain elected instead. This is not to say, for example, that John Adams and son were bad leaders, but these Bushes and Clintons are getting out of hand. I could argue that back in Adams' time there were a dozen equally acceptable substitutes and that the modern era faces a dearth of them. What I am saying is that political parties now go by name recognition and electability instead of skill. Consider the situation in India, where a Gandhi chose not to rule and gave the country a panic attack. Should we say that out of one billion people there is one family to rule them all? Of course not. Then why JEB and Hillary in 2012?
This whole gay marriage amendment thing smells like theocracy. And it's being pushed by a leader who smells like monarchy. As much fun as Europe was back in the days when Kings tried to be Pope, I'd like to move on to more inclusive administration. Why don't we nip it in the bud? Instead of a "no gays settling down" rule, let's amend the Constitution to ban presidents from having their siblings, offspring, spouses, cousins or any blood relations within two degrees of separation from taking their place. It would help ensure that our future leaders be of talent, not dynasty, and it could have gotten McCain elected instead. This is not to say, for example, that John Adams and son were bad leaders, but these Bushes and Clintons are getting out of hand. I could argue that back in Adams' time there were a dozen equally acceptable substitutes and that the modern era faces a dearth of them. What I am saying is that political parties now go by name recognition and electability instead of skill. Consider the situation in India, where a Gandhi chose not to rule and gave the country a panic attack. Should we say that out of one billion people there is one family to rule them all? Of course not. Then why JEB and Hillary in 2012?
No comments:
Post a Comment