Many Things to Say

but so little time to say them...

* First and foremost, I hate West Virginia. They are the state equivalent of Randy Quaid and his family in "Christmas Vacation". It is the home of former klansman and current U.S. Senator Robert Byrd. And now, perhaps for the best reason of all, the university that bears its name knocked out Wake Forest from the men's NCAA tournament last night.

* Secondly, I hate Wake Forest. See above and please note the fact that I had WF winning it all in 2 of the 3 pools in which I am competing. Correction... in which I was competing.

* Thirdly, I hate West Virginia University. See 1 and 2 above. And note the fact that they beat Pitt twice this year.

* Since it's Sunday, please change "hate" in 1, 2, and 3 above to "passionately loathe".

* If you are reading this on any day other than Sunday, please insert "hate" for "passionately loathe" above.

* The Schiavo case -- on one side we have a mother, a father, a sister, and her caregivers and on the other side, we have a husband. No one can say what Terry Schiavo wants, so whom do we believe can best express her wishes? I cannot say. I do think that any state has business making life or death decisions, but I strongly believe that is a determination left to the states to make. For the record, in case I'm in a situation like this at some point, I definitely want to be kept alive and, more importantly, under no circumstances do I want Wake Forest in the Final Four or winning it all in any of my pools.

* The Schiavo case and the issue regarding homosexual unions reinforce in my mind the notion that Democrats and Republicans are whores to their constituents and find the notion of principles "whore-ifying". How else does one explain Republicans in both cases arguing against federalism (by arguing to overturn the decisions of the states) and Democrats in both cases arguing for federalism. (though in at least one of those cases, it does trouble me greatly that state judges and not state legislatures are making laws)

* For those who are cheering SF Mayor Gavin Newsom for his "courageous" stand against injustice (i.e. his decision to openly violate the law of California and marry gay and lesbian couples), I sincerely hope that you likewise rally around the next mayor who "courageously" decides to pass out handguns to minors or narcotics to citizens of all ages because of his personal views on what the law should be rather than what the law is. And by the way, is Mr. Newsom agreeing to marry men and/or women who would like to have a 2nd, 3rd, and/or 4th spouse? If not, why isn't Mr. Newsom "courageous" enough to stand up for polygamists whose rights are surely being just as trampled as the rights of gays and lesbians in California.

* Some 230 years ago, Immanuel Kant laid out the foundation for a system of morality and ethics based on the fundamental notion that an object must be treated as an end in and of itself and not as a means to end. In other words, something cannot be said to be moral simply because the outcome of the action is good or virtuous. Or, more simply, the end doesn't justify the means. It's a shame that too many of our elected officials, Republicans and Democrats, stopped reading philosophy after being introduced to John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism or, more likely, found Kant's moral absolutistism too difficult to comprehend.

* Or maybe it's something much simpler -- our politicians are neither moral relativists (though they certainly act like it at times) or moral absolutists (which they can be when it's convenient), but rather something much more craven and sad -- moral opportunists.