Same-Sex Marriage: Six Minutes From (and About) The Heart

In the excitement over the Obama victory in the United States, there was a significant setback at the polls. Voters passed a Constitutional amendment, ""Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann reacted with a moving plea which I hope may be seen by voters --- and anyone else --- who ever have the chance or desire to consider this issue:

"This isn't about yelling. This isn't about politics. This is about the human heart."

[youtube]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY[/youtube]

Scott Lucas on BBC Radio 5 Live

In a change from the latest on the elections and Barack Obama, I was part of a discussion on Simon Mayo's show this afternoon on father-son relationships. Still, I have to thank US politics for the 15 seconds of fame: the BBC is quite intrigued that Ryan, with The State of the United States, and I may be Britain's unique father-son bloggers on "America"....

It's the last item on the programme, beginning just before the 2:44:00 mark.

Obama, Chavez, and a New Relationship? The Strange Case of the Houston Consulate

The Stonecipher Report picks up on a flap over the Venezuelan Consulate in Houston, Texas, and draws an interesting conclusion:

The reasons for this failed relationship [between Bush's USA and Chavez's Venezuela] are far too many and too complex to get into here, but the point is, it has become the equivalent of a couple of parents who absolutely hate each other, but who also deeply love their children (which, in this case, is millions of barrels of oil) - so they fight through every brutal day and stay together no matter what - for the children's sake.

Just as in a failed marriage, a lot of the arguing gets ridiculous, and both sides look for almost every opportunity possible to take jabs at the other. Since Venezuela refuses to go to counseling and the Bush Administration just clamps its hands over its ears and yells "la, la, la, la, la...I can't hear you!" every time Venezuela wants to sit down and talk, things are never going to get any better.

On Monday, the United States took one of those ridiculous jabs and it appeared that we would be subject to another week of petty bickering when the U.S. State Department "invited" some Venezuelan diplomats that worked at the Houston consulate, to leave the country.

The Venezuelan consulate in Houston happens to be a very important one. After all, Houston is the home of Big Oil, so a lot of Venezuela's business with the U.S. is conducted there.

Apparently, important office doesn't equal comfortable office. The Venezuelans working there wanted a new one. So they made a request to the U.S. State Department that would authorize them to lease a new space for their offices.

Sounds reasonable.

But the Venezuelans didn't wait to hear back from the State Department. They found a new home, paid the rent and moved in before they ever heard back from State.

This led to some expected bickering, which then led to the decision that came down on Monday, to "invite" those Venezuelans to leave.

Of course, the next step for Chavez would be to go out and give an angry, rousing speech against the donkey to the north - Something that would really rile up his base and help him score some political points at home. After all, a big election is coming up on Nov. 23 in Venezuela. It isn't a presidential election, but many of his allies are up for re-election and polls are showing many of them need a boost of some sort.

So, the US waited for an angry Hugo Chavez to belligerently respond.

Sure enough, Tuesday morning, Washington got its response - Chavez fired the Houston consul for violating the rules on opening new offices and told them to come home.

Huh?

Are you serious Hugo? What's wrong with you?

Where is all the name calling? Where is the threat to have OPEC make major cuts in production? Where did the anger go?

What the hell is any different now than it was last week?

What's gotten into you Mr. Chavez? This doesn't make any sense!

Wait.

Oh yeeeaaahhh...I remember now!

We just elected that Obama guy! That guy who said he would sit down and talk with you and work to find a common ground that's good for both America and Venezuela, a deal that's good for both of us.

....Isn't it amazing what even the threat of a little diplomacy will do? After eight years of screaming and yelling across the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, along with promises not to talk from the Bush Administration, the mere possibility that the new American President might be willing to sit down and talk has caused Hugo Chavez to suddenly cease his saber-rattling.

While this is good news, pretending that U.S.-Venezuelan relations can easily be repaired at this point would be foolish. There are plenty of difficult issues that still need to be hashed out, but at least we have an opportunity to work together rather than against each other, something we have not had for the past eight years.

In the end, both sides have an interest in making this relationship work, and maybe this period of goodwill will only last for a few months, but for now it's here and it's real - one of the first tangible signs that Barack Obama has, in fact, brought real change to America.

Niggles about Obama: Jonathan Freedland's "Liberal" Intervention

Hours after our internal debate at Enduring America about the policies of an Obama Administration, we read this provocative opinion piece from Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian of London:

Liberals and anti-war types should not declare the new president a kindred spirit too hastily. As Obama himself said in the now famous 2002 speech denouncing the Iraq adventure: "I am not opposed to all wars.

It takes Freedland quite a while to get to his point, as he negotiates the euphoria over the Obama victory ("What I saw in Grant Park, Chicago, last week felt more akin to South Africa in 1994 or Berlin in 1989 than a normal response to a regular election."), but when he does, it's a stinger:

Obama is no dove. He is just a much smarter hawk, his eye more sharply focused.

I guess I could chalk up the point that Freedland's assessment supports my cautious assessment, but it's cold comfort. Indeed, the columnist's own reasoning is even more troubling than the President-elect he is supposedly critiquing:

1. Freedland reachs for that damaging, derogatory label to slap on anyone who might question the military option as the first option in US foreign policy: "peacenik".

2. Freedland notes, "Having placed al-Qaida back in the centre of America's gunsights, the new president aims to defeat it, taking the fight to al-Qaida's enablers in Afghanistan and Pakistan." But he pays no attention to the possible effects and complications of a policy which consists of "thousands more [troops] to fight the Taliban" and expansion of "the theatre of operations against al-Qaida... beyond the Afghan borders to include the tribal areas of western Pakistan".

3. Most provocatively, Freedland sees new hope for a delayed fight.

Imagine if John McCain had toured European capitals, trying to assemble a coalition for strikes against Iran. He'd have barely got a hearing....

But if Obama were to make the case, explaining that he had seen through the nonsense of Iraqi WMD but that the Iranian threat was real, he would surely earn a very different response. In that sense if no other, armed international action against Iran might be more achievable under an Obama presidency than it would have been otherwise.

So, even though American intelligence has concluded that Iran suspended its research and development of nuclear weapons programmes in 2003, even though one path to resolution of the political difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan would seem to lie with co-operation with Tehran, even though the war of only five years ago might give caution to any thoughts of a sequel next door, Freedland is ready to march into battle.

Twenty-four hours ago, a student in Dublin also recalled Obama's victory speech in Chicago: "I realised this would be one of the greatest moments of my life." And, when I confessed that I was caught between hope and caution, she replied, "Let me just hold on to hope for the next two months."

She is so right. Hers is an unconditional hope, tied to no thoughts of a new American venture which might be "liberally" acceptable. In contrast the words of Freedland, after his sanctification of a "hard" American liberalism offering more conflict, are cheap and hollow:

In every sphere, Obama marks a break from the recent past....For now, at least, we are entitled to that sigh of relief - and even the odd yelp of joy.

Niggles About Obama: Canuckistan Responds

Canuckistan responds to my earlier post on Senator Patrick Leahy's speech:

Aren't you being a little tough on Patrick Leahy? Is it surprising that he would be reluctant to speak for the Obama Administration before it has constituted itself and taken office, especially since he is not part of that administration and the last thing he would want to be is the cause of newspaper headlines back in the US?

The Guantanamo comment does seem surprising given the constant stream of news stories about plans underway to shut it down, a position that John McCain also advocated. That may be caution on the part of Leahy, but it may also reflect the realization that it will not be such an easy matter to shut down the camp because of what to do with the inmates. What happens to Khaled Sheikh Mohammad? Does he go on trial in a regular court and, if so, what do you do with the evidence obtained through waterboarding and the long time he spent in custody without charge? And what do you do with those are innocent but whose countries won't take them back (or the countries that will take them back but will torture them on return)?

The Bush Administration has left a counter-terrorist toxic waste dump for its successors to clean up.