More Kudos to Chris
Several of my colleagues and I thought it might be good to add a few phrases to the proposed amendment just to give it some real meaning. First, let's give the federal government an adequate role by empowering them to approve of every marriage in the U.S. After all I can think of no person I more want approving of my partner choice than a draft dodging, spoiled rich kid, fundamentalist Christian who couldn't understand the benefits of free trade when it was explained to him by a Nobel Prize winning economist. Also the amendment should include provisions for the Attorney General, in this case John Ashcroft, to vet the unions before they get to the president's desk to make sure they pass muster. Now there's a guy who ought to be deciding who should and shouldn't get hitched.
The next logical step is a government dating service, I'd say under the control of the Homeland Security agency to deal with misguided youths who are wasting their time in meaningless relationships that the government deems unpatriotic or suspicious. I'm sure Tom Ridge would love to know all about people who are not fulfilling their patriotic duties of having decent Christian marriages and reproducing Western, Republican babies. This would not only energize his conservative base, but it would also lower unemployment as the federal government hired matchmakers.
In Caddyshack, Chevy Chase's character is talking to young Danny Noonan about his future, and says to him,"Danny, this isn't Russia. Is this Russia?" Yesterday in Russia, Putin was leading his rivals in the Presidential race by about 60 points. Most observers say it won't be a real election in a country with increasing autocracy and decreasing liberty. In the U.S. George Bush wants to tell people who they can marry. The difference between the two? For Frank Knight, not much. I quote Knight from some unpublished work"All restrictions by any part of society on any other part, for an other purpose than mutual advantage in accordance with the principle of maximum liberty, is clearly autocratic." This isn't Russia; is this Russia?
comments powered by Disqus
- Russian History Receives a Makeover That Starts With Ivan the Terrible
- Parsing Ronald Reagan’s Words for Early Signs of Alzheimer’s
- Here's a look at history of 'religious freedom' laws
- ‘Hamilton’ Puts Politics Onstage and Politicians in Attendance
- Earth Tectonic Plate Simulation Reveals Our Planet Has Changed A Lot In 200 Million Years
- Historians make it easy for visitors to DC to understand the history of the Mall
- History's Grandin Wins Bancroft Prize for "The Empire of Necessity"
- Nobel prize-winning scientist writes a history of science
- Ken Burns tackles history of cancer
- If historians have their way, Americans will soon learn how important religion has been in US history