I live in a medium-sized, rural Central California town.  The recent decision by the California Supreme Court to strike down the proposition in 2000 that affirmed the already existing statute that marriage was between a MAN and a WOMAN has prompted much response in our local newspaper online comment site from the relatively small liberal clique in my town.  I, not being able to restrain myslef, chimed in on the debate.  What I came out understanding is that liberals/gays can not explain what rights of theirs are violated by the Proposition, especially considering that California in 2004 passed a comprehensive Domestic Partnership Rights and Responsibilities Act.  One of the primary principles our government is based on "majority rule, minority rights" is being destroyed and bastardized by the liberal/gay attack on marriage.  I might be willing to cosider the gay argument if someone could explain to me what rights are being violated. 

   Just finished Bill Buckley's very first published book.  What struck me most about the work was that Buckley was only 25 years old at the time.  Quite an achievement to have such a thoughtful, serious, and provacative book published at such a young age.  I thought his reasoning and logic suffered from some disconnects.  The text jumped around alot, although that did not prevent him from delivering his message.  Not alot has changed since 1951.  Colleges, Universities, and now even high schools suffer from a "collectivist"mentality among so many of its professors, lecturers, and teachers.  The problems expounded upon by Buckley have seeped into the high schools as a result of the liberalization of Departments of Education across the country.  The kinds of values promoted by Buckley and other conservatives such as myself are looked down upon by Ed. Department staff.  While most teachers in America's high schools do an admirable job, it is likely that every student will face one or more aggressive liberals or "collectivists" (as Buckly would call them) during their four year high school experience.  The impact these "agenda" driven teachers have on students is unknown, but would make for a worthy research project for some enterprising graduate student.  Oh, I forgot, there's no way any Department of Education advisor would approve such a research endeavour.  Too Bad.

There are plenty of pundits out there that can more elloquently than I rack Obama over the coals for his idiotic comment about rural America.  What amazes me is how no one is really discussing the context in which he made those comments.  He was in a very liberal city, San Francisco, speaking in front of a very liberal crowd that cherishes urban values and has no real grasp of rural people.  Obama was doing what candidates have done since the rise of popular politics during the Jackson administration.  Candidates are going to say things targeting what their audience in any given place wants to hear.  Lincon may be the best example.  The evils of slavery was what he was all about when speaking in Boston, but when in Tennessee he was quick to reassure slave owners that he would protect the insitution.  Obama did the same thing.  In a modern election in which everything is being recorded and blogged on, it's impossible for candidates to play that political game.  In my opinion that's a good thing.  Anything that requires candidates to be intellectually honest is wonderful.