Following the usual rounds, one blog post leads to another blog post, which leads to another blog post, or article that should be a blog post, that links to, finally, an exposition on Uruguay’s legalization, and whether we should look at alternatives to the Colorado and Washington initiatives.
As I have stated, I have no problem with Brooks’ assertion about the state and the role it has in safe guarding the moral and ethical bearings of the people. I’m sure we disagree in extent and details on many moral and ethical matters, but not so much so that either one of us would be outliers of Western democratic thinking on the subject.
When it comes to change, such as legalization, or decriminalization of marijuana, I consider it a seismic shift for Brooks to have even written the column that he wrote, and so I am also more than willing to address his concerns that he expressed on the topic, while duly noting that he overlooks many aspects of the current law and criminal justice systems miscarriage of justice when dealing with non-whites, this doesn’t make him necessarily evil for having done so. It makes him human.
It wasn’t all that many decades ago that I found homosexuality to be as repugnant as bestiality, but exposure to gays in college and medical science on homosexuality made me change my thinking over the years until it became less about how I though or felt about GLBTs, and more about civil rights. Once that bridge was crossed then I had no problems with gay marriage, marriage being a civil institution, which if memory serves, allowed Rick Perry to provide for the proxy marriage of a Cosmonaut to a Houston woman in 2003, for as far as I know, no church has a doctrinal teaching on marriages between those on Earth and those in orbit. It was on that basis, civil rights, that I voiced a pro gay marriage opinion, and hopefully helped persuade many conservatives to a pro gay marriage position.
There are many reasons for being pro gay marriage, many of them that I am unaware of because I’m not gay, and to be blunt about it, I don’t care about them either. My opposition to the NSA/ three-letter boys spying on the American people boils down to the fact that the Constitution means something. Not what the judges say it means, but what the people have commonly accepted it to mean. As such, they are an affront to the civil liberties so many heroes have shed their blood for, and the essence of America as a nation, and we as a people.
People change. David Brooks apparently has on marijuana too. I’ll take my victories of opinions where I can find them. But I’ll not go to the point of saying that;
I blog, therefore rage, rage, rage,
rage against the writings of the Brooks.