Hugo Chavez & California

Two news stories interested me today...first, the "firestorm" started by Pat Robertson's comments about the US's need to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, after Chavez made some comments suggesting that the US was already in the process of developing these plans. Supposedly, it is an "international event" when a talking head such as Robertson makes the above opinions- of which the US has quickly distanced itself via the Secretary of State's office and Donald Rumsfeld's comments both stating for the record that this would be "illegal" and of course not the position of the US Government with respect to relations with another sovereign country. In a country such as ours a person's opinions are their own, valid, correct, or utterly insane and asinine. We are allowed to think what we want, and if the media is willing to put a microphone in front of every lunatic out there eventually the law of averages will state that something outrageous will be orated. But why should the government have to make a statement? Since when was Pat Robertson in a position to make official policy for the US government?

However, the Venezuelan ambassadors were also quick to go to the media, making a public outcry that the government apologize for Robertson's statements. President Chavez and Venezualan Ambassadors, you appreciate the right to denegrate the US in your country and speak badly about our leader, now you know what it is like to be on the other side. Don't cry foul when someone, even someone as unofficial as Pat Robertson and essentially a talking head only, plays the same game. As Will Hunting put it so succinctly in "Good Will Hunting", "How you like them apples?"

Also, it was reported that the Supreme Court of California upheld a lesbian's claim that her former partner, with whom she had jointly became artificially inseminated and bore twins to her partners single child, was responsbile for child support after the partner broke off the relationship and left with her own child. As this woman was the "breadwinner" of the family unit, as is the case with most "traditional" heterosexual unions, she was responsible for child support as they both entered into the parenting process jointly when they were together. Now, while I support the idea of civil unions instead of granting homosexuals "marriage" based on the traditional status of the term "marriage", homosexuals must also see that with rights come responsibility. Responsibility that we heterosexuals have dealt with for some time. As with President Chavez above, if you want to play the game, you have to accept the consequences that come with playing the game and not run away crying when, inevitably, something does not go the way you want it.

Maybe these scenarios continue to display the me-first selfishness and egocentrism that has become such a hallmark on society today- "if it upsets me, then it must be wrong." Well, welcome to the world as it is, you wanted in, now deal with it and shut up like everyone else.