"There is always a philosophy for lack of courage."—Albert Camus

Monday, June 05, 2006

Buy, Sell, or Hold: Google and Gay Marriage

It's time to sell whatever stock you're holding in the Bush effort to ban gay marriage. I'm one of those people who is generally opposed to the concept of legalized gay marriage, but even I can't help but view Republican work on the issue with anything but the most world-weary cynicism. It just feels as though the GOP rolls opposition to gay marriage out whenever they feel worried about their base. It's not working. The base is just feeling manipulated. Small government is going to eventually become the defining GOP issue again in the future -- that and pro-life, which is a heckuva lot easier to argue than gay marriage (but that's another post entirely).

It's also time to sell Google, not just till the price is better, but entirely. I watched the Google stock price soar through the roof and never understood it. Sure, it's the first option in search, but it doesn't have some unassailable technology that can't easily be matched or replaced. The truth is that Yahoo does virtually everything Google does and has a commanding lead in email users. Yet, for some reason I've yet to fathom Google is worth far more than Yahoo. How to explain apart from a feeling. I think Google is another example of irrational exuberance and it will fall farther and harder, yet.

8 comments:

Devang said...

A stock like google is just no fun once all the speculation dies down, is it...

tbmbuzz said...

gay marriage...

Dem/libs and Rep/cons each in their own way want to control every aspect of our economic and social lives, completely contrary to this nation's founding principles. I am truly getting sick of this. The U.S. Constitution is not the place to advocate ones's pet issues, whether it's abortion, flag burning, gay marriage ban, gay "rights", income tax, Prohibition, welfare, Social Security, whatever. And now for the President of the United States to make this the primary issue on his front burner is patently idiotic, pure political pandering, when there are so many real problems facing us, such as Islamic terrorism, the imminent collapse of the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security, the open borders and resultant illegal immigration of unskilled, uneducated 3rd Worlders, the failure of government schools, the increasingly onerous size and burden of government, etc. This country would be so much better off if the crusaders on both Left and Right would just leave us alone for a change!!

Hunter Baker said...

I've got a major post coming on this issue. Stay tuned.

Tlaloc said...

If it isn't a big deal now why was it in 2004?

James Elliott said...

"Dem/libs and Rep/cons each in their own way want to control every aspect of our economic and social lives, completely contrary to this nation's founding principles. I am truly getting sick of this. The U.S. Constitution is not the place to advocate ones's pet issues, whether it's abortion, flag burning, gay marriage ban, gay "rights", income tax, Prohibition, welfare, Social Security, whatever. And now for the President of the United States to make this the primary issue on his front burner is patently idiotic, pure political pandering, when there are so many real problems facing us, such as Islamic terrorism...This country would be so much better off if the crusaders on both Left and Right would just leave us alone for a change!!"

Wow. Who'd've thought that Buzz and I would agree on almost everything he wrote in a post?

tbmbuzz said...

Wow. Who'd've thought that Buzz and I would agree on almost everything he wrote in a post?


Let's get together for some tofu, white zinfandel, barbecue and Bud Lite! :)

Evanston said...

Hunter, it's incorrect of you to view the gay marriage issue as one invented or initiated by Republicans. More accurately, it was initiated by state and supreme court justices. Your small government approach is unrealistic with justices legislating big government/brother from the bench.

Feel free to question the timing of the Amendment vote, but we both know that's how things are done in the political realm: so-called "wedge" issues are not necessarily the most important issues (see Social Security or Iran) but they are introduced when it is deemed advantageous to a particular party. Most bills do not even come to a vote, they are just introduced for posturing to a particular constituency.
That said, it is arguable that gay "civil rights" spillover impinges on religious freedom, and is therefore quite important.
Definitely sell Google. I never bought it, nor will I buy your cynicism about the GOP playing to its base. When parties worry about votes/support, it's called "democracy."

James Elliott said...

Let's get together for some tofu, white zinfandel, barbecue and Bud Lite! :)

Ditch the tofu and zinfandel; replace the Bud Light with something fit for human consumption, like Sam Adams or Sierra Nevada; and only if by barbecue you mean the only proper way to prepare ribs, brisket, and pulled pork rather than "slap a sirloin on the grill, slather on some KC Masterpiece, and call it BBQ!" Then you've got a deal.

More accurately, it was initiated by state and supreme court justices. Your small government approach is unrealistic with justices legislating big government/brother from the bench.

Someone's getting their news from the Conservative's Barrel-O'-Truthiness! In only one state has gay marriage been "legislated from the bench," in the sense that Massachusetts's Supreme Court ruled that the equal protection clause of its state constitution meant people have the same rights to be recognized by the government. Wow, what a shocker.

California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, and Vermont all legislated (as in, from the Legislature) civil unions. That is, the recognition that government can't privilege one group over another and still call itself American.

Federalism is the only way this country can begin addressing this issue. I'm confident that some day everyone else will realize what a fundamental civil rights issue this is. Until then, let each state decide.