Another The Daily Show interview that people must see in its entirety. This Bill Clinton interview is one of the greatest insights to what the US has faced since the 90s. But it was cut short on the show due to time constraints. But thanks to the internet and The Daily Show, we can see the whole interview.
No wonder Bill Clinton was president for 2 terms. This is a guy in the know and can get things done. But I especially liked what he said about "keep stumbling in the right direction." That right there, probably is the essence of democracy.
This Jon Stewart and Betsy McCaughey interview is an argument over whether or not the proposed house bill H.R. 3200 will result in seniors receiving worse treatment under the new health care system.
Unfortunately, the interview was cut short due to the time constraint of the TV program. However, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was kind enough to post the full interview on their website. Below is the interview in its entirety:
這篇記載本是羅虔益寫給偕叡廉伉儷與瑪格麗特（馬偕孫女）的私人書信，由加拿大學者、牧師、台灣支持者 Michael Stainton 博士在閱覽馬偕醫師的書信文稿時發現。Stainton 博士察覺本信件的重要性後，將下文轉寄給長住台灣，同時長期關懷台灣的 Michael Turton ，再貼上 Michael Turton 的部落格 The View From Taiwan。以下皆由本人漢譯，有錯誤之處麻煩幫我抓出。最後附上富蘭克林的一句名言：
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
After hearing what Mike Huckabee said about the issue of Gay Marriage on The Daily Show, I have come to the conclusion of what will resolve the debate on Gay Marriage once and for all.
Most prominent anti-gay-marriage politician would argue that a homosexual couple can civil union instead, stating that it grants, to a large extent, similar privileges to marriage. They also would argue that marriage is a term to define "man-woman" unions, because it is so written in the bible.
I am a firm believer of separation of church and state, so it seems blatantly obvious the solution to this issue is leave the task of defining marriage out of government. Since marriage and the very definition of marriage is a religious matter, it has no business for the government to sponsor it.
Couples should go do the paper works for the government to recognize their union, but if they want to be "married" they go to the church and do the religious ceremony. That is pretty much how it is done anyway. So I say do it properly.
All future couples should only be recognized as civil unions in the eyes of the government, and marriage or not will be the task for individual's religion to determine. If your church strongly believes in anti-gay-marriage, fine, then no gay marriage will be recognized by your church and its believers. But there are other churches and people that would.
I am sure I am not the first one come up with this idea, but it makes a lot of sense to me.
Someone said in elections, there are words spoken by politicians just for elections, and these words don't matter. I was thinking about this and remembered that Barack Obama has already addressed this in one of his most moving speeches back in February of 2008.