Butterfly Cauldron
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
False rumors about Obama? No, really?
So, how long did it take for the swiftboating to begin? Obama makes motions toward running for pres and look what happens -- oooh! He went to a Muslim school! A madrassa, even! Where they teach children to hate America! Little brown children, even!
(Leaving aside, of course, the fact that Obama has said publically that yes, he did attend a Muslim school when he lived overseas. He also attended several Christian schools. And he has publically claimed to be a Christian. But none of that matters, of course. Let the rumors begin! We can't have a black man in charge of the country! My, he might do something...like get us outta mess our Cowboy President has gotten us into. But I digress.)
From the CNN story:
Obama lived in Indonesia as a child, from 1967 to 1971, with his mother and stepfather and has acknowledged attending a Muslim school, but an aide said it was not a madrassa.
. . .
But reporting by CNN in Jakarta, Indonesia and Washington, D.C., shows the allegations that Obama attended a madrassa to be false. CNN dispatched Senior International Correspondent John Vause to Jakarta to investigate.
He visited the Basuki school, which Obama attended from 1969 to 1971.
"This is a public school. We don't focus on religion," Hardi Priyono, deputy headmaster of the Basuki school, told Vause. "In our daily lives, we try to respect religion, but we don't give preferential treatment."
Vause reported he saw boys and girls dressed in neat school uniforms playing outside the school, while teachers were dressed in Western-style clothes.
"I came here to Barack Obama's elementary school in Jakarta looking for what some are calling an Islamic madrassa ... like the ones that teach hate and violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan," Vause said on the "Situation Room" Monday. "I've been to those madrassas in Pakistan ... this school is nothing like that."
You can read the entire article here.
I'm having a moment here -- swirling thoughts about assumptions that a black man, raised in foreign countries as a child, with one parent a native of Africa cannot, in fact, be a real American. Despite the fact that he was born in this country. Despite the fact that he has served political office. Despite the fact. . .the sheer reek of prejudice is unbelievable. A dark-skinned man with a Muslim name. . .how much power he has, to strike such fear into the hearts of Good Ole Boys everywhere by doing, what? Existing? Asserting his right to run for office? Or is he so frightening because people like him? Even white people? Does that make us race traitors? Liking what we hear from the black man? And are we supposed to care that a buncha rednecks don't like us or him?
Dirty politics already. Goddess help us. We've got two more years of this.
(Leaving aside, of course, the fact that Obama has said publically that yes, he did attend a Muslim school when he lived overseas. He also attended several Christian schools. And he has publically claimed to be a Christian. But none of that matters, of course. Let the rumors begin! We can't have a black man in charge of the country! My, he might do something...like get us outta mess our Cowboy President has gotten us into. But I digress.)
From the CNN story:
Obama lived in Indonesia as a child, from 1967 to 1971, with his mother and stepfather and has acknowledged attending a Muslim school, but an aide said it was not a madrassa.
. . .
But reporting by CNN in Jakarta, Indonesia and Washington, D.C., shows the allegations that Obama attended a madrassa to be false. CNN dispatched Senior International Correspondent John Vause to Jakarta to investigate.
He visited the Basuki school, which Obama attended from 1969 to 1971.
"This is a public school. We don't focus on religion," Hardi Priyono, deputy headmaster of the Basuki school, told Vause. "In our daily lives, we try to respect religion, but we don't give preferential treatment."
Vause reported he saw boys and girls dressed in neat school uniforms playing outside the school, while teachers were dressed in Western-style clothes.
"I came here to Barack Obama's elementary school in Jakarta looking for what some are calling an Islamic madrassa ... like the ones that teach hate and violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan," Vause said on the "Situation Room" Monday. "I've been to those madrassas in Pakistan ... this school is nothing like that."
You can read the entire article here.
I'm having a moment here -- swirling thoughts about assumptions that a black man, raised in foreign countries as a child, with one parent a native of Africa cannot, in fact, be a real American. Despite the fact that he was born in this country. Despite the fact that he has served political office. Despite the fact. . .the sheer reek of prejudice is unbelievable. A dark-skinned man with a Muslim name. . .how much power he has, to strike such fear into the hearts of Good Ole Boys everywhere by doing, what? Existing? Asserting his right to run for office? Or is he so frightening because people like him? Even white people? Does that make us race traitors? Liking what we hear from the black man? And are we supposed to care that a buncha rednecks don't like us or him?
Dirty politics already. Goddess help us. We've got two more years of this.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Soulforce protest close to home
I wonder if they'll be coming to my Little Town to attempt to enlist. I wish they would. There's a story I'd volunteer to go out and cover :)
SHREVEPORT, La. (AP) — Police took three people into custody after refusing to leave a U.S. Marine Corps recruiting office Tuesday during a protest of the military’s ban on openly gay recruits.
The Virginia-based gay rights organization Soulforce said it was staging such protests in 30 cities around the nation in the coming weeks and months.
Organizers have dubbed the campaign Right to Serve.
The three taken into custody were among nine who tried to enlisted at the Marine recruiting station on Mansfield Road.
It is a protest against the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that dates back to the early days of the Clinton administration.
While running for the White House, Clinton vowed to overturn the military’s long-standing ban on gays.
But, amid pressure from religious groups and concern from military leaders, he endorsed don’t ask, don’t tell. As passed by Congress and signed by Clinton, the policy requires gay service members to keep their homosexuality hidden and refrain from same-sex sexual conduct.
The military is prohibited from asking recruits about their sexual orientation, and commanders are limited in their ability to investigate rumors or allegations of homosexuality in the ranks.
Soulforce condemns the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy as blatantly discriminatory and says it hurts recruiting at a time when recruits are needed.
Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University who helped craft the policy, defended it in a recent interview with The Associated Press.
Moskos said allowing openly gay service members would hurt the morale of the military rank-and-file and make many recruits uncomfortable. ‘The gay advocates say it will cause enlistment to go up, but I think you’d find it dropping rather than rising,” Moskos argued.
Stupid thing to do, refusing to allow out gays/lesbians in the armed forces. Not like we're low on recruits or anything. Oh wait. Yeah.
Soulforce is a very cool organization. They've got lots of nifty info on their homepage, including a breakdown of what the Bible does and does not say about homosexuality. If you've got the time, surf on over and check them out.
SHREVEPORT, La. (AP) — Police took three people into custody after refusing to leave a U.S. Marine Corps recruiting office Tuesday during a protest of the military’s ban on openly gay recruits.
The Virginia-based gay rights organization Soulforce said it was staging such protests in 30 cities around the nation in the coming weeks and months.
Organizers have dubbed the campaign Right to Serve.
The three taken into custody were among nine who tried to enlisted at the Marine recruiting station on Mansfield Road.
It is a protest against the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that dates back to the early days of the Clinton administration.
While running for the White House, Clinton vowed to overturn the military’s long-standing ban on gays.
But, amid pressure from religious groups and concern from military leaders, he endorsed don’t ask, don’t tell. As passed by Congress and signed by Clinton, the policy requires gay service members to keep their homosexuality hidden and refrain from same-sex sexual conduct.
The military is prohibited from asking recruits about their sexual orientation, and commanders are limited in their ability to investigate rumors or allegations of homosexuality in the ranks.
Soulforce condemns the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy as blatantly discriminatory and says it hurts recruiting at a time when recruits are needed.
Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University who helped craft the policy, defended it in a recent interview with The Associated Press.
Moskos said allowing openly gay service members would hurt the morale of the military rank-and-file and make many recruits uncomfortable. ‘The gay advocates say it will cause enlistment to go up, but I think you’d find it dropping rather than rising,” Moskos argued.
Stupid thing to do, refusing to allow out gays/lesbians in the armed forces. Not like we're low on recruits or anything. Oh wait. Yeah.
Soulforce is a very cool organization. They've got lots of nifty info on their homepage, including a breakdown of what the Bible does and does not say about homosexuality. If you've got the time, surf on over and check them out.
Labels: homosexuality, politics, protest
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Add this to the list of things we'll never see W doing
I realize this is a great big photo-op. And normally, I'm pretty much opposed to politicians and their frigging photo-ops. (Working in the news biz, gods know we get invited to enough of the damned things.) But sometimes...sometimes the good an Op can do will outweight my inate disguist. This is one of those times.
NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — Sen. Barack Obama will take a public HIV test at a remote Kenyan clinic this weekend to promote HIV/AIDS prevention in a country where an average of 700 people die each day from the disease.
Obama, the only African-American in the Senate, was to arrive in Kenya Thursday and take the test in the western village of Nyangoma-Kogelo, where his father — a goat herder who went on to study at Harvard — grew up and his grandmother still lives, said Jennifer Barnes, a spokeswoman at the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi.
Two million of Kenya’s 33 million people have HIV, although the number of new infections has recently declined. Around 1.5 million people have died from the disease — and western parts of the country are the worst hit.
That's just a crazy number of people dying each day, from a disease that is -- largely -- preventable. It's a sin (and I don't use that word often, because I generally don't believe in sin) that these people don't have access to the medications they need to turn AIDS into a chronic illness, instead of a fatal one. It's a sin that we're more concerned about killing one set of brown skinned people and ignore the suffering of another. (Yes, I realize W pledged to spend lots of cash on the African AIDS crisis. He just hasn't ponied up yet. Which should suprise no one whose been paying attention. Hell, he can't even help out Louisiana hurricane victims and we could drive up and knock on his front door.)
I'm also a little caught offguard that Obama is the only black person in the Senate. How the hell does that happen? In 2006? That's just...wrong.
Can I tell you, if Obama ran for prez, I'd likely vote for him? I think he's doing a pretty good job of being...sane? I don't necessarily agree with him on everything, but I don't get the skeevy feeling when I look at him like I do with pretty much all Republicans.
NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — Sen. Barack Obama will take a public HIV test at a remote Kenyan clinic this weekend to promote HIV/AIDS prevention in a country where an average of 700 people die each day from the disease.
Obama, the only African-American in the Senate, was to arrive in Kenya Thursday and take the test in the western village of Nyangoma-Kogelo, where his father — a goat herder who went on to study at Harvard — grew up and his grandmother still lives, said Jennifer Barnes, a spokeswoman at the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi.
Two million of Kenya’s 33 million people have HIV, although the number of new infections has recently declined. Around 1.5 million people have died from the disease — and western parts of the country are the worst hit.
That's just a crazy number of people dying each day, from a disease that is -- largely -- preventable. It's a sin (and I don't use that word often, because I generally don't believe in sin) that these people don't have access to the medications they need to turn AIDS into a chronic illness, instead of a fatal one. It's a sin that we're more concerned about killing one set of brown skinned people and ignore the suffering of another. (Yes, I realize W pledged to spend lots of cash on the African AIDS crisis. He just hasn't ponied up yet. Which should suprise no one whose been paying attention. Hell, he can't even help out Louisiana hurricane victims and we could drive up and knock on his front door.)
I'm also a little caught offguard that Obama is the only black person in the Senate. How the hell does that happen? In 2006? That's just...wrong.
Can I tell you, if Obama ran for prez, I'd likely vote for him? I think he's doing a pretty good job of being...sane? I don't necessarily agree with him on everything, but I don't get the skeevy feeling when I look at him like I do with pretty much all Republicans.
Labels: politics
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Well, technically it's not a draft...
But I'm willing to bet that's what's next.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Marine Corps said Tuesday it has been authorized to recall thousands of Marines to active duty, primarily because of a shortage of volunteers for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Up to 2,500 Marines will be brought back at any one time, but there is no cap on the total number of Marines who may be forced back into service in the coming years as the military battles the war on terror. The call-ups will begin in the next several months.
The Army has ordered back about 14,000 soldiers since the start of the war in Iraq, but this is the first time the Marines have resorted to an involuntary recall.
So, after you've served your time and fullfilled your obligations, you can still be recalled. I know this is a facet of military life, but damn. Technically, this isnt' a draft, but really...isn't it? It's just drafting from a smaller, more select pool. Your draftees have better training than average, but they're not coming voluntarily. Which, I think, is part of the point of a draft.
The Bushies have bungled things so badly, no one wants to enlist anymore. You'd think, if we had thinking people in government, this might give them pause. Why would no one want to enlist? But, no. No, there's no reconsideration of strategy or troop deployment, no reconsideration of if we should be in Iraq in the first place. No no. We're not leaving Iraq while Bush is still in office!
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Marine Corps said Tuesday it has been authorized to recall thousands of Marines to active duty, primarily because of a shortage of volunteers for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Up to 2,500 Marines will be brought back at any one time, but there is no cap on the total number of Marines who may be forced back into service in the coming years as the military battles the war on terror. The call-ups will begin in the next several months.
The Army has ordered back about 14,000 soldiers since the start of the war in Iraq, but this is the first time the Marines have resorted to an involuntary recall.
So, after you've served your time and fullfilled your obligations, you can still be recalled. I know this is a facet of military life, but damn. Technically, this isnt' a draft, but really...isn't it? It's just drafting from a smaller, more select pool. Your draftees have better training than average, but they're not coming voluntarily. Which, I think, is part of the point of a draft.
The Bushies have bungled things so badly, no one wants to enlist anymore. You'd think, if we had thinking people in government, this might give them pause. Why would no one want to enlist? But, no. No, there's no reconsideration of strategy or troop deployment, no reconsideration of if we should be in Iraq in the first place. No no. We're not leaving Iraq while Bush is still in office!
Friday, August 18, 2006
Do what we say or else!
You make a deal with the devil, and the devil wants his due. The fundies who put those Monkies in the White House are upset that Plan B may soon be available over the counter. Of course they are. Because women being able to control their fertility through any method but abstinance pisses them off.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Anti-abortion groups are urging President Bush to withdraw his nominee to head the Food and Drug Administration, angry that the agency may allow nonprescription sales of the morning-after pill.
Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach already is facing a roadblock from the other side of that issue. Democrats are upset that the FDA has long delayed settling the three-year debate over whether at least some women could buy the emergency contraceptive without a doctor’s note.
Amid the political accusations, the FDA is contacting both the anti-abortion groups and their main opponent, Planned Parenthood, to hear their last-minute arguments over the fate of the drug, called Plan B.
“I gave them an earful,” said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, which has led opposition to nonprescription sales of the emergency contraceptive. She believes that her earlier input, during an official public comment period, was ignored.
“It is very late in the game and that adds to our fury over this,” Wright said.
Her earlier input was ignored? I'm sorry, didn't she get what she wanted? Hasn't the FDA stalled and stalled and stalled some more in letting women purchase a research-tested, perfectly legal medication? Didn't she get what she wanted in all those pregnancies that could have been avoided but ended in abortion were concieved anyway? Didn't she get what she wanted in the fears and panic of all those women who had to endure those pregnancies and/or abortions? I mean, that is what she wants, isn't it? Oh sure, maybe not in a blatant, pre-thoughtout way, but that's what her policies will allow to happen. The truth is, condoms break. People get stupid and have sex without protection. It's dumb, it's arguably irresponsible, but it's no reason to force them into parenthood when they're not ready. Nor is it a reason to force them to undergo an abortion when they're not ready. And yes, I realize no one is literally putting a gun to women's heads, but come on. If you don't have the economic or emotional resources to carry, deliver and raise a child, that's force too.
“If the president pushes for this nominee, he is only going to undercut the support his own party needs in the elections,” said Paul Chaim Schenck, director of the National Pro-Life Action Center.
If we don't get what we want, we won't vote for you again! Then see how you like it when those evil Democrats take over and women get to have sex, sex, sex all the time and don't have to pop out babies!
Plan B is a high dose of a drug found in many regular birth control pills that, taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can lower the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent. If a woman already is pregnant, the pills have no effect.
The pills prevent ovulation or fertilization of an egg. They also may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting into the uterus, considered the medical definition of pregnancy, although recent research suggests that’s not likely. However, if true, pill opponents argue that would be tantamount to abortion.
A year ago, the FDA indefinitely postponed a decision on Plan B, saying it needed to determine how to enforce age restrictions on the drug’s sales, a process that would require the writing of new regulations.
On July 31, von Eschenbach told Plan B manufacturer Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. that step was no longer necessary. He said the FDA would consider allowing nonprescription sales of Plan B, but only for adult women. It would remain prescription-only for those 17 and younger.
Dear, Gods! Did a news report actually get the details of Plan B correct? No proof it prevents implantation? No effect on already existing pregnancies? Perish the thought of truth!
And it's annoying that young girls need to have 'scripts, but it's also fairly simple to get around. I'd happily buy pills for any of my young cousins that need them, and they know that already. Still, it's not a complete win. And it's still not a done deal. So who knows? Maybe the forced-pregnancy forces will win anyway.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Anti-abortion groups are urging President Bush to withdraw his nominee to head the Food and Drug Administration, angry that the agency may allow nonprescription sales of the morning-after pill.
Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach already is facing a roadblock from the other side of that issue. Democrats are upset that the FDA has long delayed settling the three-year debate over whether at least some women could buy the emergency contraceptive without a doctor’s note.
Amid the political accusations, the FDA is contacting both the anti-abortion groups and their main opponent, Planned Parenthood, to hear their last-minute arguments over the fate of the drug, called Plan B.
“I gave them an earful,” said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, which has led opposition to nonprescription sales of the emergency contraceptive. She believes that her earlier input, during an official public comment period, was ignored.
“It is very late in the game and that adds to our fury over this,” Wright said.
Her earlier input was ignored? I'm sorry, didn't she get what she wanted? Hasn't the FDA stalled and stalled and stalled some more in letting women purchase a research-tested, perfectly legal medication? Didn't she get what she wanted in all those pregnancies that could have been avoided but ended in abortion were concieved anyway? Didn't she get what she wanted in the fears and panic of all those women who had to endure those pregnancies and/or abortions? I mean, that is what she wants, isn't it? Oh sure, maybe not in a blatant, pre-thoughtout way, but that's what her policies will allow to happen. The truth is, condoms break. People get stupid and have sex without protection. It's dumb, it's arguably irresponsible, but it's no reason to force them into parenthood when they're not ready. Nor is it a reason to force them to undergo an abortion when they're not ready. And yes, I realize no one is literally putting a gun to women's heads, but come on. If you don't have the economic or emotional resources to carry, deliver and raise a child, that's force too.
“If the president pushes for this nominee, he is only going to undercut the support his own party needs in the elections,” said Paul Chaim Schenck, director of the National Pro-Life Action Center.
If we don't get what we want, we won't vote for you again! Then see how you like it when those evil Democrats take over and women get to have sex, sex, sex all the time and don't have to pop out babies!
Plan B is a high dose of a drug found in many regular birth control pills that, taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can lower the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent. If a woman already is pregnant, the pills have no effect.
The pills prevent ovulation or fertilization of an egg. They also may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting into the uterus, considered the medical definition of pregnancy, although recent research suggests that’s not likely. However, if true, pill opponents argue that would be tantamount to abortion.
A year ago, the FDA indefinitely postponed a decision on Plan B, saying it needed to determine how to enforce age restrictions on the drug’s sales, a process that would require the writing of new regulations.
On July 31, von Eschenbach told Plan B manufacturer Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. that step was no longer necessary. He said the FDA would consider allowing nonprescription sales of Plan B, but only for adult women. It would remain prescription-only for those 17 and younger.
Dear, Gods! Did a news report actually get the details of Plan B correct? No proof it prevents implantation? No effect on already existing pregnancies? Perish the thought of truth!
And it's annoying that young girls need to have 'scripts, but it's also fairly simple to get around. I'd happily buy pills for any of my young cousins that need them, and they know that already. Still, it's not a complete win. And it's still not a done deal. So who knows? Maybe the forced-pregnancy forces will win anyway.
Labels: birth control, feminism, fundies, politics, religion
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
The Idiot Son of an Asshole strikes again. . .
Well, the Frat Boy did it. He used that veto at last. To deny federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. No new drugs for you!
President Bush cast the first veto of his 5½-year presidency Wednesday, saying legislation easing limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell “crosses a moral boundary” and is wrong.
“This bill would support the taking of innocent human life of the hope of finding medical benefits for others,” Bush said at a White House event where he was surrounded by 18 families who “adopted” frozen embryos not used by other couples, and then used those leftover embryos to have children.
“Each of these children was still adopted while still an embryo and has been blessed with a chance to grow, to grow up in a loving family. These boys and girls are not spare parts,” he said.
Okay, let's stop right there. I want to clarify something for the Unpresident. Just because you support abortion rights does not mean you're anti-adoption, even embryo adoption. My neice is adopted. I adore her. I'm glad she's here. However, it was still her mother's right to terminate her pregnancy. She did not owe us a child. She did not have a responsiblity to reproduce. I'm endlessly glad she did, but that's not the point. If she'd not had K. we'd have never know. No harm, no foul, get it?
And this appearence with 'snowflake' babies...come on. Did you mention how many tries these families had to take before they got those children? How many frozen embryos didn't implant? Doesn't that make these parents murderers? I mean, so long as they stayed frozen, they were alive, right? And since there's an very, very high failure rate to IVF, it would make more sense to leave them frozen because they've got a higher chance of dying than living on implantation. But hey, what do I know. I just do things like read.
And I love the "crossing a moral line" bs. Because only those 'children' we deem so deserve to live. Those babies in Iraq or Afghanistan? Nah. Those babies living in New Orleans when Katrina hit? Nah. Those babies of the poor in Texas who need treatment their parents can't afford? Nah. Sure, the fact that they're actually walking or crawling or talking or having some other measurable impact on the world around them doesn't count. No, they just aren't up to standards. Not Our Type Dear.
How much longer do we have to put up with this idiot again?
President Bush cast the first veto of his 5½-year presidency Wednesday, saying legislation easing limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell “crosses a moral boundary” and is wrong.
“This bill would support the taking of innocent human life of the hope of finding medical benefits for others,” Bush said at a White House event where he was surrounded by 18 families who “adopted” frozen embryos not used by other couples, and then used those leftover embryos to have children.
“Each of these children was still adopted while still an embryo and has been blessed with a chance to grow, to grow up in a loving family. These boys and girls are not spare parts,” he said.
Okay, let's stop right there. I want to clarify something for the Unpresident. Just because you support abortion rights does not mean you're anti-adoption, even embryo adoption. My neice is adopted. I adore her. I'm glad she's here. However, it was still her mother's right to terminate her pregnancy. She did not owe us a child. She did not have a responsiblity to reproduce. I'm endlessly glad she did, but that's not the point. If she'd not had K. we'd have never know. No harm, no foul, get it?
And this appearence with 'snowflake' babies...come on. Did you mention how many tries these families had to take before they got those children? How many frozen embryos didn't implant? Doesn't that make these parents murderers? I mean, so long as they stayed frozen, they were alive, right? And since there's an very, very high failure rate to IVF, it would make more sense to leave them frozen because they've got a higher chance of dying than living on implantation. But hey, what do I know. I just do things like read.
And I love the "crossing a moral line" bs. Because only those 'children' we deem so deserve to live. Those babies in Iraq or Afghanistan? Nah. Those babies living in New Orleans when Katrina hit? Nah. Those babies of the poor in Texas who need treatment their parents can't afford? Nah. Sure, the fact that they're actually walking or crawling or talking or having some other measurable impact on the world around them doesn't count. No, they just aren't up to standards. Not Our Type Dear.
How much longer do we have to put up with this idiot again?
Labels: abortion, medical research, politics, stupid people
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Wake up, dammit
They don't want to talk, talk, talk about it.
They want to tiptoe walk around it.
Wave the flag and mindlessly salute.
--Anti Flag
So, I'm having lunch with a friend today. She's a smart woman. She's educated, articulate, the very model of modern middle-class America.
And she's got no clue what's going on in the world.
We were talking about me looking for a new job (which I do endlessly) and I mentioned I couldn't live in South Dakota or Kansas and I really needed to move out of Louisiana. And she asked why not Kansas or S. Dakota? ('Cause no one questions why I need to leave Louisiana, oddly enough.) And I mention the new abortion laws in S.D and how the attorney general in Kansas keeps trying to get medical records from clinics that perform abortions and she's like What?
So, I explain everything to her. And she's like...that's stupid. Well, duh. But she was also like, well I can't really take a position on abortion. But she also says she'd never force a woman to have a child against her will. And she looked kinda freaked when I told her that made her pro-choice. Because the other side has done such a good job corrupting what pro-choice actually means that people who are pro-choice don't even realize it! And when I told her what some places are trying to do with birth control (the whole pharmacists can refuse to fill scripts bit) she was like...that's dumb. Well, duh.
But she doesn't know any of this unless I tell her. If she didn't have me as a friend, she'd blithely go about her life not thinking about any of this. Or about how the President blatantly violated the 4th Amendment with his wiretapping programs. Or how his lies to get us into war are certainly grounds for impeachment. Or about any of the shit going on in our world. Because she just...I don't know.
I keep trying to figure out how this happens. How do people who are otherwise intelligent people become so completely disconnected with what's going on in our country? She doesn't like the president. She doesn't like what he's doing. But she doesn't know why she doesn't like it. It's just a vague sense of dislike. Which is good, but...if you don't know what's going on, how can you make informed choices?
This is how bad things happen. When good people don't pay attention, dictators take over. The truth is, most people are decent, good people. They don't want to hurt others, they don't want to force their views on other people. They just want to be left alone to live their life in peace and they want for other people to have that same right. And my friend, like a lot of people, really thinks that all this stuff doesn't affect her. She's fairly certain, if she got pregnant, she'd have the baby even if it wasn't planned. Which is great, for her. She's got a good job, she's got a house of her own, she's got a family that would support her. She could have an unexpected child with no more trouble than most children bring. (Unless, of course, she got sick or there was something wrong with the baby...we didn't even get that far into the conversation.)
But the problem is, it doesn't matter if these things don't affect you. They affect other people in profound ways. They contribute to a society where the poor are seen as disposable, as somehow less than. You can see it all around, if you just open your eyes and look. The whole immigrant debate just makes my blood boil. If we'd just enforce the laws we already have, this wouldn't be an issue. If we stopped treating our neighbors like our enemies, this wouldn't be a problem. The fact is migrant workers contribute to our economy is important ways (especially here in the south), take those people away and you're not going to find enough willing Americans to take their place. Oh, there are doubtlessly people who are willing to do their jobs. I don't doubt that at all. But I do doubt they're willing to work for the wages the immigrants will work. I doubt they'd be willing to be paid in cash, so the business owners don't have to pay taxes on them. Some of them might, sure. But not in the numbers necessary. So, how about instead of making this all about punishing "those people" we stop acting like idiots and figure out a way for everyone to get what they want in a way that benefits everyone?
What's with the need to punish? Does that ever work? And if it did work, wouldn't it have worked by now? Where does the urge to be all alpha and dominating come from? I mean, for gods sake, Mexico is our friend! They're not our enemy. If we were willing to work with them, we could come up with a plan that would strengthen both our economies, build some ties that will help us with the rest of the world and you know, not be such asses.
The thing is, I don't think most people actually think about things. I think they go about, not aware of what's really going on, and so long as they have the things they want or think they need, they just don't see "those things" as important. Which is really sad, because eventually, it's going to affect the way they live. (Like, right now, it's nearly impossible for me to find a new job. It shouldn't be. I've got a MA and almost 10 years work experience. But it's almost impossible for me to even get interviews. If I wanted to do low skilled work, sure, I could find that. I could get a job at a burger joint or something. But finding something that pays the bills? Nearly impossible. And that's a direct result of the screwed up economy we've got going on now. It's cheaper to hire people just out of college than to hire someone with experience and companies know it.)
Here's the thing -- believe whatever you believe about the world and politics, but know why you believe it. I respect anyone who has a veiw different than mine if they can explain to me why they feel that way. I won't agree and it's doubtfull anyone is going to pursuade me otherwise, but I can respect it. We can have a discussion about things in a way that doesn't turn into insulting and yelling. But you have to know why you think things. You need to be aware of the influences at work. You need to realize that a lot of what we see or are told here in this country isn't the full story. You need to be willing to listen to other people in other places talk about their lives and experiences and how what our country has done has affected them. Have your beliefs, whatever they are, but have them because you really believe them and you've thought about them, not because it's how things have always been or because you don't think "those things" affect you. Because they do and they will and if you don't know who you are and why you hold your beliefs, you're going to be a really easy person to lead around by the nose.
They want to tiptoe walk around it.
Wave the flag and mindlessly salute.
--Anti Flag
So, I'm having lunch with a friend today. She's a smart woman. She's educated, articulate, the very model of modern middle-class America.
And she's got no clue what's going on in the world.
We were talking about me looking for a new job (which I do endlessly) and I mentioned I couldn't live in South Dakota or Kansas and I really needed to move out of Louisiana. And she asked why not Kansas or S. Dakota? ('Cause no one questions why I need to leave Louisiana, oddly enough.) And I mention the new abortion laws in S.D and how the attorney general in Kansas keeps trying to get medical records from clinics that perform abortions and she's like What?
So, I explain everything to her. And she's like...that's stupid. Well, duh. But she was also like, well I can't really take a position on abortion. But she also says she'd never force a woman to have a child against her will. And she looked kinda freaked when I told her that made her pro-choice. Because the other side has done such a good job corrupting what pro-choice actually means that people who are pro-choice don't even realize it! And when I told her what some places are trying to do with birth control (the whole pharmacists can refuse to fill scripts bit) she was like...that's dumb. Well, duh.
But she doesn't know any of this unless I tell her. If she didn't have me as a friend, she'd blithely go about her life not thinking about any of this. Or about how the President blatantly violated the 4th Amendment with his wiretapping programs. Or how his lies to get us into war are certainly grounds for impeachment. Or about any of the shit going on in our world. Because she just...I don't know.
I keep trying to figure out how this happens. How do people who are otherwise intelligent people become so completely disconnected with what's going on in our country? She doesn't like the president. She doesn't like what he's doing. But she doesn't know why she doesn't like it. It's just a vague sense of dislike. Which is good, but...if you don't know what's going on, how can you make informed choices?
This is how bad things happen. When good people don't pay attention, dictators take over. The truth is, most people are decent, good people. They don't want to hurt others, they don't want to force their views on other people. They just want to be left alone to live their life in peace and they want for other people to have that same right. And my friend, like a lot of people, really thinks that all this stuff doesn't affect her. She's fairly certain, if she got pregnant, she'd have the baby even if it wasn't planned. Which is great, for her. She's got a good job, she's got a house of her own, she's got a family that would support her. She could have an unexpected child with no more trouble than most children bring. (Unless, of course, she got sick or there was something wrong with the baby...we didn't even get that far into the conversation.)
But the problem is, it doesn't matter if these things don't affect you. They affect other people in profound ways. They contribute to a society where the poor are seen as disposable, as somehow less than. You can see it all around, if you just open your eyes and look. The whole immigrant debate just makes my blood boil. If we'd just enforce the laws we already have, this wouldn't be an issue. If we stopped treating our neighbors like our enemies, this wouldn't be a problem. The fact is migrant workers contribute to our economy is important ways (especially here in the south), take those people away and you're not going to find enough willing Americans to take their place. Oh, there are doubtlessly people who are willing to do their jobs. I don't doubt that at all. But I do doubt they're willing to work for the wages the immigrants will work. I doubt they'd be willing to be paid in cash, so the business owners don't have to pay taxes on them. Some of them might, sure. But not in the numbers necessary. So, how about instead of making this all about punishing "those people" we stop acting like idiots and figure out a way for everyone to get what they want in a way that benefits everyone?
What's with the need to punish? Does that ever work? And if it did work, wouldn't it have worked by now? Where does the urge to be all alpha and dominating come from? I mean, for gods sake, Mexico is our friend! They're not our enemy. If we were willing to work with them, we could come up with a plan that would strengthen both our economies, build some ties that will help us with the rest of the world and you know, not be such asses.
The thing is, I don't think most people actually think about things. I think they go about, not aware of what's really going on, and so long as they have the things they want or think they need, they just don't see "those things" as important. Which is really sad, because eventually, it's going to affect the way they live. (Like, right now, it's nearly impossible for me to find a new job. It shouldn't be. I've got a MA and almost 10 years work experience. But it's almost impossible for me to even get interviews. If I wanted to do low skilled work, sure, I could find that. I could get a job at a burger joint or something. But finding something that pays the bills? Nearly impossible. And that's a direct result of the screwed up economy we've got going on now. It's cheaper to hire people just out of college than to hire someone with experience and companies know it.)
Here's the thing -- believe whatever you believe about the world and politics, but know why you believe it. I respect anyone who has a veiw different than mine if they can explain to me why they feel that way. I won't agree and it's doubtfull anyone is going to pursuade me otherwise, but I can respect it. We can have a discussion about things in a way that doesn't turn into insulting and yelling. But you have to know why you think things. You need to be aware of the influences at work. You need to realize that a lot of what we see or are told here in this country isn't the full story. You need to be willing to listen to other people in other places talk about their lives and experiences and how what our country has done has affected them. Have your beliefs, whatever they are, but have them because you really believe them and you've thought about them, not because it's how things have always been or because you don't think "those things" affect you. Because they do and they will and if you don't know who you are and why you hold your beliefs, you're going to be a really easy person to lead around by the nose.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Poor Mitt -- he actually thinks the Fundies will vote for a Morman if he's dumb enough...
Romney: People, not courts, should define civil rights
By STEVE LeBLANC
Associated Press Writer
BOSTON (AP) -- Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, renewing his support for a ballot question banning gay marriage, said Wednesday it's the job of voters -- not the courts or lawmakers -- to define what constitutes a civil right.
"Who's going to tell us what a civil right is and what's not? Well, the people will," Romney said in calling on lawmakers to allow a vote on a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts constitution that would ban same-sex marriage. The vote is scheduled for July 12.
Supporters have long cast same-sex marriage as a civil right that should not be subject to a popular vote, likening it to the desegregation battles of the 1950s and 1960s, where the courts played a central role in expanding rights for blacks.
Yet Romney, during a news conference attended by Cardinal Sean O'Malley and other religious and civil leaders, said that in a democracy, nothing is off-limits to voters, even the definition of civil rights.
"We have a Constitution. We can look in there and say, 'Does it say here you can vote on matters unless someone can define them as civil rights?' No," said the Republican governor, a graduate of Harvard Law School who is mulling a presidential run in 2008. "It says you vote on all matters in this country and we'll decide what is a civil right and what's not. So, fundamentally, we come back to the principle that the people speak."
State Democratic Rep. Byron Rushing, a supporter of gay marriage, said the civil rights of minority groups should not be subject to the whims of the majority.
"He's absolutely wrong when he says the definition of civil rights is a definition that is made by all the people," Rushing said. "It is not reasonable to ask all the people to decide what a civil rights issue is. If it was left up to popular referenda in the 1950s and 1960s, we would not have had any of the civil rights laws passed."
In a call to The Associated Press after the news conference, Romney appeared to temper his public remarks.
"I'm not saying that civil rights should be up to a popular vote," Romney said, although he added, "The Constitution does not prohibit the people from making any decision. The Constitution allows for the people to overrule the judiciary, the executive or the legislative? branches."
------------------------
This may be one of the stupidest things I've heard in a long time. (I've been tuning out President FratBoy for awhile now, so there could be something more stupid that I missed.) Civil rights voted on by the people?? Riiiight. That's what our founders had in mind when they wrote all those declarations and constitutions and bills and stuff. And would those rights vary from state to state? I mean, in California abortion could be civil right, but in Louisiana it would be murder. In Mass., clearly gay marriage would be a civil right, but not in Mississippi. In Mississippi, it could be a crime punishable by jail time. Oh! I know, I'm betting that inter-racial marriage would be banned in many southern states. Also, those Jews and Muslims? Second-class citizens with no right to practice their religion. And gods help me if they found out I'm a frigging pagan! I'd be burned at the stake! (Maybe literally. You never know around here.)
Let's see, what else? Women working? No, sorry. Not a civil right. Don't you know the needs of your children are more important? Get back in the kitchen! Welfare? Nope. Get off your asses and work, ya bums. But, of course, men have the right to a wife. And children. Gotta carry on the family name. Rights to property? Well....those are for men, of course. White men, mostly. Some of the Darkies who've proven themselves, well, we'll give them a bit o' the swamp land as a reward. Women? Nah. Well, unless there were no men born into the family. Then we'll make an exception. To keep the land in the family, ya know.
Oh, for gods sake! This is the stupidest thing I've heard in ages. Vote on civil rights? Listen, these people don't want ME voting on their civil rights, not after the way they've been treating my gender and orientation lately. I might be tempted to strip them of all their pretty boy, white male privelige and give it to the oppressed and unwanted.
By STEVE LeBLANC
Associated Press Writer
BOSTON (AP) -- Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, renewing his support for a ballot question banning gay marriage, said Wednesday it's the job of voters -- not the courts or lawmakers -- to define what constitutes a civil right.
"Who's going to tell us what a civil right is and what's not? Well, the people will," Romney said in calling on lawmakers to allow a vote on a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts constitution that would ban same-sex marriage. The vote is scheduled for July 12.
Supporters have long cast same-sex marriage as a civil right that should not be subject to a popular vote, likening it to the desegregation battles of the 1950s and 1960s, where the courts played a central role in expanding rights for blacks.
Yet Romney, during a news conference attended by Cardinal Sean O'Malley and other religious and civil leaders, said that in a democracy, nothing is off-limits to voters, even the definition of civil rights.
"We have a Constitution. We can look in there and say, 'Does it say here you can vote on matters unless someone can define them as civil rights?' No," said the Republican governor, a graduate of Harvard Law School who is mulling a presidential run in 2008. "It says you vote on all matters in this country and we'll decide what is a civil right and what's not. So, fundamentally, we come back to the principle that the people speak."
State Democratic Rep. Byron Rushing, a supporter of gay marriage, said the civil rights of minority groups should not be subject to the whims of the majority.
"He's absolutely wrong when he says the definition of civil rights is a definition that is made by all the people," Rushing said. "It is not reasonable to ask all the people to decide what a civil rights issue is. If it was left up to popular referenda in the 1950s and 1960s, we would not have had any of the civil rights laws passed."
In a call to The Associated Press after the news conference, Romney appeared to temper his public remarks.
"I'm not saying that civil rights should be up to a popular vote," Romney said, although he added, "The Constitution does not prohibit the people from making any decision. The Constitution allows for the people to overrule the judiciary, the executive or the legislative? branches."
------------------------
This may be one of the stupidest things I've heard in a long time. (I've been tuning out President FratBoy for awhile now, so there could be something more stupid that I missed.) Civil rights voted on by the people?? Riiiight. That's what our founders had in mind when they wrote all those declarations and constitutions and bills and stuff. And would those rights vary from state to state? I mean, in California abortion could be civil right, but in Louisiana it would be murder. In Mass., clearly gay marriage would be a civil right, but not in Mississippi. In Mississippi, it could be a crime punishable by jail time. Oh! I know, I'm betting that inter-racial marriage would be banned in many southern states. Also, those Jews and Muslims? Second-class citizens with no right to practice their religion. And gods help me if they found out I'm a frigging pagan! I'd be burned at the stake! (Maybe literally. You never know around here.)
Let's see, what else? Women working? No, sorry. Not a civil right. Don't you know the needs of your children are more important? Get back in the kitchen! Welfare? Nope. Get off your asses and work, ya bums. But, of course, men have the right to a wife. And children. Gotta carry on the family name. Rights to property? Well....those are for men, of course. White men, mostly. Some of the Darkies who've proven themselves, well, we'll give them a bit o' the swamp land as a reward. Women? Nah. Well, unless there were no men born into the family. Then we'll make an exception. To keep the land in the family, ya know.
Oh, for gods sake! This is the stupidest thing I've heard in ages. Vote on civil rights? Listen, these people don't want ME voting on their civil rights, not after the way they've been treating my gender and orientation lately. I might be tempted to strip them of all their pretty boy, white male privelige and give it to the oppressed and unwanted.
