Archive for Politics

Not an Option

April 18, 2006 / / 2 comments

I just had to run to the bank, and I listened to Springer on the Radio in the car. Usually Springer annoys me and I don’t listen to him, but he managed to say two good things in a two mile trip.

In regard to bombing Iran (which we need to just oppose, oppose, oppose), he said that if we use nukes as a first strike, we lose the ability to stop anyone else from ever using them. Forget about anyone ever again signing or honoring a non-proliferation treaty. It’s nuclear WWIII as soon as we set the example.

Second, he said that saying ‘nothing should be taken off the table,’ Springer’s actual word was that this was being “cute.” We don’t need to be cute, he said, by saying we’ll “try” diplomacy. Nope; we must use diplomacy. And further, diplomacy worked with the Soviet Union for fifty years, so why treat it as pantywaist now? (“Pantywaist” is my own contribution.)

The Incompetence Defense

April 18, 2006 / / 3 comments

As I understand current White House spin, the reason that Bush said those trailers were mobile weapons labs when they weren’t, was because the President didn’t know. Because key information about vital national interests, for which American lives were (and are) being risked, had not yet reached the President, so whoops whatever.

Can any other Presidency in history have found this an acceptable version of the facts? Would not most politicians prefer some form of blame than to stand up in front of the American people and the world and say “I’m really flipping stupid and I didn’t know the facts I needed to know, the facts that every President must know?”

The White House is counting on the fact that we elected him stupid, we approved of him (when we did) stupid, and so now we’ll continue to embrace the stupid. They’re wrong.

Some Defense

April 17, 2006 / / Comments Off on Some Defense

Over lunch, some of the guys were watching CNN Headline News on the lunchroom TV, and under the headline “Defending Rumsfeld” they had a general, I think Gen. James Marks, say that it would be “inappropriate” for him to suggest Rumsfeld should be fired, because, being retired, he didn’t know if that would solve the problem.

So I’m hearing “This thing is so FUBAR that firing Rumsfeld won’t help.” That’s “defending”?

Meanwhile, the headline they later reduced this to was “General says firing Rumsfeld would be ‘inappropriate.'”

Two cliches come to mind. First, “Damning with faint praise.” Second, “Grasping at straws.”

Bet higher

April 14, 2006 / / One comment

My father used to say that if you always win at poker, you’re not betting high enough.

This is one of my favorite sayings. It’s applicable in all sorts of situations. In magic, you find all sorts of people who hedge their spellcasting bets, who won’t risk their karma, or risk being wrong, or risk failure. And thus there’s all sorts of good work that never gets done. As Isaac says, the Gods gave us our magic well knowing we’re mortal, and there’s nothing admirable about refusing to put your ass on the line.

The saying applies to politics as well. Why has Feingold got only one co-sponsor to his censure resolution? The Democrats are hedging their bets. To a (wo)man, they’re making sure they don’t bet too high, and they’re doing it even when there’s a pair of aces in the hole.

I admire Howard Dean. He bet high and lost on the flop. His comeback as chairman of the DNC is earned, because he took the honest risk instead of playing it safe. I admire Al Gore less. He says ballsy things, but not during his Presidential campaign, only from safe retirement on the assurance he won’t run.

What I want to see is the Dems listening to my father’s advise, betting higher, losing some, and winning bigger. I don’t think they’re listening, though.

This is a drum we need to bang until it’s deafening

April 13, 2006 / / 12 comments

Via several sources, but here’s the Bitch.

Some pharmacies are now refusing to fill prescriptions for post-abortion vitamins and antibiotics.

Because “pro-life” means “pro-bacterial infection”?

Nah, because pro-life means pro-fetus and anti-woman. Because pro-life is code for “if you have sex, bitch, we’ll punish you. With forced pregnancy, with HPV, and with infection. You deserve it, slut.”

That’s what it means. Nothing else. If they have any story about pro-life they would be furiously against this. And we need to bang this drum. Loudly. Everywhere. This needs to be the poster child of pro-choice, pro-woman sanity. Because these people are insane and if the HPV vaccine battle hasn’t proven it (which of course it has) this is the nail in the coffin of their frickin crazy-ass movement.

Moderation: The Far Right’s Little White Lie

April 11, 2006 / / 2 comments

Tom has been obsessively blogging about wingnuts in sheep’s clothing.

Dobsonite theocrat Ron Luce takes great pains to project an image of good old non-political evangelism in his teen ministry; he seems to be succeeding. The Catholic Church sponsors a media campaign designed to project an image of moderation for the anti-choice side. Welcome to the future. Christian authoritarians are becoming less like Fred Phelps and more like Ron Luce and Monika Rodman. The public face is friendly and non-threatening; the reality is Vision America and Operation Rescue.

I have long noticed this tendency of certain far-right Christians to put on a false front in order to seduce the masses. This is the essential tactic of “Jews for Jesus,” they say they’re Jewish rather than Christian in order to more easily convert Jews, not because it’s in some essential way the truth. They believe in Jesus, therefore they’re Christian, ba-da-bing.

My dear friend, who is a devout Mormon, points out that this is against the teachings of Christ. He tells his followers not to “hide [their] light under a bushel.” If you’re Christian, you’re supposed to say so.

This is one of Jesus’s better ideas. “I am what I am, if you don’t like it, bite me” is more or less my philosophy, and a damn sight better than painting a false front.

» Read more..

Keeping you posted

April 11, 2006 / / 2 comments

Modemac posted an update link on the Subgenius custody case, which is still up in the air.

Anyone who thinks this doesn’t affect them, because Subgeniuses are just too weird, doesn’t read much.

Girly Girls

April 7, 2006 / / 11 comments

In a post that is not about girliness, Shakespeare’s Sister describes why she isn’t girly:

I have a filthy mouth, a dirty sense of humor, an aesthetic lack of girliness (as in no make-up, no skirts, and perpetually untidy hair), and a collection of attributes which men and women alike deem “boyish???—namely, a fondness for Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, video game junkitude, the ability to correctly distinguish between DC and Marvel superheroes, and a pathological aversion to shopping.

I thought that was interesting. I have some of her “boy” characteristics, and some of her “girl” characteristics.

When I was younger, I thought I wasn’t girly because I’m loud, awkward, and socially agressive. I liked hanging out with the guys. I thought makeup was boring (I do wear makeup sometimes, not daily, but I find talking about makeup excruciating). Feminists talked about how men dominated conversations and silenced women in mixed groups, and I thought, uh oh, I guess I’m not very female, because that never happens to me. I prefered boisterous man-talk to retiring to the kitchen with the ladies and the babies. I forget to look in the mirror so if my lipstick goes haywire or my hair stands straight up, hours could pass before I notice. I sit large and have never managed any sort of ladylike posture. And yes, I like science fiction and Star Trek and men just cannot believe they are meeting a woman who loves James Bond.

But then some people in my life started telling me I was very girly. Very. I couldn’t understand that at first. Ultimately I could come up with a list of girl characteristics: I love to shop. I love pretty colors and pretty things and I like to wear pink. I like fairies and flowers (my tattoos are ultra-fem). My flirtation style is coy and girly. I blush. I like girl-chores better than boy-chores, and would much rather clean the kitchen than take out the garbage. I am confused by hardware and I think cars and electronics are extremely dull (Unless James Bond is operating them). Duller even than makeup.

Then, last summer, talking with some female friends, I discovered we all had, at some points, doubts about whether we were “real girls.”

I am gradually getting it through my head that I am girly because I am a girl. Womanly because I am a woman. Feminine because I am female. There doesn’t need to be any other test.

So ‘fess up. In what ways are you, and are you not, typical of your gender? What characteristics caused you to doubt yourself? What affirmed you? What’s your list?

Saying “religious,” meaning “Christian”

April 6, 2006 / / 9 comments

Jason has an interesting post about an article purporting to analyze religion in American politics, but utterly omitting minority reilgions.

Why does this matter? Isn’t it all demographic crystal-gazing? It matters because when terms like “religious left” (and “religious right”) become defined as “lefty Jesus vs. righty Jesus” or even “lefty patriarchal sky father vs. righty patriarchal sky father,” then the voices of the faithful who don’t hold those views are shoved out of the big tent.

I think Jason might be missing the bigger problem. We’re not just shoved out of the big political tent. We’re being shoved out of the language of religion at all. All the time, I hear people say “I don’t like religion” and when asked why, they elaborate “I don’t believe an omnipotent force controls the universe.” People literally don’t know that there is such a thing as religion without an omnipotent and controlling force. They don’t know that there are religions without a complex maze of sin to navigate. They don’t know that there are religions that celebrate all forms of adult consensual sex. They don’t know that there are religions that ask people to think for themselves.

And more than that. Whenever someone says “religious” but means “Christian” (or, in a burst of ecumenism, “Christian and Jewish and perhaps, maybe, a little, my personal distorted idea of Muslim”) the idea is reinforced that the rest of us don’t have “real religions.” People still think like Sgt. Howie; we have “fake religion.”

Language (says the writer) shapes what we know. When we say “religion” but mean “majority monotheistic religion” we continue to know only those majority monotheistic religions as the real thing. We reinforce the notion that Wiccans and Hindus and Native American religionists are fluffy, or odd, or primitive, or flaky, or otherwise just not right.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty

April 3, 2006 / / 7 comments

Ampersand has an excellent post up about the Duke rape case. In it, she discusses the concept of innocent until proven guilty, and has some very smart things to say:

But “innocent until proven guilty” is a courtroom standard. My opinion is not the same as a courtroom, and blog posts don’t put anyone in prison. Nothing about the American system of justice requires ordinary citizens to refrain from having opinions; and it’s not inconsistant to want Courts to adhere to “beyond any reasonable doubt” while holding my personal opinions to a less stringent standard.

Some time back, we (my then-husband and I) were aware of a member of the Pagan community who had been accused of child molestation. The case was working its way through the courts and no verdict had been reached. We found out that the accused was going to be at a Pagan event during which children were ordinarily given a lot of freedom to roam. We contacted people in charge of both the event and the property, asking that this person be banned from this event. We were refused, and what the people we spoke to all said was “innocent until proven guilty.”

I was furious. Livid is a good word. If you’ve ever seen me mad, you might have come up with livid as the right word.

And what I said to my husband is “innocent until proven guilty” is for courts. For parents, the rule is dangerous until proven safe.

Pagans are so pluralistic, so free, that they sometimes fail to see danger in their midst. They bend over backwards to be fair, because we are a people who have suffered too much unfair treatment. But as a mom, I don’t bend in that direction. I bend over forwards, in a protective huddle. I make my child, and my community’s children, safe to the best of my ability. That’s my job.

The accused was convicted, and served some years in jail. He is now free and again has access to Pagan events. A glitch in the registration system causes him to show up on some sex offender lists but not others, affording him more freedom of movement than I, for one, find comfortable.

But again, the law is not community. People feel they have to make him welcome at events, because he served his time, and is legally able to attend the events. But legal is not personal. He’s still dangerous until proven safe.

« Older Entries   Recent Entries »
zeeReputation Theme