jmatonak | Entries tagged with politics

Dangit, other people have noticed real life is like the last season of The West Wing now.

It turns out Jimmy Smits/Matthew Santos really was based on Barack Obama.

( Spoilery Joke )

I've been reading a lot of libertarian blogs. (I know, that means I did it to myself as far as the headache things go.) They all make a big show about how evenhanded they are, and then sit there and say how Obama's gonna get out of Iraq instantly and screw everything up, and particularly how he's gonna take everyone's money and give it to people who just don't wanna work, God bless 'em! (Sorry, a little Ned Flanders snuck in there.)

If you are going to assume every word out of Obama's mouth is a lie, please don't tell me how "evenhanded" and "nonpartisan" you are. If you mean that, over the long term, Obama's stated policies will impoverish us all, say that. But:

( Whiny Blather )

I could go on and on, and that's kind of the point. Partisanship is great. Just own it.

Politics is making me sad.

I'm worried that the Obama vs. Palin contest is going to go the wrong way because someone showed basic human decency to a family member. I'm worried that my state is going to make a huge civil rights mistake. And I can only shake my head at the latest round of ads.

You see, "gay marriage might be taught in schools!" As near as I can suss this out, some folks are of the opinion children should not be told some one or more of the following, ever (not sure which):

1. Gay people exist.
2. They often pair off into stable couples.
3. This is called "marriage."

Because voting no on a ballot proposition will totally keep second graders from finding this stuff out.

While we're at it, let's outlaw falling rocks and pass an initiative making the sun visible at night.

I realize I'm being kind of monomaniacal lately. I'll try to do better.

Did ~~that reptile~~ Senator McCain really make sarcasm quotes while he talked about the health of a pregnant woman, or did I just imagine that?

I want to go off on a tirade using language like "she's not just a fucking incubator", but I will instead say this.

It is better to save one person than lose two people. It is my understanding that emergency personnel like firefighters are trained to make the conservative, risk-averse choice in situations like this- if two people are dying, and you can save one, but not both, you save one. And, I would imagine, you live with the consequences of that for the rest of your life. (If I am mistaken about this aspect of emergency response training, I welcome correction.)

Even after putting aside the question of "personhood" as it applies to the unborn, that's what we're left with. To behave as though this agonizing moral choice is some sort of cheap tactic- to use smarmy sarcasm quotes and eye-rolls about the "health" of the mother- is inhuman.

The person on the ground makes the call. Sometimes, you save the mother and let the baby go, because that's the best that you can do. Anyone who can sit there and make that kind of smarmy little joke is, at best, morally blind.

Apparently, some of my fellow Californians are confused. They seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that "legal gay marriage" means a pair of homos (or chick-homos) can barge into ANY CHURCH and demand to be married, and said church will have to marry those two homos in defiance of GOD'S LAW lest thugs with guns come and SHOOT EVERYONE OMG.

This is ridiculous. A church, a private association, has the right to tell any heterosexual couple seeking to marry to get bent. Any court that has held otherwise did the whole court thing wrong. Similarly, if it is against your creed to allow pairs of men or pairs of women to marry, you cannot be compelled to perform those marriages.

At this time, the rights and privileges of marriage are correctly extended to homosexual couples under the California constitution. Amending the state constitution to forbid gay marriage will not be the single worst sin ever committed, but it would be a grievous moral lapse and a completely unjust exercise of "tyranny of the majority."

That being said, I will be the first to say that specific churches should not be forced to perform ceremonies that are against their creed. That's common sense.

I am also willing to legally define marriage as being between two humans, if anyone's knickers are still in a twist about that.

I want to play by Wall Street rules. It sounds fun.

1. When you win money, keep it.
2. When you lose money, get it back from the taxpayers.

Still cranky about this one.

Current Mood: depressed

I can't read right now. I'm sorry for not keeping up with everyone's journals properly. Something about my Big Medical Fun has rendered me even more unable to concentrate than usual. It's like being stoned, without the fun.

Politics is making me grumpy and moody. This is the cycle of political life.

Republicans promise to "shake up Washington."

Republicans win.

Republicans go on an orgy of deregulation and tax relief for the rich because "government is bad."

Whatever industry the Republicans deregulated *last* cycle goes belly-up.

Because "there is no real choice", the government (which, recall, is bad) bails out the industry that just failed.

As a consequence of this bail-out, the same people who were getting tax relief face minimal risk, thus essentially living in the government-supported world they are always against at election time. Because that's not hypocritical at all.

The Democrats win a midterm election. This step is optional. When it occurs, the Democrats make no headway on extending government support to most of us instead of just a few. I have no idea why.

Because/in spite of the big bailout, the economy goes tits-up for a while. Republicans point to this as proof that government is bad, for some reason. Note the further contradiction here with the claim of "no other choice" that supported the bailout.

Obviously, it's time to shake up Washington and get those lazy politicians off our backs!

And away we go.

How does this work more than once? How many huge bailouts do you need before you realize you could just spend the damn money on social programs instead? Why do the people getting slapped around by economic "policies" that boil down to "steal money and keep it" keep voting for them and against "steal money and spend it"?

Is it really that everyone secretly thinks they'll be rich and wants to keep all the hypothetical money they'll never really get? Really?

Word around the water cooler is that dynamic heroine Sarah Palin will save the country with her peppy smile and can-do attitude, much like the guy who was exactly the same as that but too liberal. Of course, one difference between her and Obama is that Obama will be senior to the cranky old guy looking over his shoulder and will actually get to, you know, do stuff. Except he won't, because it's a year divisible by four, and it's time to get to work and "shake up Washington."

I realize deriding Sarah Palin as "Caribou Barbie" is sexist tripe. I hate her fair and square, for words that came out of her own mouth. And, yes, I am bitter because the Republicans have become charismatic again. Because I know what will happen when the charisma does its job. And because the magic shaking mantra only works for the party that's going to crush most of us again.

I never thought I would have occasion to say this, not because of the person involved but because it isn't the sort of thing I would usually say. But here it is:

Hillary Clinton makes me proud to be an American.

( Read more... )

On a related note: the talking heads describing her endorsement of Obama as "minimal" and "tepid" should be ashamed of themselves. That was a barn-burner, the strongest possible words that could come from a woman who once opposed the man of whom she spoke. It was a shockingly strong endorsement, and exactly what we needed to avoid the usual Democratic Party self-immolation.

It's one of life's little ironies that the moment that made me want to vote for Hillary Clinton was about her saying that I should vote for someone else.

Mr. Card does not like gay marriage, because it is not in accord with his religious beliefs. He claims to be against it because it is "the end of democracy in America." His objection is that courts are interpreting state constitutions so as to allow gay marriage, even though the popular vote has come down against it.

Mr. Card does not understand the plain meaning of the phrase "interpreting the state constitution."

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." -- Robert H. Jackson, majority opinion in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), emphasis added.

I trust that Jackson's reference to the Bill of Rights rather than the California constitution does not obscure the issue. It is one of the oldest principles in American law that a Constitution, be it federal or state, cannot be circumvented by a mere act of the legislature, however well that act may accord with the popular will.

I have some problems with the "right to property" protected by the U. S. Constitution. The word "Constitution" implies that, no matter how many people agree with me, I can suck it. So, too, can Orson Scott Card. An attempt to enact religious dogma into law under the banner of "democracy" is odious. A member of a comparatively small sect such as the LDS should know better.

The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, so William H. Rehnquist can bite me too.

George Bush is not to blame for the Iraq war because the American people are inattentive?

Hm.

I must have missed the part where the Bush administration responded to public criticism. (Hint: there was no such part, although there was plenty of criticism.)

From Reuters:

"I am convinced Senator McCain is not a conservative, and in fact has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are," James Dobson, the founder of the conservative group Focus on the Family, said on Tuesday in a statement delivered to a talk show host.

A thumb in James Dobson's eye? Oh man, do I want to be second in that line. If I could pistol-whip him too, that'd be swell.

McCain still has the potential to disappoint me, but it's nice to know the guy I could live with is the likely Republican nominee. I prefer Obama to Clinton... today... but it's a coin flip for me and I'd be happy enough with either of them as the candidate for the Dems. I think either of them has a good shot at the general, so... sweet! Now, dear darling Democrats, don't use a brokered convention as your excuse to fuck this up, 'kay?

A bunch of crazy people claiming to represent the Lakota nation showed up in Washington yesterday and withdrew from all treaties with the United States. They announced that anyone who wants to come live in their nation, which they claim comprises 5 US states, is welcome to.

It's easy to get confused about the legal status of "American Indians." The native nations are exactly that- they are independent nations that signed treaties with the US. The Supreme Court has affirmed this since the early 1800s, and US presidents going back to Andrew Jackson have ignored the courts and done whatever they wanted. ("Judge Marshall has made his decision; now let us see him enforce it.")

As far as I can tell, the law is entirely on the side of the Lakota. Again. But sending in US troops to pacify them- the traditional response to this kind of thing- may not play these days. I await the outcome of these events with great interest.

So now I have the WGA strike and this Lakota thing to make me wish there were still a Daily Show for me to watch.

--

Merry Christmas, for those of you who are into that, and please feel free to substitute the well-wishing phrase of your choice if you're not so much into the whole Christmas deal. I intend to be "around here" more, but God knows what will actually happen.

As a citizen and voter, it's my responsibility to keep up with the news and be aware of the state of the world around me. Unfortunately, it's reached the point where being a responsible citizen and voter is no longer healthy for me, and I don't know what to do.

According to the United States Supreme Court, a student in an American high school cannot unfurl a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" on school property, because the banner advocates an illegal activity, specifically bong hits. The Court does not specifically address the treatment school officials could afford another banner, which would read, "Bong hits should be legal." The clear implication is that the second banner could also be legally suppressed- even though it is, to my eye, clearly protected speech.

Why is this important to me? Well, I'm not sure. I'm not in high school anymore, so I'm still allowed to have political opinions this week. And this is certainly far less disturbing than what my country is up to in the Middle East. But I'm in a vulnerable emotional state, and I look at the world and see things getting worse and worse, and there's nothing I can do. I brace myself for the latest round of war atrocities and something like this comes along. Paying attention to the world just makes me feel sad and hopeless. I try not to talk about this, but feeling sad and hopeless really hurts.

I'm going to talk about Doctor Who now.