Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Marriage Equality: President Obama & North Carolina

Pride Parade.  Seattle, Washington.  c. 1997.

I think the President does a nice job of explaining his evolving position on marriage equality in the following email:

Friend --

Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:
I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I hope you'll take a moment to watch the conversation, consider it, and weigh in yourself on behalf of marriage equality:

http://my.barackobama.com/Marriage

I've always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.

But over the course of several years I've talked to friends and family about this. I've thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, I've gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.

What I've come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.

Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn't dawn on them that their friends' parents should be treated differently.

So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.

If you agree, you can stand up with me here.

Thank you,
Barack

Unfortunately, President Obama’s shift on this issue, while important, does little to change actual policy.  In fact, while this counts as one in the win column, in North Carolina, there is not only a set back on marriage equality, but yet another example of poorly written legislation coming out of the far right wing of the GOP. 

It’s one thing to write laws that I disagree with, entirely another issue altogether to put poorly written laws in the books…   One is politics, the other is incompetence.

4 Worst Media Misrepresentations of North Carolina's Anti-Gay Amendment One | Media | AlterNet:

UNC-Chapel Hill law professor Maxine Eichner has spoken extensively to delineate the definite consequences of the Amendment as well as the possible consequences. She says the Amendment definitely bars the state from passing same-sex marriage or civil union legislation, which extends rights to same-sex couples, in the future. Furthermore, it bans the State from passing domestic partnership laws, which extend legal rights to unmarried couples, no matter their sexual orientation. Not only that, but it invalidates “existing partnership benefits by municipalities for all unmarried couples,” no matter their sexual orientation. In other words, as Protect All NC Families, the coalition organization set up to fight Amendment One, explains on its website, the Amendment eliminates “health care, prescription drug coverage and other benefits for public employees and children receiving domestic partner benefits."

Of course, there is always the possibility that this new amendment does exactly what its authors want, limiting the legal rights of people who are immorally shacking up regardless of gender… 

Considering the recent birth control debates, would this really be an unexpected development at this point?








video platform
video management
video solutions
video player
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Lord of the Rings - The Right Side of History
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook
The Colbert Report Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Barack Obama's Gay Blasphemy
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Endless Suffrage 2012 - States' Rights Edition
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook
The Colbert Report Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Barack Obama vs. North Carolina on Gay Marriage
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

 

Related Posts

Friday, April 27, 2012

Monday, April 23, 2012

The war on women & Santorum’s choice

As for this last image, on Facebook I wrote:

There is truth here. Not that these men are necessarily misogynists, they probably are not. But their campaign strategies are geared towards solidifying support of demographic groups who will actually vote for them, and in the general election the majority of women will vote Dem pretty much no matter what these fools do, so pissing them off really doesn't change the game for them at all.

Appealing to Non-College Educated White Males, however, the GOP's most dominant demographic, is a huge part of their game plan. The more heavily they dominate this segment of society, the more they can alienate these fellows from the democrats and Obama, the greater their chances of victory in the primaries and in November.

Being worried about what women think is a losing game for them, there is no reason for them to care what they think at all.

Since then, Romney has wrapped up the nomination.  This came a little earlier than I thought it would.  I actually suspected that Santorum would not give up until the convention, allowing the GOP as much of a chance as possible to try to get out of nominating Romney.

However, I think Santorum had a real moment of clarity leading to his withdrawal from the race.  Brace yourselves, I am actually going to say something nice about this fellow.

I do suspect that staying in the race as long as humanly possible was Santorum's plan.  I think, on the Friday before he dropped out, that he had every intention of still being in the race a week later.

I believe there were two factors that made him change his mind.

One, of course, was the fact that he was apparently looking at an embarrassing loss in his home state of Pennsylvania. 

Santorum as the GOP’s next frontrunner

At this point in his campaign, politically, I think he should have been looking more towards the future than any real chance of being sworn in as president in 2013.  Of course, he still had a long shot at widening the cracks between Romney and the, quite frankly, bigoted far right wing of the Republican Party to create some convention drama and an even longer shot at still derailing Romney’s nomination, either becoming the nominee himself or creating the possibility of another candidate stepping into the role.

But the odds of creating any of these scenarios were shrinking fast.  Getting shellacked in Pennsylvania would have lowered the odds even further.

And I don’t think his eye should even have been on the nomination this year, at least for the last couple months.  He should have been looking at 2016 or 2020, depending on Romney’s fate this fall.  For Santorum, staying in the race as long as possible should have been all about positioning himself for the future.  The longer he hung in there, collecting headlines if not delegates, he was building a solid foundation for a future run at the Presidency.

The GOP has a track record of elevating those who make a good showing one year to frontrunner status the next.  Santorum’s campaign, for the last month or two, could have been following a John McCain strategy. 

In 2000, McCain stayed in the race far past the point where Bush had locked up the nomination and was rewarded with front runner status for almost the entire duration of the 2008 Republican primaries, fairly easily wrapping up the nomination his next time out.  Of course, he managed to stay in the race that year without becoming a joke. 

In 2008, the McCain role was played not by Romney, but by Huckabee.  However, since Huckabee decided, early, to sit this one out, Romney slid into the 2nd place role this year and, like McCain in 2008, has now completed a fairly easy primary season and secured the nomination without too much fuss or muss.

Let’s face it, the GOP primaries this year were not a close thing.  Romney owned them.  Most of the noise about any real competition this year was just that, noise from the media trying to keep a blowout interesting through the end of the fourth quarter.  This is not to say that what competition there was wasn’t interesting, it was, and it revealed a lot about the nature of the GOP and its different demographic elements, but the race itself was not a close one at all.

If Santorum really wants to be president, he has a real chance at becoming the GOP front runner the next time around.  Like McCain and Romney, he needs to spend the next four to eight years quietly organizing and he can, pretty much, claim early frontrunner status the next time around.  Especially if the far right continues to dominate the party like it has, which is almost inevitable if Obama wins re-election.

However, this future front runner status depends on Santorum maintaining his credibility this year.

By pulling out when he did, the former Senator is ending on a relative high note, while he is still seen as a strong candidate.  The story, however, could have changed if he stayed in the race and suffered an embarrassing loss in his home state. 

So far, the humiliating 17 point loss of his Senate seat has remained out of the national press, for the most part, and has been forgotten by almost everyone. 

After another brutal home state loss, I suspect that his past political failures would enter into the national conversation and the story would change from his relatively successful presidential campaign this year to his repeated failings as a candidate for political office.

In other words, the press about his campaign would turn from being mostly positive to mostly negative.  By getting out now, as I said, he ends this year’s run on a high note and 2012 becomes a bright spot on his resume, not a hurdle to be overcome in the future.

Santorum’s Priorities

All of these considerations set aside, I still suspect that Santorum was in the race for the long run this year, until the weekend before he dropped out. 

He was still seen as being a factor in this year’s nomination process, his campaign was still receiving decent press, though it was starting to turn a little negative as Pennsylvania approached, and, let’s face it, a part of me really wonders if Candidate Santorum is really savvy enough to consider the arguments I made above in defense of his campaign to this point and how it poses him for a future run for the nomination.

If there was ever a candidate to stay in the race far past the point of respectability, ruining his reputation and future in a blind run towards an unreachable finish line, it would seem to be the former Senator.  This would be a move right out of his playbook, blind self-immolation.

Though I am sure his campaign advisors saw what I saw for the last couple of months and have been talking to the former Senator quite a bit about how long to stay in and when to drop out.  In fact, I would strongly suspect that these voices in his ears were whispering that, in order to position himself properly for the next campaign, that he should drop out before the Pennsylvania contest.

And I am pretty sure that Santorum was ignoring these voices until his daughter was hospitalized the weekend before he dropped out.

That weekend, I bet, Rick got in touch not only with some big doses of reality but that he also took a long look at his priorities in life. 

Whether or not he really believed that he still had a shot at the Presidency this year, I do not know, but even a rock would be having doubts by that point.  But I think he was still having fun.  I think, whether or not he believed he still had a chance, that he was enjoying the spotlight that was shining not only on himself but also on his (crazy, crazy, terrible, awful, horrible) political beliefs.

And, of course, inspiring national conversations about beliefs that are important to oneself would be a difficult role for anyone to walk away from.  I suspect that as long as he was inspiring these conversations that Santorum wasn’t going anywhere, even if staying in the race eventually cost him his own political future. 

Until his daughter’s hospitalization, I don’t think Santorum would have dropped out of the race until his campaign faded from the spotlight, until it resembled something like Newt Gingrich’s, and then I think he’d probably stay in the race until the money completely ran out or even longer, until, like Newt, he could sit there with his toe still in the pond while doing very little active campaigning.

But that takes a lot of time and effort and I am sure that even Santorum was beginning to see that his 2012 run was over.  It is one thing to be taking time away from one’s family and an ill child when one has a real shot at the White House, it is quite another to take that time for what amounts to little more than political noisemaking and rabblerousing.

I think Santorum made a very healthy choice here for himself and his family.  I applaud him for it.  Sure, I wanted the man out of the race.  Amusing (and infuriating) as he was, any chance he has at ever reaching the Oval Office needs to be shut down as soon as possible.  But I also am glad to see him (or anyone) putting his family first like this.

Yet my applause are a little bitter sweet here.  By making a great choice as a human and a father he has also, accidently, made a great political move.  I would be very surprised if we are not dealing with frontrunner Santorum the next time out, and that is not a good thing for America at all.

I see his exit as coming about through the following process… 

My advisors keep telling me that it is getting close to the time where I should walk away, but I am not there yet myself.  Wait, I need to be with my family now.  Oh, okay guys, let’s schedule a press event.  Why are my advisors so happy?  I though we were admitting defeat and going home?  Why are they so happy about losing?  Why are they chanting “2016… 2016…  2016…”?  Boy, that volunteer has a cute butt, I wonder if he works out?  Holy cow, I’ve got to go pray now! 

Okay.  I tried to keep those sorts of jabs out of this post.  But I couldn’t resist just one.

See you the next time around, Rick.  Though I can’t say that I look forward to it.

Facebook, Snip.it, & Pinterest

Yeah, it’s been way too long since I posted here.  I’ve been throwing a lot of links up on Facebook, Snip.it, and Pinterest, but I have not had any time at all to write for the last several weeks.

Follow me on those sites for more content between my posts, and from the links I share, you can get a pretty good idea of what is distressing our democracy on an almost daily basis.

Related Posts

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

A video from Anonymous: We are Humanity - A message to the World

Amen.

I really needed to see this today.  This is why we all keep on keeping on.

Related Posts

Monday, March 05, 2012

Same-sex marriage is an issue of civil rights

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Mostly around here, I do things quickly with little thought, especially when it comes to assigning tags to posts (itself a relatively recent addition to the blog).  However, one issue I spent quite a bit of time thinking about was on how to tag LGBT issues.

I decided to just file them under “Civil Rights.”

The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capeheart pretty much sums up my thoughts in this clip.

On a side note, Gov. Christie comes across as a real ass in the brief clip of his appearance on Morning Joe.  I thought his charm was supposed to be his selling point.

Oops, I forgot.  This is what they call charm in many corners of the far right these days.

Dicks.

Blacks and gays: The shared struggle for civil rights - PostPartisan - The Washington Post:

“It’s an issue of civil rights, as you said. It’s an issue of equality. It’s an issue of equal treatment under the law,” I said. “No one is asking for special rights. No one is asking for any kind of special favors. We’re just looking for the same rights and responsibilities that come with marriage and also the protections that are provided under marriage. In that regard overall we’re talking about a civil rights issue and what African Americans continue to struggle with is exactly what lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are struggling with today.”

Men and women picket the White House on May 29, 1965, in a protest organized by the Mattachine Society of Washington ( File photo - United Press International )

Men and women picket the White House on May 29, 1965, in a protest organized by the Mattachine Society of Washington ( File photo - United Press International )

Related Posts

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Code Speak: Politics, bigotry, & the problem with Santorum

2011-10-06 Occupy Portland

Before the Florida primary, I mistakenly believed that Rick Santorum was done. 

Can’t we just be done with him?  Please?

The Anyone But Romney camp has got them selves into a pickle… They have to decide between the walking contradiction of Newt Gingrich and Santorum, whose issues as a general election candidate may be just as awkward, but in a very different way...

Republicans and the Culture Wars: Why It Won't Work This Year - The Daily Beast:

Then there’s Rick Santorum, who, by all rights, should dominate the values battlefield. He’s got the loving wife, the passel of kids, the goofy-dad vibe. And, let’s face it, the man has never met a policy issue he didn’t see through the prism of family values. Tax reform? Regulatory reform? Deficit spending? As Rick tells it, the first step toward addressing any of these problems is to reinstate the ban on sodomy.

On pure piety points, no one can beat Rick. We’re talking here about a guy who has said he would use the presidential bully pulpit to warn of how contraception tempts even married couples to get busy in ways contrary to God’s will. This, of course, is part of the problem. Opposing abortion is one thing. Opposing contraception even among married folks doesn’t make Rick seem like a paragon of moral virtue so much as a refugee from the 16th century.

This excerpt touches on the real problem with Santorum without actually landing on it.  It is not Santorum’s beliefs that are necessarily troubling to the far right, it is the way he communicates them.  He either has made a decision at some point in his career to ignore the generally accepted code speak of the conservative social agenda, or he just doesn’t understand it.

If the former, then this is, perhaps, a bold though politically difficult approach to campaigning for him.  If the latter, then he may be too stupid to be president.  Not that that has stopped voters before.

What do I mean by code speak?  Well, on gay rights, instead of calling them “special rights,” he focuses instead on the idea that homosexuality is a sin.  Sure, a lot of non-politicians focus on the Biblical rather than the political points of this issue, but usually those are not people running in statewide elections, let alone wanting to run in a national general election.

Likewise, the new contraception debate (really, have we drifted that far to the right?)… 

Instead of talking about the economics of health care, or even the questionable argument about religious freedom for faith-based organizations, Santorum, in the past, hit a straight moral line drive with the argument that contraception was bad for families.  Of course, this was before the debate raised like an oily sludge to the surface of the election cycle, and at the time he said that he was not in favor of legislating this brand of morality, but times and political climates can and do change…

This sort of right wing code speak becomes very troubling to me when the President is being discussed.  I know the issues that most on the right have with Obama have nothing to do with his race, but…  All the claims about the President being a Muslim, a non-native citizen, and even a socialist…  In a different day and age, how many of the people making so much noise about these non-issues wouldn’t bother?  Instead, thirty plus years ago, they would just be making noise about getting the black man out of the White House.

Not everyone, don’t get me wrong.  But I am sure that some percentage of those making these sorts of arguments about the President are just using these non-issues as code speak about his race.

While I disagree with Santorum at a fundamental level on just about every issue and take exception to almost every word that comes out of his mouth, at least he is not that kind of slime.  I have no doubt that his issues with Obama have a lot more to do with wanting his job than with the color of the President’s skin. 

The bigoted, racist kind of slime out there who do have that problem should be worried, though, because Santorum does not play their game and, in the unlikely event that he secures the GOP nomination, his inability to use proper conservative code speak will slay any chances at victory in November.

Only by using code speak to portray religious and moral beliefs as legitimate political issues can one who seems to believe that birth control is a refuge for loose women with low morals succeed in gaining acceptance outside of the far right conservative primaries.

Of course, Santorum’s failure to grasp the necessity of right wing code speak is not his only problem, beyond failing to understand how to discuss social issues, he really doesn’t seem to understand which aspects of these issues really engage people in the first place:

But it’s not just that the senator’s positions are out of touch with the mainstream electorate (a mere 8 percent of Americans think birth control is immoral; 84 percent of U.S. Catholics think you can use it and still be a good Catholic). It’s that the guy is simultaneously too pious and too pathetic.

Take his views on gay rights. Plenty of people object to gay marriage, but Santorum has long come across as a bit of a clown on the entire subject of homosexuality. It’s some combination of his whiny manner and his slightly-too-colorful blatherings about how “sodomy” is kinda like polygamy or incest but not quite so bad as man-on-dog action. With that kind of commentary, small wonder Dan Savage decided to execute his devastating lexical takedown of the senator.

Perhaps saddest of all, when things get uncomfortable, Santorum crumbles. Pressed recently about a section of his 2005 book, It Takes a Family, that laments “radical feminists” undermining the family by pushing women to work outside the home, the senator pleaded ignorance and claimed the bit had been written by his wife.

To be sure, this whole Serious Candidate business is new to Santorum.

Here’s to crumbling and blaming it on your wife.  That sells really well in the heartland. 

The problem the rest of us will have if Santorum became president should resolve itself any time now.  I am just surprised he’s made it this far.

But not really.  I still am not convinced that the GOP can bring itself to nominate a Mormon, er…  I mean someone who flip flops on all the issues they hold dear while being responsible for the rough draft of the “anti-American” and “Socialist” Obama death panel plan. 

Unfortunately, the only other sane choice they had this year was another, lesser known Mormon, er…  I mean someone who endorsed the President’s anti-Amercian, Nazi Communist agenda by actually working for the guy.  Ambassador to China or closet communist? 

Huntsman's failure to launch and the Anyone But Romney crusade, it surely couldn’t have anything to do with faith, could it?  I am sure that for most primary voters, the politics do come first.  Unfortunately, I am sure that there are a few out there who obscure their true feelings with political code phrases.

A skill Santorum seems to lack.

Related Posts

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Conservative voters: Poorly informed with low IQs & voting against their own best interests?

Occupy Portland - N17: Occupy the Banks!  Portland, Oregon.  11:23 AM

I was just going to throw this link up onto Snip.it & Pinterest, but I really felt some words were necessary here.

First of all, I have known some very intelligent people who have conservative political views.  Not only are they smart, but their political views are smart as well.  Their arguments are usually well developed, informed, and are very intelligent, based on legitimate facts, figures and historical interpretations.

Quite often I disagree with them, but this is because we subscribe to some different historical and philosophical interpretations.  However, when we debate, I hope both of us walk away better informed than when we started. 

These debates usually change no minds, but they can actually make each of our arguments stronger, because through a well-informed conversation on an issue, we both learn some new facts and figures, holes are punched in our weaker arguments, and we have to find support for fuzzy truths we may have thrown out in haste or drop those imperfect arguments from our repertoire.  In the end, each side can make a better informed decision on the point being discussed and, hopefully, takes away stronger arguments in defense of our views.

But what about right and wrong?  What about winning?  Well, in intelligent debates, we are usually arguing sane problems and issues that have multiple, legitimate, intelligent solutions.  There usually is not a right answer or a wrong answer.  Or they are very complex problems that require the best ideas from both the right and the left to be adequately resolved.

Of course, I am not talking about racism, prejudice, discrimination, or science.  I usually find that intelligent conservatives and I pretty much share the same views here.  Because we are not stupid or ignorant.

Which brings us to this…

Conservatism Thrives on Low Intelligence and Poor Information | | AlterNet:

…Canadian study published last month in the journal Psychological Science, which revealed that people with conservative beliefs are likely to be of low intelligence. Paradoxically it was the Daily Mail that brought it to the attention of British readers last week. It feels crude, illiberal to point out that the other side is, on average, more stupid than our own. But this, the study suggests, is not unfounded generalisation but empirical fact.


It is by no means the first such paper. There is plenty of research showing that low general intelligence in childhood predicts greater prejudice towards people of different ethnicity or sexuality in adulthood. Open-mindedness, flexibility, trust in other people: all these require certain cognitive abilities. Understanding and accepting others – particularly "different" others – requires an enhanced capacity for abstract thinking.


But, drawing on a sample size of several thousand, correcting for both education and socioeconomic status, the new study looks embarrassingly robust.  Importantly, it shows that prejudice tends not to arise directly from low intelligence but from the conservative ideologies to which people of low intelligence are drawn. Conservative ideology is the "critical pathway" from low intelligence to racism. Those with low cognitive abilities are attracted to "rightwing ideologies that promote coherence and order" and "emphasise the maintenance of the status quo".

Pausing for a second…  I do not equate conservative ideology with intolerance, necessarily.  Social conservatism, perhaps, but not conservatism in general. 

It seems as if a narrow path is being walked here, almost but not quite defining conservatism as racist and intolerant.  That may be problematic.  Further, if these sorts are drawn to the conservative ideology, does that mean conservative ideology is intolerant?  Or does it become intolerant because of the influx of these intolerant people with low IQs?  In the end, does it matter even matter where the causes and effects lay?  Or has it become a self-perpetuating cycle with the chickens shitting all over the eggs they are laying, beyond any identification of cause and effect?

Blah.  From here the article climbs up onto more solid ground…  The problem lies not with a lack of intelligent conservatives, but with the way the intelligent conservatives have been pandering to their side’s “basest, stupidest impulses.” 

This is not to suggest that all conservatives are stupid. There are some very clever people in government, advising politicians, running thinktanks and writing for newspapers, who have acquired power and influence by promoting rightwing ideologies.

But what we now see among their parties – however intelligent their guiding spirits may be – is the abandonment of any pretence of high-minded conservatism. On both sides of the Atlantic, conservative strategists have discovered that there is no pool so shallow that several million people won't drown in it. Whether they are promoting the idea that Barack Obama was not born in the US, that man-made climate change is an eco-fascist-communist-anarchist conspiracy, or that the deficit results from the greed of the poor, they now appeal to the basest, stupidest impulses, and find that it does them no harm in the polls.

…"the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital centre today". The Republican party, with its "prevailing anti-intellectualism and hostility to science" is appealing to what he calls the "low-information voter", or the "misinformation voter". While most office holders probably don't believe the "reactionary and paranoid claptrap" they peddle, "they cynically feed the worst instincts of their fearful and angry low-information political base".

This is troubling in so many ways.  But this is why so many poor Americans are fervent Republicans while many of the policies and practices of the GOP act against their own best interests at worst, or have little to do with any issues really effecting the poor at best.

Even more troubling:

In the UK, “the Guardian reported that recipients of disability benefits, scapegoated by the government as scroungers, blamed for the deficit, now find themselves subject to a new level of hostility and threats from other people.”

And even worse, and heading towards my real point here:

These are the perfect conditions for a billionaires' feeding frenzy. Any party elected by misinformed, suggestible voters becomes a vehicle for undisclosed interests. A tax break for the 1% is dressed up as freedom for the 99%. The regulation that prevents big banks and corporations exploiting us becomes an assault on the working man and woman. Those of us who discuss man-made climate change are cast as elitists by people who happily embrace the claims of Lord Monckton, Lord Lawson or thinktanks funded by ExxonMobil or the Koch brothers: now the authentic voices of the working class.

Many of the policies that benefit corporations are acutely harmful to the poor.  Tax policy?  Maybe, maybe not, but the minimum wage?  Expensive workplace safety regulations?  Even more costly environmental protection regulations? 

The people arguing for deregulation will never live where the water supply has been poisoned by carcinogens, so why should they worry?  Guess who gets to live there?  The people voting for the conservative candidates who argue that such regulations kill jobs. 

The real issue is not the IQ of the voters.  I know for a fact that many of the loudest voices on the left should be locked in small rooms and only allowed to talk to rocks.  Both sides have these people. 

But what is so disturbing to me is how so many on the right so callously prey upon the ignorance of many in their voting base. 

Perhaps this is my own prejudice, but what I see so often is the left saying, vote for us and we’ll keep the plant next door to your house from killing you while the right says, vote for us, and we’ll keep the left from putting job killing regulations on the plant next door to you and who really believes in all that science stuff, anyway, that says arsenic is bad for you?  Jobs and superbabies!  You can have it all! 

I used the photo of the class warfare sign at the top of this post because I feel that this really is class warfare.  It is an act of class warfare for the right to use these tactics on their own supporters. 

The right says we cannot have a discussion about income inequality, because that is class warfare and an attack on the capitalist principles of the American Dream.  Those on the right who would actually benefit from having this discussion, those who desperately feel the worsening ache of the dying American Dream every day, turn angry, fearful eyes towards those on the left who are fighting for them, away from those on the right who are actually stealing access to the American Dream from the vast majority of the country’s citizens in the first place.

And that, beyond being reprehensible, is just plain frightening.

Related Posts

Friday, February 10, 2012

Santorum & Obama: Which is worse for religion?

Some good points in this video… 

What I want to know, if we are not supposed to be funding birth control with our tax dollars, we are also not funding erectile dysfunction treatments with our tax dollars, right?

That would just be crazy and hypocritical for insurance to cover one and not the other.

What? Really? One is a health issue and one is a moral issue? 

Someone needs to explain that one to me.

The crazy right is always going off about how Obama is dangerous to religious freedom.  I forget which one of the GOP candidates it was, they are blurring together a bit, was saying that one of his first acts upon taking office would be to overturn by executive order all of the anti-Christian acts put into place by the Obama Administration.

For the life of me, I can’t think of a single anti-religious executive order or bill signed by Obama, but maybe I am just getting my news from the wrong sources.

Watching this video, I realized they might be talking about women’s health issues.  I forget that pro-woman’s health is often considered anti-Christian.

But, at least, if the GOP gains the Presidency, we can all rest assured that Islamic Sharia Laws will not be enacted in the United States.  But who will protect us from these psychos wanting to write Leviticus into the U.S. Code and into the Constitution?

Well, if they do, we can rest assured that many of them will quickly be out of office, stoned to death for their sins…

Right?

To my way of thinking, these people harm religion more than Obama every would in a millions terms in office. 

I suppose we do have to feel some sympathy since Christians are such a persecuted minority in this country.

ABCNEWS.com : Poll: Most Americans Say They're Christian:

Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Most of the rest, 13 percent, have no religion. That leaves just 4 percent as adherents of all non-Christian religions combined — Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and a smattering of individual mentions.

Oh, there I go again.  Listening to their words instead of checking their facts.  Better quit while I am ahead.

Fortunately, I do believe that these far right nut jobs are a minority, and if they feel persecuted, it is only because being surrounded by sane people must be very frustrating for them.  That does give me hope and faith in my fellow Americans.

I am also pleased if, as Uygur argues, this turn back to the crazy social agenda by the GOP candidates means that they are losing confidence on running on economic issues.  I agree the figures are on Obama’s side when it comes to the economy.

And the GOP loses when they run from so far to the right on the social issues.

Related Posts

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Protest SOPA… Do it for the jet skis!

Note: Cross posted from Rubble.

Permalink

 

sopa

TheOatmeal.com blacked out in protest of SOPA / PIPA - The Oatmeal:

For the next 24 hours I am blacking out TheOatmeal.com in protest of SOPA and PIPA. If one of these bills were to pass, this page is what many sites on the internet would look like.


As someone who creates content for the web, earns a living from it, and has had his content pirated, I do feel that we need better legislation against online piracy.

I do not, however, think that SOPA or PIPA are the legislation we need.

Want to help in the fight against SOPA / PIPA? First, go learn about the bills. After that go contact your elected officials. Wikipedia has a handy-dandy page set up which allows you to locate your state representative.

Hugs and jet skis,
-The Oatmeal

P.S. Please pirate the shit out of this animated GIF.

 

 

Done.

Now go check out the link below… 

 

The awkward moment when you break the law you proposed  #Stop... on Twitpic

Wednesday, January 04, 2012

Is the GOP really this anti-Romney? Now they’ve got a little Santorum on their shoes…

Yep.  It’s Rick’s turn…

Here is a scary one. Unfortunately, embedding is disabled: Rick Santorum Argues With Student Over Gay Marriage http://youtu.be/PzzDrOR30U8

Source: youtu.be via Aaron on Pinterest

 

Urban Dictionary: santorum

Related Posts

Another one bites the dust: Bachmann Out

Another bullet dodged, several more to go... Sanatorum? Really?

There’s Something About Michele | TPM2012:

Now that Michele Bachmann has dropped out of the presidential race, TPM took a look back at a memorable candidacy and compiled our favorite moments:

Some more winning moments...

Related Posts

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Suburban Eschatology Part Two - September 12th, 2010: 30 Mosques, 30 Days

Originally posted on: Suburban Eschatology Part Two - September 12th, 2010:

30 Mosques : 30 Days Blog - 30mosques.com/
CNN (Great Videos) - www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/09/10/ramadan.roadtrip.folo/index.html


I found out about this through CNN.com. The videos there are very good. At this point I have only started going through the actual blog, but what I have read is funny, entertaining, and informative. A good antidote to a lot of the anti-Muslim crap out there right now.

What really strikes me about this, though, is that it definitely makes me feel better about America right now. A couple months ago I watched a couple of PBS travel shows on Iran. In these shows, almost every Iranian, especially the younger college students, all talked about how much they liked the United States and Americans in general. They saw the good in our country and were able to separate it from the often anti-U.S. rhetoric spewed by factions within their government.

I compared this to what I perceive as the prevailing attitudes towards Iranians and Muslims in the U.S. these days, and I doubted that Iranians in America would find such goodwill echoed so consistently by our citizens. I cannot picture some middle-American telling a film crew from Tehran about how much he loved Iran, or even students at some liberal U.S. college campus returning the sentiments of these Iranian kids. Probably the best to hope for with the latter would be a bunch of peaceniks saying that no one deserves to be blown up in a war. Here, most see Iran as the enemy, many see Islam as the enemy, and we seem to have a much more difficult time separating the people from the government than most of the Iranians interviewed in these shows. This is not to say that there are not scary factions within the Iranian government, but the same can be said for ours.

The ability to see the differences between the U.S. government and the American people also, to me, suggests that Iranians know a lot more about the United States than we do about Iran. Of course, it is easier for them to learn about us, since we dominate global culture in a way Persia hasn't in millennia. But still, when a country dominates our news as much as Iran has over the last few decades, it seems like we would know more about the people and the culture than we do. But most people don't, and even for those of us who are interested, there are few opportunities for us to learn.

These days, even when there are opportunities to learn more about Islam, one must be very careful about the sources. Yesterday, a local church here in Gresham offered an all day seminar on Islam, and if I was able to, I would have loved to have attended this. But I was concerned and curious. Was this a real, academic look at Islam, or was it hours of bull shit about how Islam wants to take over America and to convert and kill all the Christians? I don't know, but my guess is that it could have gone either way, especially since this event was hosted on September 11th. Is the date because of 9/11, or because it is Eid, the celebration wrapping up Ramadan, or both? Of course such sentiments do exist in the extreme edges of Islam, but, to counter, I offer up Ann Coulter and her spiritual kin. My question is, these days, do most Americans resemble these Iranians that were interviewed, or do they resemble the Rev. Terry Jones, who proposed, and thankfully called off, "International Burn a Quran Day"?

What strikes me the most about the 30 Mosques guys, though, is that their experience was much more like those PBS guys in Iran than I would have imagined. They were generally met with goodwill and good wishes wherever they went, judging from the CNN interviews. While Americans do not, generally, wear their racism on their sleeves, I was still pleasantly surprised by this. Of course, neither of these guys are Iranian and they are U.S. citizens, so the comparison to the PBS guys in Iran is tenuous at best.

Anyway, this blog and the interviews are an excellent resource to learn more about Islam in America, both its history and its current state, and to learn a bit about American attitudes towards Islam these days. A good find, and I really appreciate the time CNN has spent publicizing this, balancing out the screaming headlines about burning bonfires of Al-Quran, Islamic cultural centers in lower Manhattan, attempts to stigmatize the President by linking him to Islam, etc.
'via Blog this'