D.C. council recognizes gay marriage
I'm tapped...just...wow. Overcome with pride in all of these places and people who have recognized that LGBT rights are equal rights.
Now I'm going to go before I have a Glenn Beck moment.
*sniffle* I just...love my country... ROFL
Rants and Raves home
07 April 2009
Ready to wed, part two: Vermont
Vermont passes gay-marriage bill
There's not much I can add to my thoughts on same-sex marriage after the uplifting message delivered by the Iowa Supreme Court just the other day. But I think it's important to also recognize the Vermont legislature for standing up to a governor who seems to believe that milquetoast excuses will somehow soften the blow of a gubernatorial veto on such an important piece of legislation. Dear Governor Douglas, we all realize that the battle is far from over. But now that there is a bill in place allowing same-sex couples to marry, the obstacles you say they will yet face will be weaker in the confrontation.
To the 43 states currently prohibiting gay marriage through legislation...get your heads out of your asses. To the next crop of states (New Hampshire and Maine) considering same-sex marriage bills: pass them as soon as possible!
And to everyone out there, I would like to point out one simple part of our legislative framework: our states are set up to recognize the rights of those from other states as if they live in our own, and to recognize rulings and decisions of other states as valid. That being said, it is unlawful for any state (even one with anti-same-sex marriage legislation on the books) to not recognize the lawful marriage of a same-sex couple if it was carried out according to the law in a state that allows and performs same-sex marriages. Chew on that for a bit.
Rants and Raves home
There's not much I can add to my thoughts on same-sex marriage after the uplifting message delivered by the Iowa Supreme Court just the other day. But I think it's important to also recognize the Vermont legislature for standing up to a governor who seems to believe that milquetoast excuses will somehow soften the blow of a gubernatorial veto on such an important piece of legislation. Dear Governor Douglas, we all realize that the battle is far from over. But now that there is a bill in place allowing same-sex couples to marry, the obstacles you say they will yet face will be weaker in the confrontation.
To the 43 states currently prohibiting gay marriage through legislation...get your heads out of your asses. To the next crop of states (New Hampshire and Maine) considering same-sex marriage bills: pass them as soon as possible!
And to everyone out there, I would like to point out one simple part of our legislative framework: our states are set up to recognize the rights of those from other states as if they live in our own, and to recognize rulings and decisions of other states as valid. That being said, it is unlawful for any state (even one with anti-same-sex marriage legislation on the books) to not recognize the lawful marriage of a same-sex couple if it was carried out according to the law in a state that allows and performs same-sex marriages. Chew on that for a bit.
Rants and Raves home
05 April 2009
"Corn-fed and ready to wed!" -- Iowa S.C. upholds same-sex marriage
Gay marriages expected to begin in Iowa April 24
Iowa Supreme Court: Gay marriage ban unconstitutional
The Meaning of Iowa's Gay Marriage Decision - TIME
"The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution." ~ from the text of the Iowa Supreme Court's 68-page decision, which you can find here.
Way. To. Go. Iowa.
It is truly heartwarming to be able to look at my dearest friends in the LGBT community and know that in one more place their right to marry and share a life together has been affirmed. And why shouldn't they? Love is blind, as they say (whoever "they" are), so people should not be restricted from showing love to those for whom they feel it. My feelings for a man are no more or less valid than my sister's love for her girlfriend or my best friend's desire to find a man with whom he can share his life.
Separation of church and state means that for the state, no religious doctrine should dictate the rights of the people. Why should I be subject to the laws of Christianity when I identify as Jewish? Why should atheists or agnostics in our "free" society be bound by strictures to which they themselves do not subscribe?
The Iowa Supreme Court, through their decision and the accompanying explanation, have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that they understand this and that they are acting in the interest of the people -- all the people, not just the ones who believe that their religion should dictate everybody else's way of life. (I realize that might sound offensive. Deal.)
Of course, there are people who disagree. Just read the first article linked above; the tone of the entire piece is so negative that I'm almost forced to question the writer's impartiality. That is the primary reason why, in the interest of showing multiple sides to what has become a complicated issue, I've given you three articles instead of the typical one. At any rate, all this means is that the fight isn't over. The LGBTA (the "A" stands for "Allies", heterosexual individuals who identify with and support the LGBT community's struggle for equality) community will be forced to not only fight for new ground, but to emphatically defend the ground we have won in this decision.
I'm struck at the irony of those who are against same-sex marriage feeling disenfranchised by this decision. Here's a quick thought: this isn't about you. I know that hurts, but for the umpteenth time I will remind you to consider how you would feel if someone tried to take from you the fundamental right to share your life with the person you love. Nobody said you have to attend a same-sex wedding, and nobody is forcing you to change your beliefs or begin carrying rainbow flags. What we are asking you -- what I am asking you -- is to, for the sake of whatever god you follow, MYOB and let other people seek happiness too.
Rants and Raves home
Iowa Supreme Court: Gay marriage ban unconstitutional
The Meaning of Iowa's Gay Marriage Decision - TIME
"The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution." ~ from the text of the Iowa Supreme Court's 68-page decision, which you can find here.
Way. To. Go. Iowa.
It is truly heartwarming to be able to look at my dearest friends in the LGBT community and know that in one more place their right to marry and share a life together has been affirmed. And why shouldn't they? Love is blind, as they say (whoever "they" are), so people should not be restricted from showing love to those for whom they feel it. My feelings for a man are no more or less valid than my sister's love for her girlfriend or my best friend's desire to find a man with whom he can share his life.
Separation of church and state means that for the state, no religious doctrine should dictate the rights of the people. Why should I be subject to the laws of Christianity when I identify as Jewish? Why should atheists or agnostics in our "free" society be bound by strictures to which they themselves do not subscribe?
The Iowa Supreme Court, through their decision and the accompanying explanation, have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that they understand this and that they are acting in the interest of the people -- all the people, not just the ones who believe that their religion should dictate everybody else's way of life. (I realize that might sound offensive. Deal.)
Of course, there are people who disagree. Just read the first article linked above; the tone of the entire piece is so negative that I'm almost forced to question the writer's impartiality. That is the primary reason why, in the interest of showing multiple sides to what has become a complicated issue, I've given you three articles instead of the typical one. At any rate, all this means is that the fight isn't over. The LGBTA (the "A" stands for "Allies", heterosexual individuals who identify with and support the LGBT community's struggle for equality) community will be forced to not only fight for new ground, but to emphatically defend the ground we have won in this decision.
I'm struck at the irony of those who are against same-sex marriage feeling disenfranchised by this decision. Here's a quick thought: this isn't about you. I know that hurts, but for the umpteenth time I will remind you to consider how you would feel if someone tried to take from you the fundamental right to share your life with the person you love. Nobody said you have to attend a same-sex wedding, and nobody is forcing you to change your beliefs or begin carrying rainbow flags. What we are asking you -- what I am asking you -- is to, for the sake of whatever god you follow, MYOB and let other people seek happiness too.
Rants and Raves home
04 April 2009
Happy Birthday NATO, and...many more?
Obama hails 5,000 more NATO forces for Afghanistan
In the build-up to NATO's 60th anniversary summit in Strasbourg/Kehl, there has been a lot of speculation from every corner about President Obama's campaign to increase Allied support for combat and reconstructive operations in Afghanistan. The article above, courtesy of The Huffington Post, announces that the Allies have volunteered an additional 5000 troops for military training and police purposes. While not combat troops, this can be touted as a success on President Obama's part and an indication that while NATO may yet be suffering from an identity crisis, the time for this organization is not quite over.
Now more than ever, on its 60th birthday, NATO is suffering from a crisis of relevance that is not easily solved. The European Union has increased in strength as a viable economic and political agreement between its member countries, and for several years the discussion has turned toward supporting a military framework within the EU. Such a transition, of course, would ensure NATO's complete obsolescence in a few short years; after all, how many organizations are necessary to promote security on the European continent, and what sorts of drawbacks exist for the country that overextends itself through military commitment to two security-focused IGOs?
Anybody who knows me understands that I have a special love for NATO. I am the last one to hope that the organization falls into the category of irrelevant commitments, but it would be foolish to ignore the possibility. That being said, it is time for the Allied states to come together for the express purpose of determining where they will take the organization in the next several years. As convenient as it may seem for EU member countries to consolidate their cooperation into one overarching intergovernmental mechanism, I believe they run the risk of hyperextending themselves in other areas if they attempt military integration through the EU rather than updating the existing frameworks of NATO.
The biggest risk at this point, clearly, is economic. With the recession continuing across the continent (and indeed, the world), it is folly to abandon the bodies and protocols in place for military support and defence while attempting at the same time to build similar mechanisms under a different helm. It makes far more sense at the present to maintain NATO as the primary collective security alliance; redefine the organization's aims and abilities as necessary; and focus energy in the EU on turning back the tide of economic recession.
It happens every year, of course -- this question of NATO's relevance and if/when the foreign ministers will meet in the NAC for the last time -- but for the moment, if I had a chance to address those heads of state I would remind them that there are more pressing matters about which to concern themselves, and to waste the time and resources to shift gears at such a crucial juncture would be one of the worst possible decisions to make.
Rants and Raves home
In the build-up to NATO's 60th anniversary summit in Strasbourg/Kehl, there has been a lot of speculation from every corner about President Obama's campaign to increase Allied support for combat and reconstructive operations in Afghanistan. The article above, courtesy of The Huffington Post, announces that the Allies have volunteered an additional 5000 troops for military training and police purposes. While not combat troops, this can be touted as a success on President Obama's part and an indication that while NATO may yet be suffering from an identity crisis, the time for this organization is not quite over.
Now more than ever, on its 60th birthday, NATO is suffering from a crisis of relevance that is not easily solved. The European Union has increased in strength as a viable economic and political agreement between its member countries, and for several years the discussion has turned toward supporting a military framework within the EU. Such a transition, of course, would ensure NATO's complete obsolescence in a few short years; after all, how many organizations are necessary to promote security on the European continent, and what sorts of drawbacks exist for the country that overextends itself through military commitment to two security-focused IGOs?
Anybody who knows me understands that I have a special love for NATO. I am the last one to hope that the organization falls into the category of irrelevant commitments, but it would be foolish to ignore the possibility. That being said, it is time for the Allied states to come together for the express purpose of determining where they will take the organization in the next several years. As convenient as it may seem for EU member countries to consolidate their cooperation into one overarching intergovernmental mechanism, I believe they run the risk of hyperextending themselves in other areas if they attempt military integration through the EU rather than updating the existing frameworks of NATO.
The biggest risk at this point, clearly, is economic. With the recession continuing across the continent (and indeed, the world), it is folly to abandon the bodies and protocols in place for military support and defence while attempting at the same time to build similar mechanisms under a different helm. It makes far more sense at the present to maintain NATO as the primary collective security alliance; redefine the organization's aims and abilities as necessary; and focus energy in the EU on turning back the tide of economic recession.
It happens every year, of course -- this question of NATO's relevance and if/when the foreign ministers will meet in the NAC for the last time -- but for the moment, if I had a chance to address those heads of state I would remind them that there are more pressing matters about which to concern themselves, and to waste the time and resources to shift gears at such a crucial juncture would be one of the worst possible decisions to make.
Rants and Raves home
01 April 2009
When "The Next Generation" means Star Trek reruns...
My Uterus, Husband, and I Agree - No Children
I remember sitting at the family dinner table last Easter, when my brother and his fiancee brought up the idea of children to my mom. The exact words escape me, but the point was "sorry Mom, no grandkids from us." Reading the article linked above, courtesy of The Frisky, brought me back to that conversation and several others I've had with my Mom on the topic since then.
You see, I am now my mother's only hope.
My s-i-l to be has great reasons for not wanting children, among them the exact explanation that Divine Caroline brings up: "I want it to be all about my husband...I want his life to be all about me, too." Well played, and more admirable than lamentable, IMHO.
Slightly unrelated but still in the same ballpark of questions and answers is the argument I got against marriage to begin with -- if someone has no respect for a particular institution or feels that they can live their life fully and happily without it, why on earth would they do it to satisfy another's wishes, or just to fit in with a crowd that is increasingly coupled up?
When I was a little girl all I wanted when I came home from a hard day of being the President, a doctor, a lawyer, a ballerina and my night shift at McDonald's was to come in the house to see my handsome, sweet and successful husband and kiss my 2-3 well-behaved and intelligent children. (Ambition has never been a problem...) Now I'm almost 23. I look around me and see college friends...high school friends...married with one or two children and I think, good for you. If you're doing what makes you happy then stick with it. But it's not for me.
And I don't know into which category I fall just yet. It's possible that my disdain for marriage and my unwillingness to have children are just by-products of my generation, where it's acceptable and even encouraged to expand your horizons and make something of yourself before you attempt to make something of someone else. Maybe I'll change my mind.
But maybe I won't. If I don't, though, and you feel the need to start asking questions, look for this article in your inbox.
Rants and Raves home
I remember sitting at the family dinner table last Easter, when my brother and his fiancee brought up the idea of children to my mom. The exact words escape me, but the point was "sorry Mom, no grandkids from us." Reading the article linked above, courtesy of The Frisky, brought me back to that conversation and several others I've had with my Mom on the topic since then.
You see, I am now my mother's only hope.
My s-i-l to be has great reasons for not wanting children, among them the exact explanation that Divine Caroline brings up: "I want it to be all about my husband...I want his life to be all about me, too." Well played, and more admirable than lamentable, IMHO.
Slightly unrelated but still in the same ballpark of questions and answers is the argument I got against marriage to begin with -- if someone has no respect for a particular institution or feels that they can live their life fully and happily without it, why on earth would they do it to satisfy another's wishes, or just to fit in with a crowd that is increasingly coupled up?
When I was a little girl all I wanted when I came home from a hard day of being the President, a doctor, a lawyer, a ballerina and my night shift at McDonald's was to come in the house to see my handsome, sweet and successful husband and kiss my 2-3 well-behaved and intelligent children. (Ambition has never been a problem...) Now I'm almost 23. I look around me and see college friends...high school friends...married with one or two children and I think, good for you. If you're doing what makes you happy then stick with it. But it's not for me.
And I don't know into which category I fall just yet. It's possible that my disdain for marriage and my unwillingness to have children are just by-products of my generation, where it's acceptable and even encouraged to expand your horizons and make something of yourself before you attempt to make something of someone else. Maybe I'll change my mind.
But maybe I won't. If I don't, though, and you feel the need to start asking questions, look for this article in your inbox.
Rants and Raves home
04 March 2009
What your S.O. doesn't know...
Relationship experts tout the importance of communication between couples. I don't know how many articles I've read about the things you should tell your significant other to improve your relationship, get to know one another better, etc., and it's always about "tell, tell, tell".
This era of openness has its limits, though -- I can't think of a single person, for example, who knows everything about me or who should. That includes potential S.O.s. Let's face it: big things, or things that can change the dynamic of the relationship, need to be spilled. If you have a child, that's something your S.O. should know if things are heading in a serious direction.
With this in mind, and a shout-out to Kasper at KISS FM for putting it there last night (check out Kasper's page), I've put the question to several people: what shouldn't you tell your S.O.? (No names for privacy's sake)
>You've had an STI. Sure, if you have herpes or HIV and there's a risk of passing it on to a partner, you should be up front. But what about that unfortunate case of the clap that happened 4 or 5 years ago, has been cleared up for just as long, and you haven't touched the skank/d-bag who gave it to you since? While STIs are becoming more common and less stigmatized, there's still an "eww" factor and awkward moments when you drop that bit of (unnecessary) information.
>Toilet talk. This seems obvious, but once couples reach a certain comfort level with one another there tends to be cohabitation of the bathroom -- one person brushes teeth slash does makeup, you get the idea, while the other uses the facilities. Call me an uberprude, but I hate sharing the bathroom with anybody. Your S.O. doesn't need to know how many times you "take a big yes" (courtesy of Peter Griffin) or that the burrito bol you had for lunch doesn't really agree with you.
>Toilet talk, part 2. On the same token, and I'm sure a score of guys will agree with this, it is not -- I repeat, not -- necessary to clue your S.O. in to all of the beauty rituals that take place behind that closed door. Whether it's an eyebrow-tweezing session of epic proportions or waxing that unfortunate upper lip, discretion is certainly the better part of valor.
>Family business. This goes for at least the first several months of a relationship. No date or potential S.O. wants the full saga of your mother's mental illness, your sister's drug habit or the terrible circumstances surrounding your uncle's extradition. When you've progressed to the semi-serious portion of the program and family functions enter the picture, you can gently introduce any family dynamics that may be interesting or necessary to understand. After all, no need to send in your S.O. totally unaware.
An added warning where families are concerned: be very careful about introducing new S.O.s to your family circle before it's appropriate (and sadly, you must judge this on a case-by-case basis). There is little worse than having a failed relationship where your ex-S.O. has become bosom buddies with your parents or siblings and you are forced to remain in the same circle with them indefinitely.
>War stories. You know all those drunken escapades you had with your best mates? They may already be immortalized by blurry Facebook pictures and poorly-spelled wall posts, and that if anywhere is where they belong. There is a difference between having a good time with friends and finding yourself the focal member of some group about urinating in public or who has their name on the men's room wall (shout-out to guys: you are NOT exempt from this), and it is unlikely that your S.O. will be amused about "that one time, with the really hot guy from New York..." This creeps fairly close to the Ex Factor.
>Ex-S.O.s Oh, I could write an entire blog about the Ex Factor. I dated this guy once who even before we dated couldn't believe that I maintain friendly relationships with my exes. He seemingly belonged to the "if it's over, it's totally over" school of thought. He never saw a problem with being irritated about prior exes entering the conversation. The problem, though, is that every other word that passed his lips was something about his ex.
Like toilet talk, the Ex Factor can be split into two separate categories: the ex bash, and the ex update.
>>Ex-bash -- Okay, so there's unfinished business between you and your ex. She's a whore, or he's a complete loser who always made you pay. Chances are, your S.O. knows the score if s/he has made it to this point in a relationship with you. By constantly bringing her/him up you cause concern that a: you aren't really over her/him; and b: if things don't work out between you, you won't have a problem trashing us to whomever will listen. Cut it out.
>>Ex-update -- I realize that social networking, smart phones and general interconnectedness means that ending a relationship doesn't necessarily remove the other person from your life. So it goes. If you're like me, you are probably at least friendly with one or more exes. What this doesn't mean is that we want to hear about the new car, promotion, or other little treat your ex got. We don't care if s/he is going on vacation to Kiribati or if s/he just posted a really fun Facebook status update.
All we really want to know about your ex is a: if you're going to be seeing her/him (and why slash are we invited); and b: if they're moving to Kiribati or removing themselves in another meaningful way from your sphere.
So, this is the shortlist. Common sense is a good indicator of what you should share, and when what your S.O. doesn't know will make you both a lot happier.
Rants and Raves home
This era of openness has its limits, though -- I can't think of a single person, for example, who knows everything about me or who should. That includes potential S.O.s. Let's face it: big things, or things that can change the dynamic of the relationship, need to be spilled. If you have a child, that's something your S.O. should know if things are heading in a serious direction.
With this in mind, and a shout-out to Kasper at KISS FM for putting it there last night (check out Kasper's page), I've put the question to several people: what shouldn't you tell your S.O.? (No names for privacy's sake)
>You've had an STI. Sure, if you have herpes or HIV and there's a risk of passing it on to a partner, you should be up front. But what about that unfortunate case of the clap that happened 4 or 5 years ago, has been cleared up for just as long, and you haven't touched the skank/d-bag who gave it to you since? While STIs are becoming more common and less stigmatized, there's still an "eww" factor and awkward moments when you drop that bit of (unnecessary) information.
>Toilet talk. This seems obvious, but once couples reach a certain comfort level with one another there tends to be cohabitation of the bathroom -- one person brushes teeth slash does makeup, you get the idea, while the other uses the facilities. Call me an uberprude, but I hate sharing the bathroom with anybody. Your S.O. doesn't need to know how many times you "take a big yes" (courtesy of Peter Griffin) or that the burrito bol you had for lunch doesn't really agree with you.
>Toilet talk, part 2. On the same token, and I'm sure a score of guys will agree with this, it is not -- I repeat, not -- necessary to clue your S.O. in to all of the beauty rituals that take place behind that closed door. Whether it's an eyebrow-tweezing session of epic proportions or waxing that unfortunate upper lip, discretion is certainly the better part of valor.
>Family business. This goes for at least the first several months of a relationship. No date or potential S.O. wants the full saga of your mother's mental illness, your sister's drug habit or the terrible circumstances surrounding your uncle's extradition. When you've progressed to the semi-serious portion of the program and family functions enter the picture, you can gently introduce any family dynamics that may be interesting or necessary to understand. After all, no need to send in your S.O. totally unaware.
An added warning where families are concerned: be very careful about introducing new S.O.s to your family circle before it's appropriate (and sadly, you must judge this on a case-by-case basis). There is little worse than having a failed relationship where your ex-S.O. has become bosom buddies with your parents or siblings and you are forced to remain in the same circle with them indefinitely.
>War stories. You know all those drunken escapades you had with your best mates? They may already be immortalized by blurry Facebook pictures and poorly-spelled wall posts, and that if anywhere is where they belong. There is a difference between having a good time with friends and finding yourself the focal member of some group about urinating in public or who has their name on the men's room wall (shout-out to guys: you are NOT exempt from this), and it is unlikely that your S.O. will be amused about "that one time, with the really hot guy from New York..." This creeps fairly close to the Ex Factor.
>Ex-S.O.s Oh, I could write an entire blog about the Ex Factor. I dated this guy once who even before we dated couldn't believe that I maintain friendly relationships with my exes. He seemingly belonged to the "if it's over, it's totally over" school of thought. He never saw a problem with being irritated about prior exes entering the conversation. The problem, though, is that every other word that passed his lips was something about his ex.
Like toilet talk, the Ex Factor can be split into two separate categories: the ex bash, and the ex update.
>>Ex-bash -- Okay, so there's unfinished business between you and your ex. She's a whore, or he's a complete loser who always made you pay. Chances are, your S.O. knows the score if s/he has made it to this point in a relationship with you. By constantly bringing her/him up you cause concern that a: you aren't really over her/him; and b: if things don't work out between you, you won't have a problem trashing us to whomever will listen. Cut it out.
>>Ex-update -- I realize that social networking, smart phones and general interconnectedness means that ending a relationship doesn't necessarily remove the other person from your life. So it goes. If you're like me, you are probably at least friendly with one or more exes. What this doesn't mean is that we want to hear about the new car, promotion, or other little treat your ex got. We don't care if s/he is going on vacation to Kiribati or if s/he just posted a really fun Facebook status update.
All we really want to know about your ex is a: if you're going to be seeing her/him (and why slash are we invited); and b: if they're moving to Kiribati or removing themselves in another meaningful way from your sphere.
So, this is the shortlist. Common sense is a good indicator of what you should share, and when what your S.O. doesn't know will make you both a lot happier.
Rants and Raves home
27 February 2009
War Games
Fox News "war games" - the coming civil war
To play the home version of war games and idiotic punditry, watch this video clip of Glenn Beck's "War Room" before reading the description of it and follow-up comments, and consider when this episode likely aired. (By no means should you ignore the commentary, however, as Glenn Greenwald provides an excellent explanation of what exactly a "bubba" militia is and why we should be so concerned at the idea.)
Give up?
February 22, 2009. That's right, kids -- less than a week ago, and just over a month into President Obama's administration.
Now humour me, and if you haven't already, read Greenwald's commentary.
I have to admit, I'm partially amused in a sick and morbid fashion that right-wing commentary has already degraded itself to foreshadowings of civil uprisings and revolts against the state of the world. One of his commentators estimates that income tax in the higher brackets (never mind the brackets where most viewers of FOX News fall) by 2014 could be as high as 95 per cent. Of course, the response to this sort of economic upheaval and the continuing problems of the world will lead the citizenry to violent action.
With 3:40 left in the video clip after the jump, pay attention to Glenn Beck's statement that the government has "betrayed the Constitution" -- but keep in mind that this clip leaves the ground and launches itself into the stratosphere of wacko-paranoic thought within the first 10 seconds. In fact...any rational person should pause at the idea that this or any edition of the "War Room" is focused on "war games" that suggest the imminent arrival of civil war.
Another sound bite: "tyranny of incompetence", approximately 2:30 remaining.
And this second sound bite brings me back into cold hard reality, where I am no longer amused but simply disgusted. Where were these dire predictions of civil war throughout the last five to six years of the W. administration? As Greenwald points out, the cult of the "bubba militia" turned a collective blind-eye to the human rights violations and indignities carried out by their champion after scoffing at the less offensive (and far less illegal) attempts of his predecessor. Greenwald writes:
In sum, they dressed up in warrior clothing to fight against Bill Clinton's supposed tyranny, and then underwent a major costume change on January 20, 2001, thereafter dressing up in cheerleader costumes to glorify George Bush's far more extreme acquisitions of federal power.
What this means, boys and girls, is hypocrisy. It is hypocrisy of the lowest order to not only apply selective indignation to the actions of our leaders, but to suggest that after one month (does this need any more emphasis?) the American people have suffered so terribly under President Obama (who, dare I point out, is not the cause of any of what is happening now) that by 2014 -- two years after he comes up for reelection -- the people of this country will fight to "take back their government".
Look. When W. took his imaginary mandate and created a clusterfuck of a national position for us...when his administration facilitated many of the very measures that leave us mired in the economic bog now...the American people did not rise up and revolt against the government machine. Hell, if that was the case then W. should have never won reelection in 2004 (which is the case regardless, but I digress). You didn't see left-leaning commentary suggest that the United States would be heading for a civil war, even in the last two years of the administration when it seems that people finally started to wise up.
What happened? People demanded change through the government. That's right, and allow me to repeat it: people used the government to get the change they sought. The change we sought and continue to fight for today. We continue to fight because of people like Glenn Beck and other faithful devotees of the "bubba militia", who are not concerned for what is right, only that they win their war games.
Rants and Raves home
To play the home version of war games and idiotic punditry, watch this video clip of Glenn Beck's "War Room" before reading the description of it and follow-up comments, and consider when this episode likely aired. (By no means should you ignore the commentary, however, as Glenn Greenwald provides an excellent explanation of what exactly a "bubba" militia is and why we should be so concerned at the idea.)
Give up?
February 22, 2009. That's right, kids -- less than a week ago, and just over a month into President Obama's administration.
Now humour me, and if you haven't already, read Greenwald's commentary.
I have to admit, I'm partially amused in a sick and morbid fashion that right-wing commentary has already degraded itself to foreshadowings of civil uprisings and revolts against the state of the world. One of his commentators estimates that income tax in the higher brackets (never mind the brackets where most viewers of FOX News fall) by 2014 could be as high as 95 per cent. Of course, the response to this sort of economic upheaval and the continuing problems of the world will lead the citizenry to violent action.
With 3:40 left in the video clip after the jump, pay attention to Glenn Beck's statement that the government has "betrayed the Constitution" -- but keep in mind that this clip leaves the ground and launches itself into the stratosphere of wacko-paranoic thought within the first 10 seconds. In fact...any rational person should pause at the idea that this or any edition of the "War Room" is focused on "war games" that suggest the imminent arrival of civil war.
Another sound bite: "tyranny of incompetence", approximately 2:30 remaining.
And this second sound bite brings me back into cold hard reality, where I am no longer amused but simply disgusted. Where were these dire predictions of civil war throughout the last five to six years of the W. administration? As Greenwald points out, the cult of the "bubba militia" turned a collective blind-eye to the human rights violations and indignities carried out by their champion after scoffing at the less offensive (and far less illegal) attempts of his predecessor. Greenwald writes:
In sum, they dressed up in warrior clothing to fight against Bill Clinton's supposed tyranny, and then underwent a major costume change on January 20, 2001, thereafter dressing up in cheerleader costumes to glorify George Bush's far more extreme acquisitions of federal power.
What this means, boys and girls, is hypocrisy. It is hypocrisy of the lowest order to not only apply selective indignation to the actions of our leaders, but to suggest that after one month (does this need any more emphasis?) the American people have suffered so terribly under President Obama (who, dare I point out, is not the cause of any of what is happening now) that by 2014 -- two years after he comes up for reelection -- the people of this country will fight to "take back their government".
Look. When W. took his imaginary mandate and created a clusterfuck of a national position for us...when his administration facilitated many of the very measures that leave us mired in the economic bog now...the American people did not rise up and revolt against the government machine. Hell, if that was the case then W. should have never won reelection in 2004 (which is the case regardless, but I digress). You didn't see left-leaning commentary suggest that the United States would be heading for a civil war, even in the last two years of the administration when it seems that people finally started to wise up.
What happened? People demanded change through the government. That's right, and allow me to repeat it: people used the government to get the change they sought. The change we sought and continue to fight for today. We continue to fight because of people like Glenn Beck and other faithful devotees of the "bubba militia", who are not concerned for what is right, only that they win their war games.
Rants and Raves home
19 February 2009
Now Offering: Limited-Edition Vows!
Indiana Woman Said "I Do" 23 Times
Just...no.
Thanks to Drew for posting the original link to this story. If you read, you'll find that this sexagenarian is the very same woman listed in the Guinness Book of World Records for being married more than any other person on the planet. It would likely take three lines to list all of the last names she's held...if she could remember them in order, that is. Which she can't.
I'm intrigued at the comment she makes at the end of the article, about doing it again -- it "gets lonely." Is it just me, or does she seem to suffer from fear of ever being alone?? I certainly hope someone stands outside the loo for her or else she may have a panic attack.
The more important issue, however, is what a comment a person like this makes on the institution of marriage in general. After all, we're talking about a woman whose longest marriage lasted nine years and whose shortest lasted -- I believe -- sixteen hours. This woman has Britney Spears beat in the arena of pointless wastes of time...
As far as religious fundamentalists who flock to protect the "sanctity of marriage" from same-sex couples are concerned, this should give them greater pause than wondering if there will be two tuxes or two gowns at the end of the proverbial aisle. How fair is it that one woman (and her male counterpart in the GBR, whom she married at one point) should be allowed to marry as many times as they have while there are vast numbers of people who are struggling for the chance for one marriage to the person they truly love?
If you continue past the article to the comments section you'll notice that a few readers consider same-sex marriage to be a selfish act as well as a sin. By that standard, this woman should have been stopped from marrying once she passed the age of fertility. Certainly none of her subsequent marriages will result in offspring, therefore the idea of her marrying is utterly selfish and not sanctioned by the God of the Bible. There is no discussion of this, however, which underscores the hypocrisy of the argument. (Rants regarding this subject to follow)
There is no justification for this sort of behaviour. Lonely? Buy a dog. Preventing this woman from lying through her vows for the 24th time will be one step toward restoring the sanctity of marriage. The next, of course...is extending the right to those who will respect the institution.
Rants and Raves home
Just...no.
Thanks to Drew for posting the original link to this story. If you read, you'll find that this sexagenarian is the very same woman listed in the Guinness Book of World Records for being married more than any other person on the planet. It would likely take three lines to list all of the last names she's held...if she could remember them in order, that is. Which she can't.
I'm intrigued at the comment she makes at the end of the article, about doing it again -- it "gets lonely." Is it just me, or does she seem to suffer from fear of ever being alone?? I certainly hope someone stands outside the loo for her or else she may have a panic attack.
The more important issue, however, is what a comment a person like this makes on the institution of marriage in general. After all, we're talking about a woman whose longest marriage lasted nine years and whose shortest lasted -- I believe -- sixteen hours. This woman has Britney Spears beat in the arena of pointless wastes of time...
As far as religious fundamentalists who flock to protect the "sanctity of marriage" from same-sex couples are concerned, this should give them greater pause than wondering if there will be two tuxes or two gowns at the end of the proverbial aisle. How fair is it that one woman (and her male counterpart in the GBR, whom she married at one point) should be allowed to marry as many times as they have while there are vast numbers of people who are struggling for the chance for one marriage to the person they truly love?
If you continue past the article to the comments section you'll notice that a few readers consider same-sex marriage to be a selfish act as well as a sin. By that standard, this woman should have been stopped from marrying once she passed the age of fertility. Certainly none of her subsequent marriages will result in offspring, therefore the idea of her marrying is utterly selfish and not sanctioned by the God of the Bible. There is no discussion of this, however, which underscores the hypocrisy of the argument. (Rants regarding this subject to follow)
There is no justification for this sort of behaviour. Lonely? Buy a dog. Preventing this woman from lying through her vows for the 24th time will be one step toward restoring the sanctity of marriage. The next, of course...is extending the right to those who will respect the institution.
Rants and Raves home
Paying it Forward
Family of 5 weathers economy with 7 housemates
I spent the better part of my teenage years in a dual household. Four adults, four kids, five rooms and two bathrooms. Shared expenses, extra-large meals. Making it work together when alone we would have failed. It wasn't paradise, and likely not what any of the adults had in mind when they imagined building a life. There were squabbles, and turf battles over who could discipline whom or whose turn it was to do the dishes.
But that made us stronger, and contributed to our ability to collaborate for the greater good. If you look closely, you can see it in each of us.
That's what really touched me about the Frankel family and the ways in which they have expanded to pay it forward at a time when such generosity is desperately needed and difficult to find. Austin Chu calls the Frankels "an example of America at its best", and he is so right. We all have worries about tomorrow, about making ends meet, about caring for ourselves. How much more rewarding, then, to turn survival into a team effort and come out so far ahead that mere survival turns into thriving.
Today is not the day that all news will be good. There is so much wrong with our society, or economy -- our world -- that it will be a long time before the headlines scream positivity. That makes it all the more important to embrace these fleeting examples of real hope for our future. These are the lessons that we should tuck away and pull out to teach the younger generations the importance of connecting with others. Apathy is a disease, but it can be cured.
Rants and Raves home
I spent the better part of my teenage years in a dual household. Four adults, four kids, five rooms and two bathrooms. Shared expenses, extra-large meals. Making it work together when alone we would have failed. It wasn't paradise, and likely not what any of the adults had in mind when they imagined building a life. There were squabbles, and turf battles over who could discipline whom or whose turn it was to do the dishes.
But that made us stronger, and contributed to our ability to collaborate for the greater good. If you look closely, you can see it in each of us.
That's what really touched me about the Frankel family and the ways in which they have expanded to pay it forward at a time when such generosity is desperately needed and difficult to find. Austin Chu calls the Frankels "an example of America at its best", and he is so right. We all have worries about tomorrow, about making ends meet, about caring for ourselves. How much more rewarding, then, to turn survival into a team effort and come out so far ahead that mere survival turns into thriving.
Today is not the day that all news will be good. There is so much wrong with our society, or economy -- our world -- that it will be a long time before the headlines scream positivity. That makes it all the more important to embrace these fleeting examples of real hope for our future. These are the lessons that we should tuck away and pull out to teach the younger generations the importance of connecting with others. Apathy is a disease, but it can be cured.
Rants and Raves home
17 February 2009
Babies and Death Threats
PR exec: Death threats forced firm to drop octuplet mom
I, like many of my friends (shout-out to Jake) am sick to death of hearing about Nadya Suleman, the mother of now fourteen babies, including her recently-delivered octuplets. I am tired of reading about how she underwent in vitro fertilization, ad nauseum...but I couldn't pass up this article.
Death threats? Really? I think some people have too much time on their hands.
This is a woman who is living off of disability and the generosity of her mother, who already had six children and came out with eight more. Now, I am no IVF expert but I realize that it is not a common occurrence for every embryo planted during a procedure to make it to term. So planting eight embryos and getting eight babies is a little bit of a shock.
That being said, however, what kind of a person in that situation -- unemployed/disabled, already raising six children, living in cramped quarters and limited income -- willingly attempts to become impregnated again?? The messages received by Suleman's former PR firm may be harsh and inappropriate, but they underscore every complaint about social welfare programs in our country.
Now, I'm not going to go into a treatise on my political beliefs (for once, yeah I know). I am, though, a social liberal who sees the benefit of social programs to help level the playing field for others. I have benefited first-hand from welfare, tax breaks and donations from places like the Salvation Army, and it's unlikely that I would be where I am today without those things. I am a recipient of federal financial aid, I went to Head Start...and so on...
But I also have first-hand experience with people who exploit the federal welfare system, who drain the money paid in by working taxpayers so they can continue a leisurely lifestyle while we -- you and I -- raise their unplanned children. For every person who uses the welfare system appropriately, who uses the opportunity to better their circumstances and get off of welfare for good, there is a handful of people who find every loophole in order to suck the government teat until it runs dry.
Nadya Suleman is probably a very nice person. She is supposedly going to school to better her circumstances, and she should be commended for that. But shame on her for taking advantage of an already strained system in a tough economy, and in such a way that puts the possibility of accident out of the question. As a taxpayer, the only other exposure I think Suleman should get is a televised apology to the American people for highway robbery, and for undermining our faith in a social welfare system that used to work.
Rants and Raves home
I, like many of my friends (shout-out to Jake) am sick to death of hearing about Nadya Suleman, the mother of now fourteen babies, including her recently-delivered octuplets. I am tired of reading about how she underwent in vitro fertilization, ad nauseum...but I couldn't pass up this article.
Death threats? Really? I think some people have too much time on their hands.
This is a woman who is living off of disability and the generosity of her mother, who already had six children and came out with eight more. Now, I am no IVF expert but I realize that it is not a common occurrence for every embryo planted during a procedure to make it to term. So planting eight embryos and getting eight babies is a little bit of a shock.
That being said, however, what kind of a person in that situation -- unemployed/disabled, already raising six children, living in cramped quarters and limited income -- willingly attempts to become impregnated again?? The messages received by Suleman's former PR firm may be harsh and inappropriate, but they underscore every complaint about social welfare programs in our country.
Now, I'm not going to go into a treatise on my political beliefs (for once, yeah I know). I am, though, a social liberal who sees the benefit of social programs to help level the playing field for others. I have benefited first-hand from welfare, tax breaks and donations from places like the Salvation Army, and it's unlikely that I would be where I am today without those things. I am a recipient of federal financial aid, I went to Head Start...and so on...
But I also have first-hand experience with people who exploit the federal welfare system, who drain the money paid in by working taxpayers so they can continue a leisurely lifestyle while we -- you and I -- raise their unplanned children. For every person who uses the welfare system appropriately, who uses the opportunity to better their circumstances and get off of welfare for good, there is a handful of people who find every loophole in order to suck the government teat until it runs dry.
Nadya Suleman is probably a very nice person. She is supposedly going to school to better her circumstances, and she should be commended for that. But shame on her for taking advantage of an already strained system in a tough economy, and in such a way that puts the possibility of accident out of the question. As a taxpayer, the only other exposure I think Suleman should get is a televised apology to the American people for highway robbery, and for undermining our faith in a social welfare system that used to work.
Rants and Raves home
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
