when the status quo frustrates.

Happiness Is

Friday, January 23rd, 2009

Obama reverses abortion-funding policy

WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Obama signed an executive order Friday striking down a rule prohibiting U.S. money from funding international family planning groups that promote abortion or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion services.

The order comes the day after the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the United States.

It reverses the “Mexico City policy,” initiated by President Reagan in 1984, canceled by President Clinton and reinstated by President George W. Bush in 2001.

Obama signs order to close Guantanamo Bay facility

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Promising to return America to the “moral high ground” in the war on terrorism, President Obama issued three executive orders Thursday to demonstrate a clean break from the Bush administration, including one requiring that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year.

During a signing ceremony at the White House, Obama reaffirmed his inauguration pledge that the United States does not have “to continue with a false choice between our safety and our ideals.”

US Senate passes wage discrimination bill

WASHINGTON (AP) — A wage discrimination bill that heralds the pro-labor policies of the Democratic-controlled Congress and White House cleared the Senate Thursday and could be on President Barack Obama’s desk within days.

The legislation reverses a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that narrowly defines the time period during which a worker can file a claim of wage discrimination, even if the worker is unaware for months or years that he or she is getting less than colleagues doing the same job. It has been a priority for women’s groups seeking to narrow the wage gap between men and women.

The House is expected to act quickly to again approve the measure, sending it to Obama for his signature. The House passed a nearly identical version two weeks ago but then combined it with another bill that the Senate didn’t consider.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid predicted that “the first bill that President Obama will sign will be this piece of legislation.” He said the bill would send an important message because “this administration stands for equality and fairness.”

Obama strongly backs the measure and invited Lilly Ledbetter, the retired Alabama tire company worker whose lawsuit inspired the legislation, to accompany him on the train trip bringing him to Washington for the inauguration.

Um…so?

Tuesday, November 11th, 2008

USAToday:

The nation’s Catholic bishops are expected to issue a statement Wednesday pledging cooperation with president-elect Barack Obama on numerous social issues but vowing all-out opposition to any law or executive order he may sign advocating abortion rights.

Did I miss the part where America became a theocracy? Specifically a Catholic theocracy? oh, it isn’t? so, we’re supposed to care about this because..?

To Auxiliary Bishop of Chicago Thomas Paprocki, that would precipitate a cascade of disasters: It would “nullify all conscience laws” allowing doctors, nurses and others to object to abortion, and would require abortions to be performed by all hospitals — which could lead to ending obstetrics services in all Catholic hospitals, even to closing the hospitals entirely.

“Any one of us here would consider it a privilege to die tomorrow — die tomorrow! — to bring about the end of abortion,” said Auxiliary Bishop Robert Hermann of St. Louis.

No, nooo! Don’t throw us into that briar patch, Brer Fox! …er, I mean, “Yeah, don’t do that! We couldn’t stand it if any of those things happened!”

Think positive thoughts… positive… thoughts…

Sunday, November 9th, 2008

Punkass Marc has been accusing me of dwelling on the bad aspects of Obama and ignoring the good.

So today, rather than join the chorus of voices complaining about Larry Summers possibly returning as Treasury Secretary, or dissing Obama’s see-this-proves-I’m-not-one-of-those-dirty-Ayrabs brand new Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, I’ll just highlight a ray of sunshine I can agree with. This is Anna Missed, writing in “Yes We can, Make Him Do It”:

Barack Obama,

“But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to. It belongs to you. It belongs to you.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt,

” I agree with you, now go out there and make me do it”

I’m taking this away as the most important part of Obama’s victory speech, and referencing it to the reported FDR comment to a member of the (Minnesota farmer-) labor party on what actions he might be willing to consider with the peoples support. The notions of both “change” and “yes we can” coupled to his quote that the victory belongs to us, rather explicitly implies that the changes we need to make are going to be difficult if not radical, and that in order to accomplish them, will demand a continued active(ist) support, in order to “make him do it”,  if you will. And considering that Obama’s election is very much the result of the largest cross-cultural grassroots political movement in the history of the nation, both in terms of numbers and fund raising capacity, there’s every likely hood that such a motivation is not only near at hand, but seemingly ready for continued action. So, I hope he’s ready for what he’s put into motion.

I might quibble a bit– saying that Obama’s success was partly due to the above, indelibly fused with the incredible attraction he held to big money interests who want the most charismatic salesman for their schemes they can get– but I think Anna is spot on. If the people who voted Obama in expect more Change than he’s willing to deliver, they just might want to do something about it.

If these people started clamoring for some honest to goodness changes– which they are only going to have more and more reason to do, what with the ongoing economic collapse– I’ll certainly allow that Obama, and the rest of this nation’s ruling class, might feel compelled to actually change a few meaningful things. And I’ll even happily admit that, when it comes to certain domestic issues, it may come more freely under Obama than it would have under McCain.

This was, of course, the argument for voting him in. “First get him in there, THEN we’ll ask things of him.” I didn’t really believe these assurances; but if his supporters start to get riled up enough, who knows, there might actually be a chance. I’ll be happy to be proved wrong, and maybe I can even find ways to help. Here’s one way: I vow to spend a lot of time painting Obama in a negative light. You know, to try to make his supporters angry with him. ;-)

Finally.

Wednesday, November 5th, 2008

I may be idealistic (read: dumb) enough to be shocked that California’s Prop 8 passed, but I’m insufficiently dumb (read: idealistic) enough to believe that the presidential election results last night mean that racism is actually dead in the United States. However, I can’t help but be pretty happy about the serious blow that it just got dealt.

Photobucket

Via Slate.

Even Black Sheep Are Led to the Slaughter

Tuesday, November 4th, 2008

Well, I am now the Black Sheep of my family. Okay, not really, I know they still love me– but, like many other non-Obamaniacs, I’m the only one of my clan who is not voting for Obama today, and I know my parents are very concerned about it. Like many others I have met, they have had some trouble accepting that my position might actually be valid and well-reasoned. Even my grandmother, a lifetime Republican, has switched teams this time around. She wrote to me about it:

Believe me it was not an easy decision. Most of my friends were having the same difficulty as I since we weren’t really sold on either one. It came down to this. McCain can possibly die in office as his health hasn’t been the greatest and Obama could very well be assasinated and the thought of Palin being president was a scarier thought than Biden. When Colin Powell supported Obama that helped me decide also. I’ve been a Republican all of my life so believe me it was not as easy decision. Richard, Brian and Jane and Bob [my uncles and parents] also are Democrats. Well, the deed is done and I hope things will improve for all of us. Feel free to use me on your blog.

Okay, Grandma, I will! :)

Or, in an even more extreme case that Michael J. Smith observed of two leathery old boater gents on a dock in Massachussets:

Finally one of the old boys came right out and asked: “So — who yah gonna vote fooah?

His friend paused a moment, sighed, then replied, “Ah hell, the niggah, I guess.”

I find this all very fascinating. Evidently I am the one who has missed the boat here by not boarding the U.S.S. Audacity Of Hope when I had the chance.

(more…)

This fascinates me. Like giant close-up pictures of bugs fascinate me.

Tuesday, October 14th, 2008

Yep! staring at it in disgusted, horrified fascination.

…yep, staring at it in disgusted, horrified fascination.

(Hat tip: Shakesville)

(more…)

Helping Me Understand the Fearful Contempt Towards Brainpower

Monday, October 13th, 2008

This is a really great article. A while back I wrote a post about how blatantly ludicrous (it’s always seemed to me) but wildly effective (nobody can deny) tactic Republicans have of painting Democrats as “elitists.” I figured out (I figured it out right then–I suspect many other people already had it figured out–I can be slow on the uptake when it comes to things that appear to defy logic and reason sometimes) that “elitism” is at least in part the code word for “really smart.” The article that so impressed me today, “Will ‘intellectual’ label hurt Obama?” really clued me in on how Obama is managing to pull past all that. The writer, Julian E. Zelizer, says (in paraphrase):

1. Bill Clinton. Rhodes scholar that he was, somehow he neatly evaded ever seriously being characterized as a braniac–how? (a) Acted cool (b) spoke with a country accent using country syntax and (c) had great personal charisma as a speaker. Obama is able to capitalize on this because he also has great personal charisma as a speaker, which the last few Democratic candidates did not, and like the sax-playing Bill has the cool persona. (Apparently we psychologically never quite do leave high school; some part of our brains is still basing who we vote for as politicians on who we used to vote for as Homecoming King.) See, that’s part of what I didn’t catch the last time I wrote about this–I forgot that nerds are not feared in high school, but sneered at…the fear comes later, when the nerds sometimes suddenly shoot up the socioeconomic scale, leaving the salt of the earth behind.

Zelizer doesn’t tie Clinton’s country-style speech to anything Obama does, but I think I can. Obama sounds in no way like a good ol’ country boy, but he manages to compensate for this by simultaneously being black (as Americans subconsciously associate a folksy speaker with somebody who understands strugglin’ to make a dime, they also associate a black person with this mindset) and by speaking with the canned regionless American accent exemplified by newscasters and actors (a black face cues Americans in that they’re looking at a person who knows what it is to struggle, but a stereotypical patois subconsciously cues them towards either inner-city gang members or inner-city welfare recipients.)

2. George W. Bush. I’m quite happy to see that people have now been forced out of their state of making mindless decisions based upon their own subconscious comfort level in terms of domination and superiority with various others, but it still wasn’t worth what’s happened to America, both domestically and abroad, in the last eight years. We had to nearly destroy ourselves to get to this point..? Jesus. But what’s happened, happened–you can’t change the past. So, as Zelizer says:

For many Americans, including a number of Republicans, Bush has lived up to…his [lack of] intelligence, as well as competence. He has not managed to handle the policy challenges that confronted him and in many cases, such as his address to the nation on the financial crisis, seems unable to master the key facts.

3. George W. Bush. Well, that really is the substance of Zelizer’s third point–our economy’s Dive of Death (hat tip: The Daily Show) and the apparent responses of the candidates, only one of whom reminded us of Mr. Substanceless Sound and Fury (or maybe “Shock and Awe” would be a more pertinent phrase…sigh).

More enlightenment for me! I’m always looking for it.

Barack Obama: See If He Really Has YOUR Best Interests In Mind!!

Thursday, October 9th, 2008

Yes, and how you find that out is definitely by taking this quiz!

Random gems:

“Some say Barack Obama’s plans to implement sweeping environmental regulations will raise the cost of gas, groceries, heating and air conditioning. Do you favor or oppose Obama’s environmental plans?”

Favor
Oppose

“Some” say..?

“Some people think the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Others think that government should do more to solve our country’s problems. Which comes closer to your own view?”

Government doing too much.
Government should do more.

In the immortal words of The Daily Show, “Could you be less specific, please?”

“Some say Barack Obama’s plan to raise taxes and increase trade barriers are similar to those created by President Herbert Hoover in the 1930s, which contributed to worsening America’s economy. Do you think Obama’s plans will worsen the economy as well, or do you think they will help the economy?”

Worsen the economy
Help the economy

And are you also a McCarthy-era communist, and if so, can we just hang you for treason now..?

It just gets better and better…

“Recently, Barack Obama was asked when he thought life begins, in reference to the issue of abortion. Obama responded by saying that decision was above his paygrade. Knowing that the next president may be able to appoint two or three U.S. Supreme Court Justices, who may be called to make rulings on the issue of Abortion; do you support or oppose a president who does not know when life begins?”

Support
Oppose

And of course, the crown jewel…no, I really didn’t make this up.

If you knew you had a step brother who was living in a slum and barely surviving on $300 a year, would you help them financially?

Yes
No

Would I do anything to not end up on the side of people who come up with this amazingly, ridiculously bad shit..? Pretty much!

I just couldn’t resist.

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008

Clearly my spur-of-the-moment decision to expand the tons-o’-fun “My Friends” drinking game to also get to chug some wine every time McCain said “General Petraeus” as the debate entered the foreign policy phase was not as terrific an idea as it seemed to be. I fell down the stairs on my way to my computer, never a good sign, and now, everything on the internet seems completely hysterical.

Most of it I am sternly convincing myself that only really drunk people probably find funny so I should NOT I repeat NOT post it up here and clog up the front page…but omGawd, I can’t help myself, these are just…really awesome. :)

(Via Pam at Pandagon.)

Weighing in Verbosely on the First Presidential Debate

Sunday, September 28th, 2008

Well, I just watched the debates myself. Via YouTube. The easiest YouTube to find was via Fox News’s feed, which was annoying because they so often did closeups or split-screens of the candidates and never did wider shots– so I couldn’t judge for myself if it was true, that McCain was supposedly never able to look at Obama in the eye. But even regardless of that, McCain came across shifty; Obama, self-assured. Which just means, if Obama was saying evil things too, then they were doubly dangerous, because he was able to present them as though they were reasonable.

Now, as anyone who reads my posts knows, I’m critical of Obama/Biden. More than McCain/Palin, actually– everybody with half a brain already knows how evil the Republicans are; I just want people to assess more rigorously just exactly how much of a lesser evil the Democrats really are– if indeed, they are a lesser evil at all. Anyway, if you’re an Obama fan, I urge you to look at my analysis and tell me where you think I’m being unfair. Maybe I’ll see the light. If I did, I can tell you I’d be much happier in general right now.

Let’s just review some of the things Obama said in the debate. (All emphasis mine, of course.)

We’ve spent over $600 billion so far, soon to be $1 trillion. We have lost over 4,000 lives. We have seen 30,000 wounded, and most importantly, from a strategic national security perspective, al Qaeda is resurgent, stronger now than at any time since 2001. We took our eye off the ball… So I think the lesson to be drawn is that we should never hesitate to use military force, and I will not, as president, in order to keep the American people safe. But we have to use our military wisely. And we did not use our military wisely in Iraq.

Wait– Iraq’s a clusterfuck… and so the lesson to be learned is that we should never hesitate to use military force??? Maybe we’d have a better chance of using our military wisely next time if we hesitated just a little bit more.

Now here’s Obama praising Bush and McCain’s Glorious Thrusting Surge:

Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families. They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.

Actually, this is not even nearly so bad as when Obama went on Fox News recently to declare that the surge had “succeeded beyond our wildest dreams”.

Or,  as Juan Cole put it in his recent assessment, “The level of violence at this moment in Iraq is similar to what prevailed on average during one of the 20th century’s worst ethnic civil wars! It is still higher than the casualty rates in Sri Lanka and Kashmir, two of the worst ongoing conflicts in the world.”

But nice of Obama to internalize Bush/McCain talking points so well. I’m sure he’s run the numbers and it’ll win him more votes, so that’s all that matters, right?

(more…)

Weighing in Briefly on the First Presidential Debate

Saturday, September 27th, 2008

Best part of the whole debate:

When Jim Lehrer asked the candidates, “Much has been said about the lessons of Vietnam. What do you see as the lessons of Iraq?” McCain babbled about how awesomely we began there, how (for causes not even remotely articulated) we had a wee bit of a strategic stumble (managing also not to specify that said stumble stretched from about a month after we got there in 2003 til the end of last year) and finished up by announcing that we have won the Iraq War. (News to me.) Obama, who went second, then gently stepped in to say that, yeah, the actual lesson of the Iraq War that pretty much everybody (except McCain) has learned was, we should never have gone in there in the first place. Har.

Worst part of the whole debate:

Jim Lehrer’s first question: “Gentlemen, at this very moment tonight, where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?”

(Candidates each speak for several minutes, demonstrating remarkable ability to discuss their tax and spending platforms without once touching on the financial recovery plan.)

Jim Lehrer’s next question: “All right, let’s go back to my question. How do you all stand on the recovery plan? And talk to each other about it. We’ve got five minutes. We can negotiate a deal right here.”

(Candidates further demonstrate ability to say nothing to the point and also refuse, even when point-blank instructed by Lehrer, to speak to each other.)

Jim Lehrer’s next try: “All right, let’s go to the next lead question, which is essentially following up on this same subject. And you get two minutes to begin with, Senator McCain. And using your word “fundamental,” are there fundamental differences between your approach and Senator Obama’s approach to what you would do as president to lead this country out of the financial crisis?”

(Candidates argue about the differences between their tax and spending platforms. Neither apparently has any idea that we are even having a financial crisis.)

Jim, who has the patience of a saint and is my new hero: “All right. All right, speaking of things that both of you want, another lead question, and it has to do with the rescue — the financial rescue thing that we started — started asking about. And what — and the first answer is to you, Senator Obama. As president, as a result of whatever financial rescue plan comes about and the billion, $700 billion, whatever it is it’s going to cost, what are you going to have to give up, in terms of the priorities that you would bring as president of the United States, as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?”

(Candidates go on as if they never even heard the question.)

Jim Lehrer: “What I’m trying to get at this is this. Excuse me if I may, senator. Trying to get at that you all — one of you is going to be the president of the United States come January. At the — in the middle of a huge financial crisis that is yet to be resolved. And what I’m trying to get at is how this is going to affect you not in very specific — small ways but in major ways and the approach to take as to the presidency.”

(Candidates suggest that maybe we’ll stop spending money on something or other, described respectively as “things that aren’t vital” (McCain) and “things we can cut out with a scalpel rather than hatchet” (Obama). I go to the internet and start looking up emigration requirements to Australia.)

Jim Lehrer: “Before we go to another lead question. Let me figure out a way to ask the same question in a slightly different way here. Are you — are you willing to acknowledge both of you that this financial crisis is going to affect the way you rule the country as president of the United States beyond the kinds of things that you have already — I mean, is it a major move? Is it going to have a major effect?”

Apparently not.

Can’t wait for the veep debate!

Sarah Palin is too much, too little, and too late.

Friday, August 29th, 2008

Everyone’s talking about McCain’s choice for VP candidate, MILF Sarah Palin of Alaska. His motivations are transparent, and were within seconds being widely discussed on all the hottest blog comment threads. Everyone knows why she was picked, the question is, will it work?

If the opinion of Vision Forum is any indication, I’m going to have to guess, no.

The selection of a feminist, pro-life mother of five with four children, seventeen and under, including a newborn Down’s syndrome baby, to fulfill the post of vice president is without precedent in American history. What Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro was unable to accomplish for the feminist cause in 1984 may now be handed as a fait accompli to America through the hands of evangelicals and conservatives. After decades of Christian leaders fighting against the feminstic vision of the working supermom, Republicans are now showcasing the vision in the most high profile election in the world.

It was from this post that I learned Palin returned to work a mere three days after having her latest child, who is afflicted with Down’s Syndrome. From this, I infer two things: first, god damn, there’s a woman used to working at least twice, if not six or seven times, as hard to be considered half as good. I mean, just, damn. And second: someone’s got a lot of help at home. A lot. Of really trustworthy help, because who besides your own mother do you leave a special-needs newborn with? At any rate, she’s clearly figured out how to have the mythical feminist dream of having it all, so it’s a damn pity that this perfect specimen of a strawfeminist is in fact there to balance out a perception that John McCain is just too soft on women’s issues.

But she chose her side, and unfortunately for her that side has spent the last two decades or so pandering to a base that thinks “Feminists for Life” is actually comprised of a bunch of feminists, and so she just might fail as a token. Could you imagine if she became president in the event of Old Man McCain’s death? How can a president have children? It’s just too much work! Who will take care of them while she’s presidenting? There’s no guidance about this situation in the Bible, so the whole damn situation is unthinkable. Back to the kitchen you go, Mrs Palin!

I am confident that Mrs. Palin is a delightful, sincere, thoughtful, and capable woman with many commendable virtues. But in fairness, there is nothing “traditional” about mothers of young children becoming career moms, chief magistrates, and leading nations of three hundred million, nor is this pattern the biblical ideal to which young women should aspire.

Of course, Palin’s nomination means it’s again time to think about the unthinkable:

With more and more women entering the political sphere and running for political office, the conscientious, biblically oriented Christian is confronted with the question of whether or not he should give his support and vote to a woman. This question becomes more pressing for many when the “best candidate,” i.e., the most conservative, pro-life candidate in a particular race is a woman.

Short answer: No.

…is it biblically proper for a woman to hold political office, and thus rule over men? Has God ordained women to be civil leaders, or has He reserved this authority for men only? I believe that the Bible gives a definitive answer to this question: women are not permitted by God to hold political office and rule over men in the political sphere.

That’s right, you Serena Joy wanna-bes. No power for you, no matter how good you are at turning your loathing of those sinful daughters of Eve into policy. True Christians are apparently required to vote for a be-penised man who will uphold the unbiblical rights currently given to wayward harlots over a more theologically-minded cuntsack. The parts of the Bible William Einwechter cares to include in his analysis say so. Every mention of women holding authority states that this is wrong, except for that story of that woman who held some authority, which doesn’t count.

The example of Deborah does not give sufficient evidence to prove that she held the office of civil ruler or to overturn the biblical doctrine that men alone are called of God to the office of civil magistrate. Therefore, Christians should not support a woman for the office of civil magistrate.

I do believe that by this logic the Religious Right will have to vote for Barack Obama, with his stylish, more traditional wife and his betesticled running mate. And we on the left welcome our new swing voters. Please, make yourselves at home, take a look at the platform. Have some coffee before we start screaming at each other about abortion.