I guess it's time for me to out myself as a slut. I admit it, I've had sex for something other than procreation. There. I said it. I'm willing to cast myself into the pool of co-eds and all the others who've had sex for some reason other than procreation.
Now, never mind that what Ms Fluke was testifying to was medical remediation use of contraceptives as opposed to sex at the drop of a hat use. You see, I don't give a damn - women's health issues are women's health issues, whether it involves medical prevention of disorders or simply prevention of pregnancy. It is not the employers' business exactly why a woman proposes to use contraceptives, not in the least. It is not for a couple of reasons. It is not their body. The insurance is a part of compensation for work. The employer is in business, regardless of their ideas of sex, not in the business of religion. If Catholics and others want to have a say about what their people do, they have a pulpit and the alternative of getting the hell out of business. A hospital may have the adjective Catholic appended to it, but that doesn't mean it isn't in the business of being a hospital.
As for the MORAL STANDING of Catholic Bishops - let's just talk a bit about cover-ups of child sex abuse in just about the same breath as other employees.
Showing posts with label Theocracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theocracy. Show all posts
Sunday, March 04, 2012
Monday, December 12, 2011
Lowe Down Cowards
TLC is running a show called "American Muslim" about ordinary Muslims living in Dearborn, MI. An outfit in Florida, American Family Association pressured Lowe's to pull its advertising because the show is some sort of stealth attack on Americans. This AFA's problem would seem to me to be one of projection - they figure the evil Muslims are gonna put religious law onto Americans because that is their agenda. Theocrats are just exactly that, religious law is their thing and it must also be everybody else's thing.
The divorcement of overt religion from public institutions isn't simply a matter of keeping an arm's distance between the two - it is Godless Atheism winning a religious war. The vastly majority religion in the US is under attack and being persecuted because... well because they don't get to drape their version of religion in the mantle of government.
This is what Lowe's caved to, a pissant organization with theocracy at its core...
I don't much care for big box stores and I do like locally owned business so it isn't much of a deal for me to not shop at a Lowe Down Coward Store. I don't care about the "Muslim show" what I do care about is giving these cretins power.
The divorcement of overt religion from public institutions isn't simply a matter of keeping an arm's distance between the two - it is Godless Atheism winning a religious war. The vastly majority religion in the US is under attack and being persecuted because... well because they don't get to drape their version of religion in the mantle of government.
This is what Lowe's caved to, a pissant organization with theocracy at its core...
I don't much care for big box stores and I do like locally owned business so it isn't much of a deal for me to not shop at a Lowe Down Coward Store. I don't care about the "Muslim show" what I do care about is giving these cretins power.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
American Iran
I find it humorous, in the dark sense, that the people who lose their minds over Iran and are most in favor of, "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," are the very same ones who use it as a model for where the US needs to go. I know, they hate on the Islam and the brown folks practicing it and ... well after all Christianity is different. No, you complete and absolute idjits, it is not different in any remarkable fashion. Sure, the names are different and many of the prophets are different, but in reality they are remarkably similar.
It isn't just the theology that is similar, the abuses are congruent. When an Iranian claims to belong to a Muslim country is he different than the Christian calling this a Christian nation? Does he mean something different? Spain was a Christian nation as it persecuted the heretics and the Crusaders were all of Christian nations. The obliteration of the American Indian was justified by Christianity versus the heathens. If you take Christian nation seriously as an appellation for governments then Christ was a murderous torturing rapist bastard. I'm not the least sorry if you find that blasphemous, I never seriously made such a reference as to the Christianity of a government. Oddly enough the Christ of his own words was personally about as anti-establishment as it gets. He got hung up on that cross for a reason.
There are no politics in Christ's words, there is a whole lot about personal ethics and personal morality. He did not oppose the Jewish establishment as a matter of politics, he opposed it as a religious practice. The religious right and much of the Republican Party would stand that on its head, they would replace politics with religion and in so doing grant that religion the kind of power that Christ himself opposed. They would take the spirituality and personal morality of the religion and turn it into the brute force of government.
There abides in this nation the delusion that the law is moral. The most tangled and obscure arguments are brought forth to uphold this idea. Somehow the idea that social order and morality are the same thing has taken hold. The most simplistic argument devolves into equating the badness or immorality of murder and theft with laws against such behavior. It is as though Biblical morality having a congruence with public order and not being the same thing is beyond such people. They cannot wrap their heads around the idea that laws against theft make it unnecessary for me to track you down and blow your head off for taking my stuff - the government will take care of the issue for me in a much more controlled fashion. There are behaviors that make it impossible for us to live with each other and those behaviors need to be controlled.
If the Christian right ruled this country in the manner they call for the only way you could tell this place from Iran would be the call to prayer. That includes the current upheaval in that nation. There seems to be some idea floating around that what is going on there is something other than a religious dispute. It isn't something else. These protests aren't about doing away with the Islamic State, they're about the version of it that will run the place. It isn't a hell of a lot different than the Presbyterians going up against the Evangelicals - and yes it is about the same book in each case.
This rant isn't about religion, it is about theocracy. It is about organizations like the C Street creepy sex club and the rest of the Christian nation crowd. It is about the fundamental misunderstanding of the role of religion in America and its absolutely personal role. Every time one of these cretins sticks his head up it is time to ask them exactly why they want us to live in Iran.
Oh, yeah,Iran today.
It isn't just the theology that is similar, the abuses are congruent. When an Iranian claims to belong to a Muslim country is he different than the Christian calling this a Christian nation? Does he mean something different? Spain was a Christian nation as it persecuted the heretics and the Crusaders were all of Christian nations. The obliteration of the American Indian was justified by Christianity versus the heathens. If you take Christian nation seriously as an appellation for governments then Christ was a murderous torturing rapist bastard. I'm not the least sorry if you find that blasphemous, I never seriously made such a reference as to the Christianity of a government. Oddly enough the Christ of his own words was personally about as anti-establishment as it gets. He got hung up on that cross for a reason.
There are no politics in Christ's words, there is a whole lot about personal ethics and personal morality. He did not oppose the Jewish establishment as a matter of politics, he opposed it as a religious practice. The religious right and much of the Republican Party would stand that on its head, they would replace politics with religion and in so doing grant that religion the kind of power that Christ himself opposed. They would take the spirituality and personal morality of the religion and turn it into the brute force of government.
There abides in this nation the delusion that the law is moral. The most tangled and obscure arguments are brought forth to uphold this idea. Somehow the idea that social order and morality are the same thing has taken hold. The most simplistic argument devolves into equating the badness or immorality of murder and theft with laws against such behavior. It is as though Biblical morality having a congruence with public order and not being the same thing is beyond such people. They cannot wrap their heads around the idea that laws against theft make it unnecessary for me to track you down and blow your head off for taking my stuff - the government will take care of the issue for me in a much more controlled fashion. There are behaviors that make it impossible for us to live with each other and those behaviors need to be controlled.
If the Christian right ruled this country in the manner they call for the only way you could tell this place from Iran would be the call to prayer. That includes the current upheaval in that nation. There seems to be some idea floating around that what is going on there is something other than a religious dispute. It isn't something else. These protests aren't about doing away with the Islamic State, they're about the version of it that will run the place. It isn't a hell of a lot different than the Presbyterians going up against the Evangelicals - and yes it is about the same book in each case.
This rant isn't about religion, it is about theocracy. It is about organizations like the C Street creepy sex club and the rest of the Christian nation crowd. It is about the fundamental misunderstanding of the role of religion in America and its absolutely personal role. Every time one of these cretins sticks his head up it is time to ask them exactly why they want us to live in Iran.
Oh, yeah,Iran today.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Fundamentalism And Violence As Government
The NYT reports on Iranian unrest. What stands out is not so much the political clash as the religious aspects of it. The Iranian government bases its legitimacy on religion, a sort of theocracy based on a sort of Islamic Republic. Their problem is religion and its versions as government. There doesn't seem to be any real force in favor of doing away with theocracy, rather the version of it.
History has some rather general lessons regarding theocracies and the one that stares at Iran regards fundamentalism. Theocracies that liberalize tend to be overwhelmed and degenerated into secularism by the forces of secular concerns of the populace and the political concerns of the rulers. The spiritual tends to be overwhelmed by pocketbook and social issues and the maneuvering of rulers to address those concerns which fly in the face of concern with a distant Paradise. In the distant past such a progression was gradual with communication being the limiter. Things have changed.
Fundamentalism offers a stop gap. The concerns of daily living can be submerged by the hardcore adherence to a dedication to achieving Paradise and the rules that determine its achievement. There is a tricky balance required here, people will exist who are independent thinkers that will not adhere blindly and will act as a voice for those frustrated by economic and social failures or weaknesses. Adherents will shake loose if their own particular foible gets stepped on. Fundamentalism depends on strict rules and nasty consequences and this presents several opportunities for perceived over interference in people's lives. Fundamentalism only seems that way if it addresses social issues as they emerge and keeps a lid on existing ones which means more and more rules - nastily enforced. The flip side is that as the populace is exposed to the outside norms the intolerance begins to seem dated or capricious.
Iran's government has bet on fundamentalism. This means they are being pushed in the direction of violent reaction. This isn't to downplay the violence already occurring, it is to point out that the levels will increase. Once fundamentalism is chosen as a route there is no backing down, the opposition must be demonized and persecuted - there can be no deals with demons. What is left is to smash them and people don't like being smashed and push back. There is your cycle.
History has some rather general lessons regarding theocracies and the one that stares at Iran regards fundamentalism. Theocracies that liberalize tend to be overwhelmed and degenerated into secularism by the forces of secular concerns of the populace and the political concerns of the rulers. The spiritual tends to be overwhelmed by pocketbook and social issues and the maneuvering of rulers to address those concerns which fly in the face of concern with a distant Paradise. In the distant past such a progression was gradual with communication being the limiter. Things have changed.
Fundamentalism offers a stop gap. The concerns of daily living can be submerged by the hardcore adherence to a dedication to achieving Paradise and the rules that determine its achievement. There is a tricky balance required here, people will exist who are independent thinkers that will not adhere blindly and will act as a voice for those frustrated by economic and social failures or weaknesses. Adherents will shake loose if their own particular foible gets stepped on. Fundamentalism depends on strict rules and nasty consequences and this presents several opportunities for perceived over interference in people's lives. Fundamentalism only seems that way if it addresses social issues as they emerge and keeps a lid on existing ones which means more and more rules - nastily enforced. The flip side is that as the populace is exposed to the outside norms the intolerance begins to seem dated or capricious.
Iran's government has bet on fundamentalism. This means they are being pushed in the direction of violent reaction. This isn't to downplay the violence already occurring, it is to point out that the levels will increase. Once fundamentalism is chosen as a route there is no backing down, the opposition must be demonized and persecuted - there can be no deals with demons. What is left is to smash them and people don't like being smashed and push back. There is your cycle.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Family Values, Eh?
The WaPo has an updated story regarding Sen Ensign (R-NV).
So this guy's inability to protect the sanctity of his own marriage really wouldn't be my business, except for his ability to stick his feet into that of everybody else. I don't like his politics and I particularly don't like his desire to enforce his morality on others in this country. This might just point up the danger of letting such people try it. Your mileage may vary...
UPDATE, 5:55 p.m.: Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) has acknowledged an extramarital affair with a campaign staffer in a statement released by his office. "I deeply regret and am very sorry for my actions," said Ensign. He is expected to announce the affair at a press conference at 6:30 pm tonight. The affair, which was with a woman who worked for both Ensign's re-election campaign and his Battle Born leadership political action committee, began in December 2007 and ended in August 2008. Ensign's wife, Darlene, said that the couple's "marriage has become stronger" and added: "I love my husband."
So this guy's inability to protect the sanctity of his own marriage really wouldn't be my business, except for his ability to stick his feet into that of everybody else. I don't like his politics and I particularly don't like his desire to enforce his morality on others in this country. This might just point up the danger of letting such people try it. Your mileage may vary...
The Real Import Of Iranian Election
People have spent large numbers of bytes regarding the election and the presence of the Reform Party and its large number of votes. There is a certain amount of hogwash involved in that analysis, the Mullahs approved the candidates so this is really a figleaf of democracy laid over theocracy. The number of protesters is impressive and they do actually face some risks for that behavior. Even that only really has meaning in the context of illuminating the extent of vote fraud. The vote fraud has a meaning and that meaning in the long run may be the most influential happening in Iran since 1979.
It has just been demonstrated to Iranians in general, not just the losers, that the Mullahs lie. They tell and support blatant lies to support political ends. The Iranian spokesmen for god are liars as well as dictators. We assume politicians mangle the truth and we suspect them of lying fairly often. We're never very happy to find out that we've been lied to but we seem to forgive a bit of it. There is a caveate, except in very rare circumstances our politicians don't claim to be god's messengers, they don't pretend to be holy. This is the line the Mullahs crossed in Iran, holy lies is a bit of a problem. This is going to eat at the system and it isn't as though only the losers cans see it.
I don't mind a bit when the theocrats get hoisted, I find them offensive whether Iranian or American Taliban.
It has just been demonstrated to Iranians in general, not just the losers, that the Mullahs lie. They tell and support blatant lies to support political ends. The Iranian spokesmen for god are liars as well as dictators. We assume politicians mangle the truth and we suspect them of lying fairly often. We're never very happy to find out that we've been lied to but we seem to forgive a bit of it. There is a caveate, except in very rare circumstances our politicians don't claim to be god's messengers, they don't pretend to be holy. This is the line the Mullahs crossed in Iran, holy lies is a bit of a problem. This is going to eat at the system and it isn't as though only the losers cans see it.
I don't mind a bit when the theocrats get hoisted, I find them offensive whether Iranian or American Taliban.
Monday, November 03, 2008
The Actual Racism Campaign
Throughout the two years of the Obama campaign racism regarding blacks has been a constant undercurrent. There has been some dogwhistling type from opponents and some just plainly ignorant word choices that pass as racism but at management level the opposition campaigns have done a pretty fair job of leaving black out of the equation. That doesn't mean there hasn't been racism, just the targets weren't the commonly expected ones.
Awhile ago John McCain came into some praise for telling a woman that, "No, he's not an Arab, he's a decent family man..." Now I'm not sure that it was intentional to counterpose Arab and decent, but given the McCain camp's insistence on playing the terrorist association theme I'm not confident either. That doubt was ramped up the other day with the charges by that campaign that Obama associated with a PLO spokesman and other bad things Palestinian named Rashid Khalidi. Professor Khalidi is American born (NYNY) of Arab descent and the director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University. He was an advisor to the Palestinian delegation during the peace talks in the Bush I administration.
The last I checked, not giving Israel a free pass for anything it gets up to isn't anti-Semitic nor is it unpatriotic. Last I checked, Israel has not been exactly blame free in its relationship with Palestinians. And the last time I checked, despite Republican whining, getting diverse opinions on important subjects before making decisions is a good idea. But there, in one pile, is the biggest difference between the authoritarian mind set of the Republicans and actual thought. Yes, I just did accuse the Republicans of an inability to think. There is to be no diversity of thought in the Republican world, just emotional talking points predetermined for us. This is where the Pro/Anti American theme comes from, this is where calling Palin out on bullshit is an attack on the First Amendment, it is where BushCo could actually state that you were either for them or against us. An absolute crock of unmitigated ignorant jingoism put in front of the American public as, no kiddng, policy.
The mere fact of the man's name and his refusal to toe some line makes him suspect. Dare we say it? An uppity sand nigger? Understand this, ideology is one thing, this is another altogether. It is the act of despicable people in desperate circumstances brought on by their own actions. The Party of Personal Responsibility uses scapegoats left and right and is not only eating its ownself but the fabric of a nation of immigrants. Khalidi is suspect and someone for Obama to be ashamed of because he is the wrong descent. I'm trying to figure out why these people shouldn't be slapped into next week - and I don't mean figuratively. These idiots are using a national platform to paint a damn bullseye on people's backs, literally.
This is the bunker mentality that led to the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII and the wholesale round up of Arab Americans post September 11. It provided the campaign theme for Mr Noun, Verb, and 9/11. It makes the fact of Arabian sufficient for large portions of the populous to believe Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9/11. It is the stupidity and xenophobia of BushCo come home to roost. Is it some kind of surprise that a theocrat like Sarah Palin cannot separate her Christianist position from the reality that Muslim is not inherently bad? In her narrow stupid world there are good Christians and everybody else and she'll pray for them as she crucifies them. The ultimate irony is that they don't want to be President/Vice of America, they want to rule in a world that exists only in their fantasies.
There is a very closed circle within many Republican's world that includes them and excludes everyone else. Us or them is the only meaningful distinction. Gay, non-Christian, non-Republican, non-white are the other, treacherous and dangerous. It isn't that liberal is a dirty word, it is code for 'the other' - change that label to progressive and it still is 'the other.' Otherness is the sin, the original sin, the one unforgivable sin. What these bigoted prigs don't realize is that in this nation of 300 plus million they are 'the other' and they are losing ground fast. That doesn't make them less dangerous, in fact it makes them more so. As the evidence of their failures piles up they will react, and the reaction will bear less semblence of reason as the evidence gets deeper. Do not expect them to go quietly into the good night.
Awhile ago John McCain came into some praise for telling a woman that, "No, he's not an Arab, he's a decent family man..." Now I'm not sure that it was intentional to counterpose Arab and decent, but given the McCain camp's insistence on playing the terrorist association theme I'm not confident either. That doubt was ramped up the other day with the charges by that campaign that Obama associated with a PLO spokesman and other bad things Palestinian named Rashid Khalidi. Professor Khalidi is American born (NYNY) of Arab descent and the director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University. He was an advisor to the Palestinian delegation during the peace talks in the Bush I administration.
The last I checked, not giving Israel a free pass for anything it gets up to isn't anti-Semitic nor is it unpatriotic. Last I checked, Israel has not been exactly blame free in its relationship with Palestinians. And the last time I checked, despite Republican whining, getting diverse opinions on important subjects before making decisions is a good idea. But there, in one pile, is the biggest difference between the authoritarian mind set of the Republicans and actual thought. Yes, I just did accuse the Republicans of an inability to think. There is to be no diversity of thought in the Republican world, just emotional talking points predetermined for us. This is where the Pro/Anti American theme comes from, this is where calling Palin out on bullshit is an attack on the First Amendment, it is where BushCo could actually state that you were either for them or against us. An absolute crock of unmitigated ignorant jingoism put in front of the American public as, no kiddng, policy.
The mere fact of the man's name and his refusal to toe some line makes him suspect. Dare we say it? An uppity sand nigger? Understand this, ideology is one thing, this is another altogether. It is the act of despicable people in desperate circumstances brought on by their own actions. The Party of Personal Responsibility uses scapegoats left and right and is not only eating its ownself but the fabric of a nation of immigrants. Khalidi is suspect and someone for Obama to be ashamed of because he is the wrong descent. I'm trying to figure out why these people shouldn't be slapped into next week - and I don't mean figuratively. These idiots are using a national platform to paint a damn bullseye on people's backs, literally.
This is the bunker mentality that led to the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII and the wholesale round up of Arab Americans post September 11. It provided the campaign theme for Mr Noun, Verb, and 9/11. It makes the fact of Arabian sufficient for large portions of the populous to believe Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9/11. It is the stupidity and xenophobia of BushCo come home to roost. Is it some kind of surprise that a theocrat like Sarah Palin cannot separate her Christianist position from the reality that Muslim is not inherently bad? In her narrow stupid world there are good Christians and everybody else and she'll pray for them as she crucifies them. The ultimate irony is that they don't want to be President/Vice of America, they want to rule in a world that exists only in their fantasies.
There is a very closed circle within many Republican's world that includes them and excludes everyone else. Us or them is the only meaningful distinction. Gay, non-Christian, non-Republican, non-white are the other, treacherous and dangerous. It isn't that liberal is a dirty word, it is code for 'the other' - change that label to progressive and it still is 'the other.' Otherness is the sin, the original sin, the one unforgivable sin. What these bigoted prigs don't realize is that in this nation of 300 plus million they are 'the other' and they are losing ground fast. That doesn't make them less dangerous, in fact it makes them more so. As the evidence of their failures piles up they will react, and the reaction will bear less semblence of reason as the evidence gets deeper. Do not expect them to go quietly into the good night.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Saudi Arabia And Change
The NYT Editorial starts off congratulating the Saudi king for pardoning the "Qatif girl" a rape victim who was sentenced to 200 lashes for getting into a car with men she was not related to. Wow. This laudable pardon occurred exactly why? Sharia law. This pardon was quickly followed by the "detention" of a Saudi civil liberties blogger. The NYT calls for change and expects BushCo to demand it.
I don't mind throwing cold water in somebody's face, the USA has this little document called the Constitution and it contains a quaint topic like Habeas Corpus and another document called the Bill of Rights, which specifically bars the government from interfering in natural rights. Nowhere is the concept of a government grant of right occur and yet BushCo is supposed to pressure a government based on the granting of the "favor" of rights to do something while it violates the absolute basis of this government? The Saudis have tended to be American educated so it would be little surprise if they've heard of the documents and they've pretty much gotten around in the USA. They do government and religion the way they do in the face of that.
What club or inducement is it that GeorgeII is supposed to bring out with his fellow monarchs? Money? Since BushCo has managed to drive oil prices through the roof with the "violence tariff" chances are money is no object. I think that we've pretty much dispensed with the reason part of the equation. Since the Saudis are familiar with US culture and how no signs of pursuing any more of it than pointless acquisition and conspicuous consumption. It is discouraging enough to reflect on the wealth of the US and the plight of the poor and uninsured, but in contrast to the Saudis we're paragons of virtue.
Saudi Arabia is a religious despotism dedicated to the wealth and power of its rulers. I'm a little leftwing blogger and yet I get some readers from Saudi Arabia, why do you suppose that is? Do you think it has something to do with the freedom of expression I exercise? Maybe it has something to do with my assertion that the natural rights expressed in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence apply to any human anywhere and that governments that violate them are automatically subject to overthrow by their subjects, whether by ballot or force of arms. That means any government, including the Shiite theocracy we've established in Iraq, the BushCo pals the Saudis, or BushCo itself.
I don't mind throwing cold water in somebody's face, the USA has this little document called the Constitution and it contains a quaint topic like Habeas Corpus and another document called the Bill of Rights, which specifically bars the government from interfering in natural rights. Nowhere is the concept of a government grant of right occur and yet BushCo is supposed to pressure a government based on the granting of the "favor" of rights to do something while it violates the absolute basis of this government? The Saudis have tended to be American educated so it would be little surprise if they've heard of the documents and they've pretty much gotten around in the USA. They do government and religion the way they do in the face of that.
What club or inducement is it that GeorgeII is supposed to bring out with his fellow monarchs? Money? Since BushCo has managed to drive oil prices through the roof with the "violence tariff" chances are money is no object. I think that we've pretty much dispensed with the reason part of the equation. Since the Saudis are familiar with US culture and how no signs of pursuing any more of it than pointless acquisition and conspicuous consumption. It is discouraging enough to reflect on the wealth of the US and the plight of the poor and uninsured, but in contrast to the Saudis we're paragons of virtue.
Saudi Arabia is a religious despotism dedicated to the wealth and power of its rulers. I'm a little leftwing blogger and yet I get some readers from Saudi Arabia, why do you suppose that is? Do you think it has something to do with the freedom of expression I exercise? Maybe it has something to do with my assertion that the natural rights expressed in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence apply to any human anywhere and that governments that violate them are automatically subject to overthrow by their subjects, whether by ballot or force of arms. That means any government, including the Shiite theocracy we've established in Iraq, the BushCo pals the Saudis, or BushCo itself.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
VItter And The Hooker
Should you care that Sen David Vitter (R-LA) had his phone number in Debra Jean Palfrey's "little black book?" Ordinarily I'd be hard pressed to say "yes." I believe the outlawing of prostitution wastes law enforcement assets, creates an unhealthy black market of drugs, manipulation, abuse, and corruption, and complicates health issues. I don't find it moral or immoral, have never engaged its services nor do I desire to, frankly it's a non-issue in my private life. My relationship with my wife is based on mutual trust and monogamy, so that's how that is - I would be committing a wrong to engage in such actions, personally. I make no such judgements on other relationships, I am not privy to their internal structure and thus unqualified to have an opinion.
Sen Vitter had opinions, he declared them in the House and the Senate and tried to make them law. Get this, I don't care if he's Jesus H Christ himself, the law has no business in the morality game. It's not a moral construct, it is a social order device, it is enforced at the point of a gun and can take your money and liberty - it ain't moral. So, Sen Vitter engaged the services of Ms. Palfrey, I don't care about her, but I do care about him. The hypocrisy of slamming homosexuals as unfit for marriage while he's cheating on a woman who has publicly stated her, ahem, distaste for cheating (ok, whacking off the offending member) is just mind boggling. It is the theocrat's punishment for hubris, they'll stuff their version of god down your throat while failing miserably at their own tenets.
I think maybe Mrs Vitter has "issues," such reactions are illegal, ranking close to shooting the adulterer, a temper tantrum possibly understandable, but not too orderly. That doesn't keep me from having a certain enthusiasm for her catching up with the Senator in possession of a sharp object.
Seems odd that for all the slanders Republicans throw at Democrats for being cowardly moral degenerates, it's their folks that go AWOL from the easy out from a war, play sick games with boys, get sunk for bribery (well there is Jefferson), and get clogged up in sex scandals. I look forward to November '08 and the traction available on these little (cough) indiscretions.
Hey, Republicans, since you keep ignoring my advice and come around here I'll dispense some advice, leave the morality in church or your private conduct but out of law and you'll have less of this sort of trouble. God has his house and it isn't Congress or the White one and the sooner you figure it out the better for your Party and the nation.
Sen Vitter had opinions, he declared them in the House and the Senate and tried to make them law. Get this, I don't care if he's Jesus H Christ himself, the law has no business in the morality game. It's not a moral construct, it is a social order device, it is enforced at the point of a gun and can take your money and liberty - it ain't moral. So, Sen Vitter engaged the services of Ms. Palfrey, I don't care about her, but I do care about him. The hypocrisy of slamming homosexuals as unfit for marriage while he's cheating on a woman who has publicly stated her, ahem, distaste for cheating (ok, whacking off the offending member) is just mind boggling. It is the theocrat's punishment for hubris, they'll stuff their version of god down your throat while failing miserably at their own tenets.
I think maybe Mrs Vitter has "issues," such reactions are illegal, ranking close to shooting the adulterer, a temper tantrum possibly understandable, but not too orderly. That doesn't keep me from having a certain enthusiasm for her catching up with the Senator in possession of a sharp object.
Seems odd that for all the slanders Republicans throw at Democrats for being cowardly moral degenerates, it's their folks that go AWOL from the easy out from a war, play sick games with boys, get sunk for bribery (well there is Jefferson), and get clogged up in sex scandals. I look forward to November '08 and the traction available on these little (cough) indiscretions.
Hey, Republicans, since you keep ignoring my advice and come around here I'll dispense some advice, leave the morality in church or your private conduct but out of law and you'll have less of this sort of trouble. God has his house and it isn't Congress or the White one and the sooner you figure it out the better for your Party and the nation.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
So, Jerry Falwell Is Dead
A bigoted prick drops dead of a heart attack and we're bombarded with, 'oh what a wonderful Christian and great American' until I could puke. Let's get this straight, this is the guy who stated baldly that 9/11 and Katrina were the fault of pagans, gays, abortionists, ACLU, and essentially anybody (secularists) who wasn't his narrow mean minded version of Christian.
Oh yeah, he rallied his troops and in the process created an atmosphere of bitter partisanship and theocratic legislators. He repeatedly made the claim that the US was a Judeo-Christian nation, completely at odds with the historical facts. Moving beyond the building of "Christian morality" in his flock to the legal enforcement of it he built an opposition that despised him and his Religious Right.
Since he was so fond of blaming occurrences on God's revenge on people, makes you wonder what he thought about as he died of a sudden heart attack, was it the devil or God being sick of his crap. I figure his nasty old heart just gave out, like they do sometimes. He claimed to hate the sin and love the sinner as he demonstrated the opposite, I despise hypocrisy and will make no pretence to find somebody like him lovable. So long Jerry, I ain't gonna miss ya.
Oh yeah, he rallied his troops and in the process created an atmosphere of bitter partisanship and theocratic legislators. He repeatedly made the claim that the US was a Judeo-Christian nation, completely at odds with the historical facts. Moving beyond the building of "Christian morality" in his flock to the legal enforcement of it he built an opposition that despised him and his Religious Right.
Since he was so fond of blaming occurrences on God's revenge on people, makes you wonder what he thought about as he died of a sudden heart attack, was it the devil or God being sick of his crap. I figure his nasty old heart just gave out, like they do sometimes. He claimed to hate the sin and love the sinner as he demonstrated the opposite, I despise hypocrisy and will make no pretence to find somebody like him lovable. So long Jerry, I ain't gonna miss ya.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
And Now, Secondary Virginity
When you're really stuck because your stuff isn't working you set up a do-over. Surely you remember this as a kid, three strikes and I'm not out because I suck - worked well then, didn't it. Grover Norquist (are you surprised) brought this one to the table at the secretive Council for National Policy where the Christian Right was struggling to find a candidate. Their problem is that all the available ones had unsatisfactory stands when they ran previously and needed moderate voters. Apparently nobody has the Right stuff without Grover's "Secondary Virginity," where a high schooler gets to be be a virgin again if they say, "oops." I guess that since I had no desire to retain my virginity in high school I find this idea odd.
Here's the deal in basic terms, the candidate gets to say, "I like to screw," when it's in their benefit, when it's not, "I don't like to screw and you don't get to, either." Now in order to perform these kinds of gymnastics there must be something driving it, Paul Wyerich, Chairman of the Free Congress Foundation put it this way, “There is great anxiety, there is no outstanding conservative, and they are all looking for that.” If the candidates didn't speak for pro-choice or gay tolerance they violated other terms of the deal, like raised taxes, supported BushCo immigration amnesty, opposed the Plutocratic Freetrade, or just don't have any money. These people's problem is that they cannot count. They hang around each other in their tight little club and think they are a voting power bloc. Yes, they can raise money and yes for some reason the media caters to to them, but that's not votes.
I'm a left wing Democrat, I have no hope that the registered Democrats and Independents are going to go for my stuff whole cloth, but I can have hopes of pushing them towards my point of view if I am reasonable and persuasive. I also can look at things from a wider perspective than a narrow one size fits all dicta. The thing that works against these folks is their idea that their correct view must apply to all of us, their "morality" is exactly right in all cases. "Sacred" books have their problems in the real world and these people just cannot see it.
Their greatest fear is that the Republicans are going to go their own way, in fact James Dobson has made a point of mentioning that he voted third party rather than pull a lever for Bob Dole. I wish them much luck with threatening the Republicans, if they succeed they'll get their butts kicked most places and if they fail they will have alienated that Party. The Republicans may be headed for a small minority position until they learn the electoral lessons and if the Christian Right goes down the tubes, I won't much complain.
Here's the deal in basic terms, the candidate gets to say, "I like to screw," when it's in their benefit, when it's not, "I don't like to screw and you don't get to, either." Now in order to perform these kinds of gymnastics there must be something driving it, Paul Wyerich, Chairman of the Free Congress Foundation put it this way, “There is great anxiety, there is no outstanding conservative, and they are all looking for that.” If the candidates didn't speak for pro-choice or gay tolerance they violated other terms of the deal, like raised taxes, supported BushCo immigration amnesty, opposed the Plutocratic Freetrade, or just don't have any money. These people's problem is that they cannot count. They hang around each other in their tight little club and think they are a voting power bloc. Yes, they can raise money and yes for some reason the media caters to to them, but that's not votes.
I'm a left wing Democrat, I have no hope that the registered Democrats and Independents are going to go for my stuff whole cloth, but I can have hopes of pushing them towards my point of view if I am reasonable and persuasive. I also can look at things from a wider perspective than a narrow one size fits all dicta. The thing that works against these folks is their idea that their correct view must apply to all of us, their "morality" is exactly right in all cases. "Sacred" books have their problems in the real world and these people just cannot see it.
Their greatest fear is that the Republicans are going to go their own way, in fact James Dobson has made a point of mentioning that he voted third party rather than pull a lever for Bob Dole. I wish them much luck with threatening the Republicans, if they succeed they'll get their butts kicked most places and if they fail they will have alienated that Party. The Republicans may be headed for a small minority position until they learn the electoral lessons and if the Christian Right goes down the tubes, I won't much complain.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Have A Dog In This Fight ?
If you've been watching any news you know that Hamas and Fata are busily killing each other in Palestine, in the latest a Hamas militia surrounded the house of a Fata commander Col. Muhammad Gharib killing eight. On Wednesday 5 died, on Thursday 60 were wounded including 10 children, they're getting right with the program. Both sides promise more of the same all the while saying their guns should be pointed at the Israelis. Some miles away, in Iraq, Arabs are involved in the same occupation of whacking each other, and the reasons don't seem a lot different.
You'd think the BushCo would be able to see that far away and get some kind of realistic input. The Palestinians actually have a common enemy - Israel - and yet they'd rather shoot each other up. Neither place has any particular experience with participatory democracy and even less with the concept of compromise and the results play themselves out on a daily basis. Their political solutions are at the business end of a bullet, or bomb. In Iraq we've exchanged a bloody minded despot for the tyranny of violence as politics by supposedly represented constituents, Palestine's methodology. I'm sure that tracing the course of frustrated aspirations and the history of violent oppression and resistance makes some of their patterns understandable and throw in their theocratic tendencies to get an outcome that's almost inevitiable. Why it is, then, that the Neocons and BushCo couldn't see today's Iraq barreling down the track?
It is not in the least racist or bigotted to state that the Arab version of Islam is theocratic in nature and by many interpretations, murderous. For the politically correct spinners of religious equality, Spain's Catholic Inquisition was theocracy at its finest, much less deal with the theocratic Crusades or - on and on. George II is a theocrat at heart and cannot see the obvious and inevitable consequences of indulging in it. Theocracy always trumps knowlege and history, it can only thrive on ignorance and superstition. There is no place within history that those qualifiers do not also result in muderous behavior. Be under no illusion that the versions of Islam in operation in the Middle East are somehow more debased than the vile versions of Chritianity practiced by US White Supremacists or some of the "fundamentalist" Christian Right, what they do not have is the power structure to indulge their fantasies.
Squealing, "unfair religious bigotry" at me is stupid, I will state unequivocally that the actual words spoken by these religions founders might actually be the basis for a much improved life. The problem lies with the politicization of their messages, many of the Books of the New Testament are nothing more than political power texts as are many of the passages surrounding the Koran. As these churches achieved political power their essential messages became perverted by the necessities of maintaining and enhancing that political power. There is a reason for a fence between secular and spiritual, that fence protects both but primarily the spiritual. I defy anyone to take the actual quotes of Jesus Christ and use them to back the anger and agenda of the Christian Right.
The deliberate cynical usage of the politics of religiosity by BushCo should have educated them in its propensity for mindless fanaticism, it should only have been a short step to understanding the brutality of its operation as government in the Middle East. The Sauds are family friends of George II, he kisses them and hold hands with them, their experiences with the Wahabbi sect surely are not secrets from him. Suppressed, ignorant, superstitious theocrats are dangerous murderous thugs. Why, exactly, we have a dog in any of these fights is beyond me.
You'd think the BushCo would be able to see that far away and get some kind of realistic input. The Palestinians actually have a common enemy - Israel - and yet they'd rather shoot each other up. Neither place has any particular experience with participatory democracy and even less with the concept of compromise and the results play themselves out on a daily basis. Their political solutions are at the business end of a bullet, or bomb. In Iraq we've exchanged a bloody minded despot for the tyranny of violence as politics by supposedly represented constituents, Palestine's methodology. I'm sure that tracing the course of frustrated aspirations and the history of violent oppression and resistance makes some of their patterns understandable and throw in their theocratic tendencies to get an outcome that's almost inevitiable. Why it is, then, that the Neocons and BushCo couldn't see today's Iraq barreling down the track?
It is not in the least racist or bigotted to state that the Arab version of Islam is theocratic in nature and by many interpretations, murderous. For the politically correct spinners of religious equality, Spain's Catholic Inquisition was theocracy at its finest, much less deal with the theocratic Crusades or - on and on. George II is a theocrat at heart and cannot see the obvious and inevitable consequences of indulging in it. Theocracy always trumps knowlege and history, it can only thrive on ignorance and superstition. There is no place within history that those qualifiers do not also result in muderous behavior. Be under no illusion that the versions of Islam in operation in the Middle East are somehow more debased than the vile versions of Chritianity practiced by US White Supremacists or some of the "fundamentalist" Christian Right, what they do not have is the power structure to indulge their fantasies.
Squealing, "unfair religious bigotry" at me is stupid, I will state unequivocally that the actual words spoken by these religions founders might actually be the basis for a much improved life. The problem lies with the politicization of their messages, many of the Books of the New Testament are nothing more than political power texts as are many of the passages surrounding the Koran. As these churches achieved political power their essential messages became perverted by the necessities of maintaining and enhancing that political power. There is a reason for a fence between secular and spiritual, that fence protects both but primarily the spiritual. I defy anyone to take the actual quotes of Jesus Christ and use them to back the anger and agenda of the Christian Right.
The deliberate cynical usage of the politics of religiosity by BushCo should have educated them in its propensity for mindless fanaticism, it should only have been a short step to understanding the brutality of its operation as government in the Middle East. The Sauds are family friends of George II, he kisses them and hold hands with them, their experiences with the Wahabbi sect surely are not secrets from him. Suppressed, ignorant, superstitious theocrats are dangerous murderous thugs. Why, exactly, we have a dog in any of these fights is beyond me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)