Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

No Matter Who You Vote For, The Government Gets Elected

Monday, May 10th, 2010

“There’s nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight”

So. We got this new boss, huh? Seems to me, he looks a lot like the old boss. A-yup.

Attorney General Holder wants to “work with” Congress to find  “the limits” of Constitutional rights for terrorism  suspects.

If the Bush administration had proposed this (which, well, they did) the Usual Suspects on the Left would be out in the streets, playing drums, waving around giant puppets, and pretending to be dead, tactics which turned out to be precisely as effective in generating political change as they sound. (But they sure made everyone involve feel as if they were Real Life Protesters, standing up to ZionistCorpoFascism, and, really, isn’t satisfying your desire to relive what you thought the Sixties were like the entire point of leftist activism? If not, someone’s doing something wrong. But I digress.)

However, since it’s Obama, we can be reasonably certain we will hear a few “tut-tuts” and “Well, y’see…” and “But this is different.” Meanwhile, the fanatical anti-Obama types on the far-right fringes (who were also, for the most part, fanatical anti-Bush types because they hate anyone who seems stronger or more powerful than they are, which is 99% of the planet), will be screeching pretty much the same things they screeched at Bush, but the Left, instead of saying, “Gee, maybe they have a point about the laser beams and micronukes used to destroy the World Trade Center”, will instead be going on about “racism”, allowing them to hate the Obama haters (it’s very important to have someone to hate, mind you, it is the essence of all politics), without addressing Obama’s refusal to make any significant policy changes from the Bush regime when it comes to restoring anything that might happen to be left of the Bill of Rights.

To claim that you can remove the rights of suspects in a crime is to basically throw the entirety of American law out the window, to destroy, completely and utterly and without limit, the basis of American legal system. It is saying, in effect, that someone is not a suspect — that he is guilty. That being accused of a particular crime is enough to treat someone as if he is guilty of that crime, and to remove his rights on that basis alone. All you need to do is say “He’s a witch!”… I mean, a terrorist… and that’s it. Sentence first, trial afterwards. And we will never be sure if it’s a fair trial, because the systems — flawed as they may be, as all systems made by Man must be flawed — we put in place to make sure trials are fair, to accuser and to accused, are tossed out the window.

Any form of this nonsense boils down to “We know he’s guilty, so why pretend he’s just a ’suspect’?” So, then, why bother with the trial, with the presentation of evidence, with the right to defense? Just shoot him dead after you’ve tortured him for information. Of course, to be fair, this should apply to any situation where you simply “know” the so-called accused is guilty, and justice should just be done swiftly and cleanly, right?

That sort of thinking has always worked well for America and Americans, hasn’t it?

This is pandering to the worst and most beastial elements of the American people, this is cowardice, this is nothing more than trying to escape criticism of being “soft on terrorism” instead of standing up for what is right.

In short, it’s being a politician, which hardly surprises me at all. Obama rose up in Chicago politics. Anyone, ally or enemy, who thinks him an idealist, is a fool. The man is tough — he has to be. He knows how to play the game, to play it well enough to get to the White House running against someone with decades of hard experience in every sort of backbiting, vicious, political struggle, and after he was done with Hillary, he beat McCain as well. (Ba-dum BUM!)

But I do have to wonder if any of his ardent followers, especially the young idealistic fools (but I am redundant there), who thought he’d be a “new” kind of President because he had a bit more melanin in his skin than the prior President, understand this. With luck, this betrayal of their hopes and dreams will squash yet another generation of would-be starry-eyed  dreamers into hardened, embittered, cynics.

Lieberman To Revive Alien & Sedition Act

Tuesday, May 4th, 2010

One of the most vile and pernicious laws in early American history was passed by our second President, John Adams. (You might note that Presidents 1 and 3 are on Mt. Rushmore. President 2 isn’t. Funny, that.) This grotesque bit of law, flagrantly anti-American even as the nation was still trying to figure out what “American” really meant, criminalized any “malicious” writing against the government and its officials, and would allow for the deportation of resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States. (In showing just How Far We’ve Come, FDR didn’t deport Japanese citizens and immigrants, he just locked them up in concent… sorry, internment camps.Go, us!)

These laws so repulsed citizens of a nation which was born out of saying malicious things about their former government that John Adams was kicked out on his bony ass, and replaced by Thomas Jefferson, one of the few Founding Fathers truly worth admiring, that whole “boinked his slaves” thing notwithstanding.

Sen. Lieberman (I-diot, Conn.) wants to Adams one further — he wants to strip the citizenship of anyone who is accused of joining a “foreign terrorist group”, as defined by the whims of the Federal Government. This week, it’s Muslim insurgents, next week, it could be the IRA, if they’re still around. Since just about every American whose ancestors didn’t walk here from Asia has some connection to an existing foreign culture, most Americans have some concern about the politics of their distant homelands, even if no one’s been there in generations. Whether its Quebecois, Basques, or Irish Catholics, plenty of perfectly loyal and law abiding American citizens may support actions or organizations in foreign lands which can be described as “terrorist” by most reasonable definitions. And since a “terrorist” group is usually “one which is opposed to a government the US is currently allied with”, this makes the US an enemy of said group by proxy.

Even John Adams didn’t go so far as to attack those already citizens. This places Lieberman well ahead of John Edwards (the fake psychic, not the philandering politician) in the running for Biggest Douche In The Universe.

Joining Lieberman in this crusade against morality, decency, law, and basic common sense is pretty much the entire Republican Party, who are demanding to know why a ***SUSPECT*** in a crime was read his Miranda rights, as opposed to simply being locked in prison since we all know he’s guilty, right? The profound and insane illogic of this stance, clearly design to appeal to the room-temperature IQ crowd who cannot think, but merely react, is self-evident, and, if it isn’t self-evident to you, stop reading this and go back to pleasuring yourself with pictures of Sarah Palin. You cannot treat those ***ACCUSED*** of a crime as if they had been ***CONVICTED*** of that crime until they’ve been ***FOUND GUILTY***, and that means a ***TRIAL***, which means they ***HAVE*** to have all the rights, privileges, and protections of anyone accused of any crime, from jaywalking to mass murder.

Otherwise, what the hell are we fighting for? We cannot say “America”, because if you do not believe that “Innocent until proven guilty” is the absolute bedrock of American law, you do not believe in or support America. Period. You are the traitor.

(Let me address a lot of the usual balderdash replies right now: This isn’t a prisoner captured on a battlefield in a war zone, where circumstances often force hard choices and some of the rules have to be changed — but even those changes are clear and spelled out and apply only under defined conditions. This isn’t an episode of “24″, where you torture someone because the bomb is ticking and the whole audience can see it — TV is not reality, and torture doesn’t work. We got very good, useful, war-winning intelligence from captured Nazis — Nazis, dammit! – without needing torture. And lastly, he’s an American citizen, period, full stop. Thirdly, the crime he is accused of it, at best “attempted murder”. Trying to kill someone, or a lot of someones, is pretty vile, but it’s not “actual murder”, which is why we have different laws and punishments.)

Atrocity In Oklahoma

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

I used to believe that I had reached the point in my cynicism where nothing would seriously shock me. Outrage me, certainly, but not actually shock. Not actually reach the point where I’m left staring at the screen thinking “How could someone do that?” Even when I read about some of horrors and atrocities which continue to spread throughout the world, I am appalled and revolted and disgusted, but not really surprised. You expect brutal genocides in Africa, insane religious fanatics in the Middle East, people who think the Cultural Revolution was a good idea in Berkeley.

I am not sure if it’s a good or bad thing that I actually managed to be shocked today.

Specifically, this. Oklahoma — a state known for being bombed by a terrorist and trying to classify the Oscar winning film “The Tin Drum” as kiddie porn — has passed, overwhelmingly, despite the governor’s veto, a law which will prevent doctors from being sued if they lie, if they deliberately, willfully, and knowingly, withhold the results of tests indicating that a fetus may have genetic defects. Why? Because a woman might choose to abort the fetus if it will only live for a day, in agony. Or will most likely die in the 8th or 9th month of pregnancy. Or be born in such a state that it will never know or experience life in any way that can be called human. Or would require medical care amounting to millions of dollars for the few years it might be able to stay alive. Or simply be too difficult for the woman or her family to handle, or too risky, or too heartbreaking. There are many reasons why a woman might choose to abort, some sounder than others, but all deeply personal and absolutely no one’s business but hers.

This law basically grants doctors the right to lie if they feel the patient will do something they don’t like with the truth. (It does not, I presume, permit them to tell the woman her fetus DOES have a birth defect if it doesn’t, though I don’t see why not. If we accept that it’s moral for a doctor to lie to prevent an abortion, why shouldn’t he be permitted to lie to encourage one? I’m sure we can all think of a few people the world could do without — every politician who voted for this law, for example. Oh, for a time machine and some RU486. But I digress.)

It is almost… no, it is impossible for me to conceive of the kind of depraved mentality which could even propose this law, much less vote for it, much less do so in the confidence that it will win you praise, not a quick trip to the nearest oak tree via a stout piece of hemp rope. I make an effort, really I do, to understand the other guy’s point of view. This doesn’t mean I will agree with them or be kind to them or spout some hippie crap about how “all points of view are valid”. I do believe, or I did believe, that no one is evil in their own mind, that every sane person is motivated by a desire to do good. Their premises may be horribly flawed and thus their desire results in evil, but if you dig at them enough, you can see some sort of logic, however twisted.

This, though… no. There is nothing here which can be discussed, debated, considered, or evaluated. To pass a law of this kind, you must be a creature utterly without a conscience, and anyone who knows me might be a little slack jawed at what it would take to get me to say that.  To sit there and vote “Yes” for a law this depraved basically places you outside the pale of humanity.

There is vast national outrage over Arizona passing a law which says “If you’re committing a crime, you’ll be punished for that crime.” Where is the national outrage over this?

I completely oppose, obviously, laws banning abortion outright. But such a law, no matter how wrong it would be, does not come close to the depths of evil of this abomination. Under such a regime, a woman can at least trust her doctor to tell her the truth — even if she can’t abort a fetus which will be born deformed or dead, she can emotionally steel herself for it. She can find support among friends and family. If the defect in question is not lethal, she can research and prepare for what she will face. If she knows she cannot support the child, she can try to arrange for it to be cared for by private or public charities before the birth. But under the nightmare realm of Oklahoma, none of this is possible. Note that the decision is entirely in the mind of the doctor — he must decide, based on nothing but whim, if a woman “might” decide to abort based on the news, and then withhold it if he so wishes. Thus,even a woman who would be willing and able to care for a child with birth defects is denied any of the above tools. She will not find out until the moment of birth — if it survived to be born — what she is carrying. She will have been lied to by her own doctor, the man or woman she trusted to provide care for herself and her child. How could she ever trust that person, or any doctor, ever again?

“Madness” is too small a word. “Evil” is too broad. This is atrocity.

Comedy Central Pays The Dane Geld

Friday, April 23rd, 2010

And that is called paying the Danegeld,

But we’ve proved it again and again

That if you’ve once paid him the Danegeld

You’ll never get rid of the Dane.” (Rudyard Kipling)

Or, in this particular case, the Muslim-geld.

Two nights ago, Comedy Central ran a butchered and censored episode of South Park, in which not only was the name of Mohammed bleeped out, but so was an extensive ending speech, apparently one about not giving in to fear, intimidation, and terrorism. One presumes this speech was censored because Comedy Central’s cowardly executives would spontaneously combust if they heard it (and it would be damn good thing if they did, frankly. Burn censors, not books!)

While some speculate this is all a meta-commentary by Matt and Trey, they deny it, and I believe them.

What it’s all about, of course, is presenting the “image of Mohammed”, which apparently offends some braindead followers of Islam. Of course, offending people isn’t anything new to either South Park or Comedy Central. They’re shown Jesus Christ defecating on (that’s “taking a bit ol’ shit on”, for you inbred redneck types) George Bush. They showed — in the censored episode — Shiva (or maybe Buddha, I forget) sniffing coke. They’ve shown God as a deformed fanged walrus creature. They’ve shown PETA members having sex with animals (granted, that may be more reporting than satire, but anyway…), they’ve shown right wingers as ignorant gun nuts and left wingers as ignorant hippies, they’ve mocked, insulted, and defamed everything one can imagine, often in very crude and scatalogical ways. And they’ve gotten plenty of protests, sternly worded letters, and threats of lawsuits, but only one time, only for one group, do they back down.

For Muslims.

So we’re back to Dane geld. And now they’ve learned. They can silence anything, censor anything, impose any viewpoint they want, just by posting a random rant on a random website. Comedy Central has handed over all of its moral authority to any kook who doesn’t like what they’ve chosen to make fun of this week — so long as the kook is Muslim. (Are you an atheist offended by South Park showing Richard Dawkins having sex with a transexual school teacher? A Christian offended by Jesus being portrayed as an ineffectual shlub? A Mormon offended by the mockery of your faith’s founding? Too bad for you. Comedy Central isn’t scared enough of you. If you’re a Muslim, though, you’re golden.)

Oh, BTW…

This is a picture of Muhammed. If you can't see it, do a Google Image search for "Mohammed South Park"

Mohammed

And, if there are any Muslims reading this, don’t say “We’re a religion of peace!” or “It’s just some violent extremists!”.

It is true, there are violent Christian extremists — ask abortion doctors.

There are violent Jewish extremists.

There are violent environmentalist and animal rights extremists.

There are violent right-wing extremists, violent black extremists, violent gay extremists, violent anti-gay extremists, violent extremists of every ethos, philosophy, and creed. It would not surprise me if there are violent Amish extremists out there, building beautifully carved wooden bombs that they set to go off when the horse and buggy goes over 10 miles an hour.

Despite knowing this, publishers of all sorts only back down from one group of extremists — Muslims. Why? Becuase they know, or have good reason to believe, that as a percentage of the whole population of Muslims, those willing to perform violence in the name of their religion are a much, much, larger segment than among any of the other groups I’ve mentioned, who are mostly content to froth, fume, and write letters to the FCC. While violence of this sort committed by non-Muslims is absolutely real and undeniable — again, ask an abortion doctor — there are so few individuals in these groups willing to go that far that the calculus of risk says that it’s safe to take the chance. It may happen, but it probably won’t. When it comes to Muslims, though, this calculus says the risk is too great.

Why is that, hypothetical Muslim reader?

Is it because people just hate and fear Muslims irrationally?

Or is it because the presumably sane majority among the Muslim population is unwilling to address their own extremist elements directly and forcefully, to not spend time pointing fingers at extremists in other religions or talking about “insensitivity” or “cultural difference”, but to actually stand up and say “This is wrong, we live in a multicultural society and if we want the right to worship as we please, we must not just abide, but actively defend, the right of others to differ from us and even to mock us.”?

Hint: It’s the second one.

Ball’s in your court. Because, sooner or later, everyone learns that paying Dane geld doesn’t rid you of the Dane, but standing up to him does.

A Not Entirely Modest Proposal

Thursday, April 8th, 2010

As the day approaches when we all must pay Sam “The Big Nuke” his annual vig, I have to wonder why there are tax credits for having children, as opposed to NOT having children. Children consume public goods and do not contribute to wealth. A person who has no kids reduces the drain on the education system, the health care system, the transit system… on everything, really. Not to mention that every tree hugger agrees we need fewer people on the planet, though very few seem to remember that it’s down the block, not across the street, if you get my drift. So why not a flat tax credit for being childless, with gradually increasing withholdings — not deductions — the more kids you have? “Fairness” is the watchword of the day, and “The more you use, the more you pay” strikes me as the very definition of fairness.

The Stupid, It Burns (Part Infinity)

Wednesday, April 7th, 2010

To my mind, one of the greatest injustices that we endure in America, and most of the world, is that virulent morons acting under the color of government authority rarely, if ever, have to personally suffer for their crimes. In the unusual event they’re found to be guilty of anything, it’s the government which pays, which means We The People get screwed twice — once when the government yobbo commits his crimes, and again when tax dollars we pay for government services instead get used to pay off the victims of said yobbo. Nine times out of ten, yobbo doesn’t even suffer any shame or humiliation, as he’s likely hailed as a “brave crusader”, not a fanatical moron who is too stupid to know how stupid he is.

Case in point: This schmuck, who is threatening teachers with an extremely serious criminal charge if they a)obey the law, and more importantly, b)act like responsible adults. Teaching teenagers the basics of biology and chemistry is not a crime; if anything, failing to do so is. Horny kids don’t stop being horny because they don’t know what a condom is — they just don’t relieve their horniness in a way less likely to ruin their future lives. Ignorance has never solved a problem, and it never will. The more teens understand their options and their risks, the more likely it is they’ll make a smarter choice. (Not too likely, since they’re teens, but likelier.)

Using your political office to enforce your narrow-minded moral agenda and attempt to scare and bully teachers should be a crime. In a decent world, it would be a capital crime, since no other punishment will dissuade these folks. (See above as for why.) But we do not live in a decent world.

Some Actual, Well, Pontification

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

From a thread on a mailing list I’m on. I just happen to be inordinately fond of the phrase “Understanding gravity doesn’t keep you from falling.”.

IME, people’s politics, with a few exceptions, have very little to do with their nature as individuals — their intelligence, their morality, their propensity to violence, their willingness to think. Within every group, there are those who come to their opinions by way of reason, study, and logic, and those who come to the same opinions by instinct or “That’s just the way I am.” There are those who respect those who differ and those who don’t. There are those who can separate out the individual threads of the tapestry of ideas, and those who see the entire thing as a lump package, to be taken or rejected as a whole. No faction, viewpoint, side, or subculture, beyond the smallest and most extreme, has any uniform propensities. The human tendency, wired into us by evolution millions of years ago, is to always see “Us” in the best light and “Them” in the worst. (I do not claim to be in any way immune to this propensity. Understanding gravity doesn’t keep you from falling.) “We” and “they” do the same things, in the same way — it’s just right when it’s us doing it and wrong when they do it.

Or, as I said recently in an online game, when someone in my corporation (EVE Online, the ultimate game of bloody cutthroat violent capitalism — invented by Nordic Socialists, oddly enough), complained another corporation wasn’t showing up to be slaughtered in battle:
“WE practice proper wartime discipline and don’t waste our resources in battles we know we can’t win. THEY are craven cowards hiding in their stations.”

Racist Community Bans Unwelcome Minorities

Monday, February 15th, 2010

Oh, wait, they’re Indians Native Americans First Peoples? Oh, that’s OK then.

Remember, folks, racism is wrong, except when it isn’t. Reading this article, it’s hard not to think of the spittle-flying rants one encounters on far-right sites and in the “Talkback” sections of, well, just about everywhere. Fear of “assimilation”? A desire to “protect” one’s “culture”?  Yup. Pretty much indistinguishable from the arguments of any other breed of racist.

“Culture” is not genetic — believing that it is is one of the chief idiocies of racism. Nor should culture be “preserved” via force of law. Whether it’s the French trying to keep their language pure, or nations mandating a certain percentage of “natively produced” programs by shown on TV (even if no one watches them), or Mohawks or Klansmen trying to kick out people they don’t like, there’s no such thing as a right to a culture, a heritage, or a tradition — remembering that a “right” is “That which you are morally entitled to use lethal force to protect.” If your culture is being destroyed because another culture serves people’s needs better, then let that culture die.

Cindy Sheehan… Well, Do You NEED To Read Any Further?

Sunday, January 17th, 2010

Everyone’s favorite fifteen-minuter, Cindy Sheehan, went off the deep end a long time ago. She’s since burrowed through the bottom of the pool and descended to Pellucidar, where she’s lecturing tyrannosaurs on veganism. Every so often, though, she burrows upwards and, if she sees her shadow, we get six more months of war in the Mideast. Can I mix metaphors, or what?

Anyway, while she may have forgotten this, you may recall her alleged gripe with George Bush was that her (Cindy’s) son, whom she (Cindy) referred to as a “man-child”, despite him being in his mid-20s, was killed fighting in Iraq. She deftly positioned herself as a self-appointed spokeswoman for all mothers of all sons ever lost in battle. You’d think, then, that she’d approve of anything which got the job of war done while keeping other people’s sons and daughters out of the line of fire to be good thing. You’d think that, but Cindy doesn’t think. She just wants media coverage. This is also why she’s picketing Dick Cheney, a man who as much say over current US policy as, well, she does. Perhaps if she picketed Obama, her head would explode. Here’s hoping.

(I’m sure someone will reply, knee jerking as tears stream down their face, that the al-Qaida operatives being blown away by the UAVs are also people’s children. My response? I know, I just don’t care.)

Cause of Earthquake in Haiti: SAAAATAN!!!!

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

Today’s double-facepalm, courtesy of Pat Robertson.

Short summary: According to Pat Robertson, Haiti is suffering because, 300 years ago, Haitians made a deal with Satan.

There is only one proper response to this: