I knew Paul LePage was bonkers, but I didn't know HOW bonkers.
He's REALLY bonkers.
Monday, June 30, 2014
SCOTUS
In some ways, I think the nation dodged a bullet in today's two retrograde decisions by the Supremes.
The union case was limited to home care workers, which is a shame, but the worry was that Alito's decision would strip public unions of their rights, too.
The Hobby Lobby case applies to morning after pills and IUDs. Not sure why an IUD is a bad thing, I guess because conception has occurred and the IUD prevents the zygote from attaching to the uterus. But it leaves in place birth control pills, condoms, diaphragms, tubal ligation and the patch.
The problems are twofold. First, as Charlie Pierce points out, the case explicitly denies the religious beliefs of Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses and others. What the case does is preference Catholicism - and a certain conservative Catholicism at that - over other faiths. Alito's opinion specifically calls post-conception birth control immoral. That's a religious belief.
My hope as that Antonin Scalia gets called home soon, so that we can appoint a liberal protestant to the bench. The five judge majority that decided the case were all Catholics.
The second point as that we continue to see decisions that prize the personhood of corporations over the personhood of actual fucking people. Whether you are a home care worker or a Hobby Lobby sales clerk, your rights are less important that the corporation that employs you.
It's time - past time - to pass an amendment that strip all Constitutional rights beyond contract rights from corporations.
Corporations are NOT people, my friends.
The union case was limited to home care workers, which is a shame, but the worry was that Alito's decision would strip public unions of their rights, too.
The Hobby Lobby case applies to morning after pills and IUDs. Not sure why an IUD is a bad thing, I guess because conception has occurred and the IUD prevents the zygote from attaching to the uterus. But it leaves in place birth control pills, condoms, diaphragms, tubal ligation and the patch.
The problems are twofold. First, as Charlie Pierce points out, the case explicitly denies the religious beliefs of Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses and others. What the case does is preference Catholicism - and a certain conservative Catholicism at that - over other faiths. Alito's opinion specifically calls post-conception birth control immoral. That's a religious belief.
My hope as that Antonin Scalia gets called home soon, so that we can appoint a liberal protestant to the bench. The five judge majority that decided the case were all Catholics.
The second point as that we continue to see decisions that prize the personhood of corporations over the personhood of actual fucking people. Whether you are a home care worker or a Hobby Lobby sales clerk, your rights are less important that the corporation that employs you.
It's time - past time - to pass an amendment that strip all Constitutional rights beyond contract rights from corporations.
Corporations are NOT people, my friends.
Child Migrants
http://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5813406/explain-child-migrant-crisis-central-america-unaccompanied-children-immigrants-daca
So here is a case where a loophole in US law dealing with child migrants from Central America (as opposed to Mexico) are detained for court proceedings rather than simply sent home.
All that is required to fix this is Congress to do the right thing.
So here is a case where a loophole in US law dealing with child migrants from Central America (as opposed to Mexico) are detained for court proceedings rather than simply sent home.
All that is required to fix this is Congress to do the right thing.
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Keep This In Mind
As Undead Thing Dick "Dick" Cheney shambles forth from his crypt to excoriate the President for his fecklessness in killing more Arabs and Americans in the Fertile Crescent, it is worth reflecting on news today that shows just how much more effective Obama has been in his Middle East policy.
Today, the New York Times informs us of the following: that the last of the known Syrian stockpiles of chemical weapons has been turned over to international actors for destruction.
Last summer, as it became apparent that Assad was using chemical weapons on the population, Obama began to realize he had committed himself and the nation to acting. In that debate, some of the Right acted - not surprisingly - opportunistically to attack him for...whatever.
But he got as much or more heat from the Left. Attacking chemical weapons sites in Syria would be another Iraqistan, and we would be trapped there for years and Obama was just as bad as Bush and yadda yadda yadda.
What has been clear to me is that there is a very different approach to global (or even domestic) problems from the 43rd to the 44th president.
We know that elements in the Bush Administration were looking for opportunities to attack Iraq before 9/11 and then worked to tie 9/11 to Iraq. In other words, war was the answer and it really didn't matter what the question was. Maybe it was 9/11, maybe it was WMD, maybe it was bringing jihadis to Iraq so we could kill them, maybe it was spreading freedom and democracy.
Whatever.
Just feed the War Pig.
Obama's foreign policy has been much more similar to the Powell Doctrine, in its insistence on knowing what your goals are and what your exit strategy is. So as Obama has worked to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, he did help with military action in Libya.
Libya disappeared down the memory hole during the debate over what to do in Syria, but Libya is a good example of Obama's military policy. There was a problem: Qaddafi was going to slaughter the militants in the east of his country (including Benghazi!) and touch off a refugee crisis in Egypt that was trying to navigate its Arab Spring. Something had to be done.
The decision was made by various NATO countries to provide air support for the rebels. We did this, and Qaddafi is dead.
Is Libya better off? Far too soon to tell. Maybe not.
But that wasn't our concern. It never was. It is not our job to midwife a new Libyan government into being. It was our job to stop a genocide.
So we did that, and we went home.
Syria followed much the same pattern. We had a goal: get rid of chemical weapons. We threatened force, but when Russia came to the table with a plan to get rid of Assad's WMD, we moved on that because it was always about getting rid of the chemical weapons, not going to war for the sake of going to war. It wasn't some Rumsfeldian experiment about light, mobile attack infrastructure.
The important thing was solving the problem, not "proving something" to the Middle East or the Russians or the Chinese. It wasn't a Tom Friedman-esque "throwing some little country up against the wall to show we can."
I don't know how Iraq will play out. No one does. I personally would like to see the country splinter. It makes no sense to preserve the borders of a state that has no national polity.
But I do think I know how our policy vis a vis Iran will play out.
In the next few months, Iran will agree to a regime of monitoring of its nuclear program. Sanctions will be eased and maybe we can finally come around to normalizing relations with the 17th most populous country in the world.
Because the problem is Iran's nuclear program. And the solution is bringing them into international norms.
If we had elected John McCain, we'd have bombed Natanz by now.
Today, the New York Times informs us of the following: that the last of the known Syrian stockpiles of chemical weapons has been turned over to international actors for destruction.
Last summer, as it became apparent that Assad was using chemical weapons on the population, Obama began to realize he had committed himself and the nation to acting. In that debate, some of the Right acted - not surprisingly - opportunistically to attack him for...whatever.
But he got as much or more heat from the Left. Attacking chemical weapons sites in Syria would be another Iraqistan, and we would be trapped there for years and Obama was just as bad as Bush and yadda yadda yadda.
What has been clear to me is that there is a very different approach to global (or even domestic) problems from the 43rd to the 44th president.
We know that elements in the Bush Administration were looking for opportunities to attack Iraq before 9/11 and then worked to tie 9/11 to Iraq. In other words, war was the answer and it really didn't matter what the question was. Maybe it was 9/11, maybe it was WMD, maybe it was bringing jihadis to Iraq so we could kill them, maybe it was spreading freedom and democracy.
Whatever.
Just feed the War Pig.
Obama's foreign policy has been much more similar to the Powell Doctrine, in its insistence on knowing what your goals are and what your exit strategy is. So as Obama has worked to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, he did help with military action in Libya.
Libya disappeared down the memory hole during the debate over what to do in Syria, but Libya is a good example of Obama's military policy. There was a problem: Qaddafi was going to slaughter the militants in the east of his country (including Benghazi!) and touch off a refugee crisis in Egypt that was trying to navigate its Arab Spring. Something had to be done.
The decision was made by various NATO countries to provide air support for the rebels. We did this, and Qaddafi is dead.
Is Libya better off? Far too soon to tell. Maybe not.
But that wasn't our concern. It never was. It is not our job to midwife a new Libyan government into being. It was our job to stop a genocide.
So we did that, and we went home.
Syria followed much the same pattern. We had a goal: get rid of chemical weapons. We threatened force, but when Russia came to the table with a plan to get rid of Assad's WMD, we moved on that because it was always about getting rid of the chemical weapons, not going to war for the sake of going to war. It wasn't some Rumsfeldian experiment about light, mobile attack infrastructure.
The important thing was solving the problem, not "proving something" to the Middle East or the Russians or the Chinese. It wasn't a Tom Friedman-esque "throwing some little country up against the wall to show we can."
I don't know how Iraq will play out. No one does. I personally would like to see the country splinter. It makes no sense to preserve the borders of a state that has no national polity.
But I do think I know how our policy vis a vis Iran will play out.
In the next few months, Iran will agree to a regime of monitoring of its nuclear program. Sanctions will be eased and maybe we can finally come around to normalizing relations with the 17th most populous country in the world.
Because the problem is Iran's nuclear program. And the solution is bringing them into international norms.
If we had elected John McCain, we'd have bombed Natanz by now.
Saturday, June 28, 2014
This Is Great Advice
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bill-maher-hillary-clinton-just-go-away
Hillary should go away. Do some think tank stuff. Not go on book tours. Everyone knows who she is.
Go away. Work with orphans in Alaska. Teach at a low income community college.
But she doesn't have to "run" for office. She just needs to give us a rest from Clintonland.
Hillary should go away. Do some think tank stuff. Not go on book tours. Everyone knows who she is.
Go away. Work with orphans in Alaska. Teach at a low income community college.
But she doesn't have to "run" for office. She just needs to give us a rest from Clintonland.
Friday, June 27, 2014
The United States Of Cruelty
Despite theoretically having lots of time, I find myself too busy to blog.
So I'll outsource to the inimitable Charlie Pierce:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Cruelty_In_Excelsis?click=promo
So I'll outsource to the inimitable Charlie Pierce:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Cruelty_In_Excelsis?click=promo
Thursday, June 26, 2014
As If You Needed Another Reason To Support The US In The World Cup
http://theweek.com/article/index/263856/speedreads-ann-coulter-says-americans-who-care-about-the-world-cup-are-a-sign-of-the-nations-moral-decay
At this point, it's not fair to refer to the GOP as "conservative". It's a reactionary hate group.
At this point, it's not fair to refer to the GOP as "conservative". It's a reactionary hate group.
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Your Daily GOP Racism Update
We should stomp out Spanish newspapers.
The Tea Party is looking to discourage voting by blacks in Mississippi today.
Poor people in Detroit are being gouged for water, which is kind of essential for life.
Islam is "not a relgion", says GOP candidate.
We can also add in your Daily GOP Corruption Update
Christie has more bridge troubles.
The former Governor of Virginia is a grifter.
Chuck Grassley launches an investigation into Obama and unearths a GOP staffer.
The Tea Party is looking to discourage voting by blacks in Mississippi today.
Poor people in Detroit are being gouged for water, which is kind of essential for life.
Islam is "not a relgion", says GOP candidate.
We can also add in your Daily GOP Corruption Update
Christie has more bridge troubles.
The former Governor of Virginia is a grifter.
Chuck Grassley launches an investigation into Obama and unearths a GOP staffer.
About Time
I'm not a supporter of legalized marijuana, but I do think it has medical uses and I don't support the mass incarcerations it provokes.
So this is good news.
So this is good news.
It's The End Of The World As We Know It
I was wasting time last night watching trailers for upcoming movies, and I was stunned at how many were about either a post-apocalyptic world or a dystopian society where "things are not what they seem."
Some of the latter is just the copy cat nature of The Hunger Games, but the number of movies about the end of the world is odd.
Not sure what it means, but it's interesting.
Some of the latter is just the copy cat nature of The Hunger Games, but the number of movies about the end of the world is odd.
Not sure what it means, but it's interesting.
Monday, June 23, 2014
Re-Draw The Borders
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2014/6/23/122728/980#11
I agree with much of what Booman has to say on domestic politics, but I tend to disagree more on foreign policy.
When it comes to the current crisis in Iraq and Syria, I think it's time to let the Sunni populations that extend from Baghdad to central Syria create their own state. Let the Kurds become independent. Let the Shiite Iraqis control everything south from Tikrit.
The only other option is to create a new Saddam or empower the existing Assad.
Because without a stable polity, you can't have even a notional form or representative government. You can rule these groups with fear and co-optation, but you can't create pluralism among groups that viscerally hate each other. And as much as Democrats and Republicans hate each other right now, they are the picture of fraternal love compared to the Middle East right now.
The "Bush Doctrine" of bringing democracy to the Middle East was always strikingly naive. To some degree - to a large degree - what we are witnessing now is the fruit of that naivete.
But if there is ever to be some sort of peace in the Fertile Crescent, it will come when each national group has its own state and not one created by the British in 1921.
I agree with much of what Booman has to say on domestic politics, but I tend to disagree more on foreign policy.
When it comes to the current crisis in Iraq and Syria, I think it's time to let the Sunni populations that extend from Baghdad to central Syria create their own state. Let the Kurds become independent. Let the Shiite Iraqis control everything south from Tikrit.
The only other option is to create a new Saddam or empower the existing Assad.
Because without a stable polity, you can't have even a notional form or representative government. You can rule these groups with fear and co-optation, but you can't create pluralism among groups that viscerally hate each other. And as much as Democrats and Republicans hate each other right now, they are the picture of fraternal love compared to the Middle East right now.
The "Bush Doctrine" of bringing democracy to the Middle East was always strikingly naive. To some degree - to a large degree - what we are witnessing now is the fruit of that naivete.
But if there is ever to be some sort of peace in the Fertile Crescent, it will come when each national group has its own state and not one created by the British in 1921.
Sunday, June 22, 2014
True Story
Last night, a former student of mine commented on a post on Facebook from the Cato Institute about marriage equality. This brought it into my FB feed. So, I looked through the thread.
Now, presumably people who normally get posts from Cato would describe themselves as Libertarian. So, presumably the majority of people commenting in the thread would describe themselves as Libertarian.
Yet what was fascinating was how theocratic the thread was. Cato came out roughly in support of marriage equality because that's consistent with libertarian thought. The thread was populated by people who were saying that America was a Christian nation, inspired by Christian thought. There were a few people with just messed up interpretations of the Constitution (state's rightists, mostly). But most were making moral and religious judgments.
Personally, I can think of nothing less compatible than theocrats and libertarians. Yet apparently quite a few theocrats are supporters of Cato.
The rancor of the theocrats towards the Cato post shows the fragility of the old Reagan Coalition. Not only are the various constituents of that coalition getting older and proportionally smaller, but some are also coming to see the contradictions in their mutual support for a GOP agenda that doesn't serve their ends.
For years, it was the Wall Street Republicans and Neocons enlisting the votes of the Theocrats and Libertarians and then rarely following through on their promises. The clearest change that the Tea Party created was to empower the Theocratic/States Rightist wing of the GOP. They are now in the driver's seat.
Rand Paul might be the most dangerous candidate for the Democrats in 2016, not because he's a good politician. I think his political skills are pretty average to below average. But because he represents the Libertarian wing of the party that is ONLY outreach the GOP has to younger voters.
Hillary Clinton is a poor outreach to the glibetarian youth for a number of reasons.
But if the GOP nominates a Theocrat - and I would guess that they will - the fault lines between those Libertarians who support legalized pot and marriage equality will find it hard to continue to support a party whose head and heart reside firmly in the 1950s.
Now, presumably people who normally get posts from Cato would describe themselves as Libertarian. So, presumably the majority of people commenting in the thread would describe themselves as Libertarian.
Yet what was fascinating was how theocratic the thread was. Cato came out roughly in support of marriage equality because that's consistent with libertarian thought. The thread was populated by people who were saying that America was a Christian nation, inspired by Christian thought. There were a few people with just messed up interpretations of the Constitution (state's rightists, mostly). But most were making moral and religious judgments.
Personally, I can think of nothing less compatible than theocrats and libertarians. Yet apparently quite a few theocrats are supporters of Cato.
The rancor of the theocrats towards the Cato post shows the fragility of the old Reagan Coalition. Not only are the various constituents of that coalition getting older and proportionally smaller, but some are also coming to see the contradictions in their mutual support for a GOP agenda that doesn't serve their ends.
For years, it was the Wall Street Republicans and Neocons enlisting the votes of the Theocrats and Libertarians and then rarely following through on their promises. The clearest change that the Tea Party created was to empower the Theocratic/States Rightist wing of the GOP. They are now in the driver's seat.
Rand Paul might be the most dangerous candidate for the Democrats in 2016, not because he's a good politician. I think his political skills are pretty average to below average. But because he represents the Libertarian wing of the party that is ONLY outreach the GOP has to younger voters.
Hillary Clinton is a poor outreach to the glibetarian youth for a number of reasons.
But if the GOP nominates a Theocrat - and I would guess that they will - the fault lines between those Libertarians who support legalized pot and marriage equality will find it hard to continue to support a party whose head and heart reside firmly in the 1950s.
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Kind Of A Big Deal
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/20/us/presbyterians-vote-to-change-definition-of-marriage-to-two-people.html?emc=edit_th_20140620&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=65366937&_r=2
The Presbyterian Church is going to allow ministers to conduct same sex marriage in states where it is legal. With all respect to the Quakers and Unitarians, this is the first major protestant church to make this move.
No doubt a few more Presbyterian congregations will leave the US church (is there a Presbyterian church in Uganda they can join), but overall that seems a small price to pay.
One of the best results of the disestablishment of religion in the US 220 years ago is that it allowed for a multiplicity of faiths to emerge, thrive, die out or survive. While most Americans are "Christian" there are so many different flavors that you can't really talk about a unified, central Christian church in America. The Baptists? The Unitarians? Mormons? Episcopalians? Pentecostals? Methodists? Presbyterians? Quakers? Jehovah's Witnesses? Seventh Day Adventists?
Catholics? Jews? Orthodox, Conservative or Reform? Muslims? Sunni, Shia or Sufi? Buddhists? Mahayan, Theravada or Zen? Hindu?
The very reason that religion in America is thriving relative to the rest of the post-industrial world is that Americans have the freedom to worship as they please. I remember during the debate over ordaining Eugene Robinson as a bishop in the Episcopal church, my pastor said of those who threatened to bolt the church if an openly gay man was made a bishop, "Let them go. Not out of spite, but out of respect for the difference in opinion we have."
Religious pluralism is essential to healthy civic life. Don't believe me, look at at the Middle East. Look at Iraq and Syria.
If some Presbyterians bolt their church or form a new synod of their own, so be it. Good, in fact.
We approach the mystery of divinity in so many ways, it's impossible to proscribe one approach without being a tyrant. This realization is what makes Pope Francis such as awesome pope. He understands that faith cannot be about rules, but about service and love.
This is something that the Taliban and ISIS and the mullahs of Iran and - yes - conservative American Christians don't seem to understand.
I used to watch this old British comedy sketch show - I can't even recall the name - that came on late at night. At the end of the show, the host - who I imagine was Irish - would sign off with a simple benediction: "May your god go with you."
Only by acknowledging that can we have peace on earth and good will towards men and women.
The Presbyterian Church is going to allow ministers to conduct same sex marriage in states where it is legal. With all respect to the Quakers and Unitarians, this is the first major protestant church to make this move.
No doubt a few more Presbyterian congregations will leave the US church (is there a Presbyterian church in Uganda they can join), but overall that seems a small price to pay.
One of the best results of the disestablishment of religion in the US 220 years ago is that it allowed for a multiplicity of faiths to emerge, thrive, die out or survive. While most Americans are "Christian" there are so many different flavors that you can't really talk about a unified, central Christian church in America. The Baptists? The Unitarians? Mormons? Episcopalians? Pentecostals? Methodists? Presbyterians? Quakers? Jehovah's Witnesses? Seventh Day Adventists?
Catholics? Jews? Orthodox, Conservative or Reform? Muslims? Sunni, Shia or Sufi? Buddhists? Mahayan, Theravada or Zen? Hindu?
The very reason that religion in America is thriving relative to the rest of the post-industrial world is that Americans have the freedom to worship as they please. I remember during the debate over ordaining Eugene Robinson as a bishop in the Episcopal church, my pastor said of those who threatened to bolt the church if an openly gay man was made a bishop, "Let them go. Not out of spite, but out of respect for the difference in opinion we have."
Religious pluralism is essential to healthy civic life. Don't believe me, look at at the Middle East. Look at Iraq and Syria.
If some Presbyterians bolt their church or form a new synod of their own, so be it. Good, in fact.
We approach the mystery of divinity in so many ways, it's impossible to proscribe one approach without being a tyrant. This realization is what makes Pope Francis such as awesome pope. He understands that faith cannot be about rules, but about service and love.
This is something that the Taliban and ISIS and the mullahs of Iran and - yes - conservative American Christians don't seem to understand.
I used to watch this old British comedy sketch show - I can't even recall the name - that came on late at night. At the end of the show, the host - who I imagine was Irish - would sign off with a simple benediction: "May your god go with you."
Only by acknowledging that can we have peace on earth and good will towards men and women.
Friday, June 20, 2014
What A Dick
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/dick-cheney-iraq
Dick Cheney's recent emesis spewed upon the pages of the Wall Street Journal has prompted some vigorous reactions.
TBogg, for instance, wishes that the former Vice President and current undead creature of the night would STFU already. Jon Chait suggests that we should hear more from Cheney, since cutting of debate is as unhealthy as Cheney's withered heart.
In the past year, Obama has given up on the idealistic and naive position he took back at the 2004 convention when he gave his face keynote address. He has come to see that the GOP's basic position has been to reject any and all compromise, that they are a clown car of obstructionist, nullifiers and crackpots.
Which is what makes his decision in 2008 not to prosecute Cheney, Addington, Yoo and the other creators of the torture regime all the more regrettable.
Now, it's been pretty clear that the GOP has been trying to force a Democrat from the White House ever since Watergate. They want their own Nixon-type scalp. Hence the bizarre Benghazi fetishists. And if Obama were to prosecute Cheney and his coven of torture enthusiasts, you can be damned sure that the next GOP President would prosecute Obama for forging his birth certificate and insuring millions of Americans.
But at some point, the rule of law should apply to the Dick Cheney's of the world. He remains among the foulest creations that American politics has retched up. A product of the Nixon/Ford White House, a coward who advocated for Vietnam while seeking out deferments and imperialist executive absolutist who abhors the nature of checks and balances.
And the man probably most responsible for getting us into Iraq.
Most figures in history have some redeeming qualities. Nixon gave us the EPA and opened China. Reagan saved Social Security and embraced immigration reform. Dubya... I dunno, Medicare Plan D? He has been great on AIDS in Africa.
But Cheney has added nothing to the history of this country but shame, bloodshed and ignominy.
And he should be behind bars.
Dick Cheney's recent emesis spewed upon the pages of the Wall Street Journal has prompted some vigorous reactions.
TBogg, for instance, wishes that the former Vice President and current undead creature of the night would STFU already. Jon Chait suggests that we should hear more from Cheney, since cutting of debate is as unhealthy as Cheney's withered heart.
In the past year, Obama has given up on the idealistic and naive position he took back at the 2004 convention when he gave his face keynote address. He has come to see that the GOP's basic position has been to reject any and all compromise, that they are a clown car of obstructionist, nullifiers and crackpots.
Which is what makes his decision in 2008 not to prosecute Cheney, Addington, Yoo and the other creators of the torture regime all the more regrettable.
Now, it's been pretty clear that the GOP has been trying to force a Democrat from the White House ever since Watergate. They want their own Nixon-type scalp. Hence the bizarre Benghazi fetishists. And if Obama were to prosecute Cheney and his coven of torture enthusiasts, you can be damned sure that the next GOP President would prosecute Obama for forging his birth certificate and insuring millions of Americans.
But at some point, the rule of law should apply to the Dick Cheney's of the world. He remains among the foulest creations that American politics has retched up. A product of the Nixon/Ford White House, a coward who advocated for Vietnam while seeking out deferments and imperialist executive absolutist who abhors the nature of checks and balances.
And the man probably most responsible for getting us into Iraq.
Most figures in history have some redeeming qualities. Nixon gave us the EPA and opened China. Reagan saved Social Security and embraced immigration reform. Dubya... I dunno, Medicare Plan D? He has been great on AIDS in Africa.
But Cheney has added nothing to the history of this country but shame, bloodshed and ignominy.
And he should be behind bars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)