Vote for America's future. Vote Green.
Monday, June 04, 2012
Bill Riales and Devon Walsh, go fuck yourselves.
I was watching WKRG 5 this morning when Bill Riales and the lovely Devon Walsh were discussing this story from Al Jazeera about the torture of prisoners at Guantanimo Bay. They laughed as though amused when they talked about the Elmo Song, among others, being used to torture prisoners. I agree. It's hilarious that the government, in our name, did the very things we have bombed cities and toppled governments over. It's deeply amusing that we have grossly violated Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, time and again. I can't stop laughing because our government, most notoriously under George W. Bush, violated Article VI (b) of the Nuremberg principles. I am shitting myself laughing because our nation, in this error-plagued "War on Terror", has systematically violated Articles 5 through 11, inclusive, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I mention all of these because these are our legal documents or international laws we have voted to support. It's the funniest fucking thing I've ever heard in my entire goddamned life!
During and after World War II, we treated our German and Japanese prisoners humanely, no matter what atrocities they may have ordered or supported, and ultimately got a lot of good intelligence from them. We didn't torture them. We interrogated them while holding true to our deepest, most precious principles, and this was before all of the international agreements listed above ever came into existence, though not before the Eighth Amendment, which itself was based on the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Part of that reason was principle, but part of that reason was the inaccuracy and utter worthlessness of "intel" based on torture. When one is tortured enough, eventually, he or she will say anything to make it stop. I disagree fundamentally with most of what Senator John McCain has said and done in his lengthy, undistinguished career. However, he has been a consistent moral voice against torture, based on his own experiences as a POW in Vietnam. We used to be a better nation than we now are. There was a time not too long ago that we would not have stood for this behavior, that we would have been horrified by that which has been done in our name, and when we would have risen up and demanded that those responsible be held accountable in a court of law. These are laws and principles that have been part of the governance of the United States and its predecessor colonies for over three centuries, and we have tossed them away so people could feel more "safe", without regard to the effectiveness of torture or the permanent stain this will leave on this nation's soul. If, as the Christians believe, this is "one nation under God," I ask them what type of god would support endless torture and indefinite detentions without hope of access to justice. I ask them what god would support the use of loud music for days on end, or waterboarding, or electric shocks, or the export of torture to those regimes who are even better at it than we are. I'm sorry. That last bit is euphemistically called "extraordinary rendition," except that's a lie just like "enhanced interrogation." They're both more properly called "exporting torture" and "torture." I ask them what type of god wept at the torture of His Son, yet smiles when thinking about the torture of His children, who in their world view, all humans are. To all who would support the use of torture in the name of a god, I say your god is none other than Satan, the irony being that LaVeyan Satanism is deeply influenced by the works of Nietzsche and Ayn Rand, the current darlings of the "Christian" Right. To all who would support the use of torture, I say your god is dead, and you killed Him through your hypocrisy and lies.
So, in closing, Bill Riales and Devon Walsh, go fuck yourselves. For the rest of us, we're already fucked.
Saturday, June 02, 2012
An amazing new artist, Arkasia
While I still like hard rock, metal, and related genres, lately, my tastes have run more towards trance and other forms of electronic music, mostly dubstep/Drum and Bass. This is an artist I just discovered about an hour ago. I've never heard of him before, but damn! That Frenchman is an artist! Enjoy.
Edit: The following quote is repeated in the above track, and it's worth reading. It was supposedly penned by President Abraham Lincoln in a letter to Colonel William Elkins, but the proof is thin. According to Snopes, this "quote" first appeared more than 20 years after his death, Regardless, it's an intriguing point, and regardless of its origin, it sounds an awful lot like what we've seen in the last two or three decades. Still, I think it was probably more an observation of what was happening in the 1880s-1890s than a prophecy of what was to come. This is food for thought, and I am very much nomming on it.
"The money power preys upon the nation in time of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the republic is destroyed."
Edit: The following quote is repeated in the above track, and it's worth reading. It was supposedly penned by President Abraham Lincoln in a letter to Colonel William Elkins, but the proof is thin. According to Snopes, this "quote" first appeared more than 20 years after his death, Regardless, it's an intriguing point, and regardless of its origin, it sounds an awful lot like what we've seen in the last two or three decades. Still, I think it was probably more an observation of what was happening in the 1880s-1890s than a prophecy of what was to come. This is food for thought, and I am very much nomming on it.
"The money power preys upon the nation in time of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the republic is destroyed."
Friday, June 01, 2012
Thinking about green, not thinking Green.
It would be easy to think I switched everything to a green color scheme because of my change in political leanings. It would be easy, but wrong. Green's just been one of my favorite colors for as long as I can remember, along with blue. It could be that's just the way I'm wired, or maybe it's because of the beautiful, lush greenery everywhere I look on the Gulf Coast and the blue of the water here, even if I think Pensacola is prettier. Green is life. Cyanobacteria are blue-green, and they helped make life as we know it possible by liberating oxygen through photosynthesis. I think of the green of the golden watermelon I bought that was grown a county or two away in Mississippi, the green of the tomato plants and okra we had in our garden when I was a kid, and even the green of the kudzu that grows many places here. I think of the green the lawn we have to cut twice weekly in the summer, and the blue of the sky after a nasty thunderstorm. There is a lot wrong with Alabama, including my hometown, but nevertheless, I still love it for reasons I can't begin to understand, let alone express.
I know this is a dramatic shift from my previous posts, but this was just bubbling in my heart today. I had to express this, because this is who I am, and this is how I feel.
Click here for the Natalie Imbruglia video that last paragraph brought to mind. Looking back on it, 1997 was not that bad a year, compared to many that have followed. I miss the innocence this nation had somehow managed to retain even then.
I know this is a dramatic shift from my previous posts, but this was just bubbling in my heart today. I had to express this, because this is who I am, and this is how I feel.
Click here for the Natalie Imbruglia video that last paragraph brought to mind. Looking back on it, 1997 was not that bad a year, compared to many that have followed. I miss the innocence this nation had somehow managed to retain even then.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Tennessee Mosque Lawsuit: Chancellor Robert Corlew should be disbarred
This is a simple matter of religious freedom. Muslims have the same right to worship as they see fit as Baptists and other faiths. This building and this congregation, during its construction, has been the victim of arson and vandalism based on the same type of hatred that led to the 9/11 Attacks, and I find it particularly disgusting that those responsible either don't see that or simply don't care. Also, contractors have been threatened as a result of this, which is sickening.
Quote from ABC: "Imam Osama Bahloul, leader of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, said early Wednesday morning. "We did exactly what other churches in the county did. We followed the same process that other churches did. Why did this happen? Some people feel like it is discrimination."
Quote from ABC: "Imam Osama Bahloul, leader of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, said early Wednesday morning. "We did exactly what other churches in the county did. We followed the same process that other churches did. Why did this happen? Some people feel like it is discrimination."
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
A detailed critique of the Green Party Platform, conclusion
The previous disclaimers apply, so I won't repeat them. I agree with III.F, so I'll start with the next thing that requires my commentary. Once more into the breach:
III.H.5: Since most toothpaste is now fluoridated, the goal of reducing periodontal disease no longer requires fluoridating our water supply. While I agree with their goal, it is for different reasons than those they stated.
III.I.6: I agree with this stance until they get to irradiation and genetic engineering. Irradiation of food to kill harmful viruses and bacteria, as long as it stays within safe levels, is not inherently bad. In fact, it can lead to increased food safety and a reduction of suffering. Also, I hate harping on GMOs, but it's about intent and responsibility. Billions of people worldwide, mainly in the developing world, do not consume enough vitamin A, and golden rice, a GMO, could easily address that problem. Roundup Ready GMOs, however, are a cause for concern. That said, we should follow where the science leads us instead of allowing blind ideology to get in the way of feeding the poor and hungry, and I'm glad they finally expressed a similar sentiment in III.I.14.
III.J.10: I support this only insofar as it does not prevent the development of organ cloning for those who need replacement organs. We have a shortage of organs and donors, and the effect of antirejection drugs is a risk to the lives of these very sick people. Corporations are not inherently evil. When they engage in good science, such as this, lives are saved. Instead, I would focus on protections against price gouging, though with the universal healthcare the Green Party and I support, this would at least not be a burden to the patients.
III.K.1: While animal testing of drugs in development is not preferred, sometimes, it is inescapable. The first organ transplants, for example, were performed on animals, and how many lives have been saved since? Animal experimentation should be limited only to those cases where there are no viable non-animal alternatives and the treatment involves saving or significantly improving the quality of life for people.
III.K.2: By dissecting dead animals, students learn things they may not in any other way. The focus should be on the humane sacrifice of animals and the respectful treatment of the same.
I agree with pretty much all of Chapter IV, with the repeated caveat that real science should be the metric for technological advancement, not ideological alarmism.
Final notes: I don't agree with every one of their stances on the issues, as evidenced by these posts. As I've read their platform, I've even seen places where earlier concerns and ideas were echoed in later chapters. However, I think they have a lot of good, rational ideas and some real solutions for what ails us as a nation and as a planet.
III.H.5: Since most toothpaste is now fluoridated, the goal of reducing periodontal disease no longer requires fluoridating our water supply. While I agree with their goal, it is for different reasons than those they stated.
III.I.6: I agree with this stance until they get to irradiation and genetic engineering. Irradiation of food to kill harmful viruses and bacteria, as long as it stays within safe levels, is not inherently bad. In fact, it can lead to increased food safety and a reduction of suffering. Also, I hate harping on GMOs, but it's about intent and responsibility. Billions of people worldwide, mainly in the developing world, do not consume enough vitamin A, and golden rice, a GMO, could easily address that problem. Roundup Ready GMOs, however, are a cause for concern. That said, we should follow where the science leads us instead of allowing blind ideology to get in the way of feeding the poor and hungry, and I'm glad they finally expressed a similar sentiment in III.I.14.
III.J.10: I support this only insofar as it does not prevent the development of organ cloning for those who need replacement organs. We have a shortage of organs and donors, and the effect of antirejection drugs is a risk to the lives of these very sick people. Corporations are not inherently evil. When they engage in good science, such as this, lives are saved. Instead, I would focus on protections against price gouging, though with the universal healthcare the Green Party and I support, this would at least not be a burden to the patients.
III.K.1: While animal testing of drugs in development is not preferred, sometimes, it is inescapable. The first organ transplants, for example, were performed on animals, and how many lives have been saved since? Animal experimentation should be limited only to those cases where there are no viable non-animal alternatives and the treatment involves saving or significantly improving the quality of life for people.
III.K.2: By dissecting dead animals, students learn things they may not in any other way. The focus should be on the humane sacrifice of animals and the respectful treatment of the same.
I agree with pretty much all of Chapter IV, with the repeated caveat that real science should be the metric for technological advancement, not ideological alarmism.
Final notes: I don't agree with every one of their stances on the issues, as evidenced by these posts. As I've read their platform, I've even seen places where earlier concerns and ideas were echoed in later chapters. However, I think they have a lot of good, rational ideas and some real solutions for what ails us as a nation and as a planet.
A detailed critique of the Green Party Platform, part 2
In the last installment, I stopped with Article II, Section D. In keeping with the precedent set earlier today, the sections I reference will be listed thusly (Article).(Section).(Subsection).(Paragraph).(etc.), so Article II, Section D, Subsection 1 would be listed as II.D.1. Any portion of this platform that is not listed has my full agreement. Now, on with the show:
II.F.preamble: While I agree with the spirit of this preamble, I would restrict health care expenditures to those treatments that are proven to work. There should be some rational, scientific basis for whatever is being done to treat the patient. For example, a dietitian would qualify if such is needed for the patient, while a naturopath would not, as their activities are often based on pseudoscience. Chiropractic therapy and acupuncture would be acceptable if recommended by a Medical Doctor.
II.F.2: While I also hope for a cure for AIDS/HIV, the only successful means for controlling viruses, from the beginning of our understanding, has been vaccination. While I think a "cure" is unlikely, it is reasonable and good to hope for a day when it becomes a chronic condition not unlike diabetes.
III.A.14: I would add the caveat that we have been genetically modifying food for millennia with no harm. Golden rice and other foods designed to deal with serious nutritional deficiencies among the poorest should be celebrated, not opposed with anti-scientific ranting. However, GMO's designed to make foods more tolerant to pesticides and others that may have a deleterious effect on the environment should be opposed. In short, add rational thought to the process. The question should not be "GMOs or organic". It should be "responsible GMOs AND organic." Until that day, the focus should be on harm reduction. Pesticides aren't necessarily evil, but they should be used sparingly, much like antibiotics.
III.B.3.f: I would add that algae sources of biofuels should be aggressively pursued. Once commercially viable, these would, at the very least, be carbon neutral without endangering the food supply.
Well, that gets me through page 48 of this 71 page document. I will continue with more as time permits, starting with III.F if I have any commentary on that section.
II.F.preamble: While I agree with the spirit of this preamble, I would restrict health care expenditures to those treatments that are proven to work. There should be some rational, scientific basis for whatever is being done to treat the patient. For example, a dietitian would qualify if such is needed for the patient, while a naturopath would not, as their activities are often based on pseudoscience. Chiropractic therapy and acupuncture would be acceptable if recommended by a Medical Doctor.
II.F.2: While I also hope for a cure for AIDS/HIV, the only successful means for controlling viruses, from the beginning of our understanding, has been vaccination. While I think a "cure" is unlikely, it is reasonable and good to hope for a day when it becomes a chronic condition not unlike diabetes.
III.A.14: I would add the caveat that we have been genetically modifying food for millennia with no harm. Golden rice and other foods designed to deal with serious nutritional deficiencies among the poorest should be celebrated, not opposed with anti-scientific ranting. However, GMO's designed to make foods more tolerant to pesticides and others that may have a deleterious effect on the environment should be opposed. In short, add rational thought to the process. The question should not be "GMOs or organic". It should be "responsible GMOs AND organic." Until that day, the focus should be on harm reduction. Pesticides aren't necessarily evil, but they should be used sparingly, much like antibiotics.
III.B.3.f: I would add that algae sources of biofuels should be aggressively pursued. Once commercially viable, these would, at the very least, be carbon neutral without endangering the food supply.
Well, that gets me through page 48 of this 71 page document. I will continue with more as time permits, starting with III.F if I have any commentary on that section.
A detailed critique of the Green Party platform of 2010, Part I
I'm going with that one because it's the only one they have posted. For clarity, I'll list them in the following manner: (Article).(section).(subsection).(clause).(etc.). So, without preamble, here it is:
I.E.6: I disagree fundamentally with the Green Party stance on Puerto Rico. Frankly, it smacks of the same arrogance shown when they were annexed in 1898. If the Puerto Rican people want independence, fine. However, if they want to maintain the status quo or be granted full statehood, let them. Our actions on the mainland should strictly be in support of whatever decision the Puerto Rican people make. That said, I support the environmental cleanup of Vieques and Culebra, as not only it is just, it is simply the right thing to do.
I.F.1: It's next to impossible to fake a crime scene as large as the World Trade Centers, Pentagon, and the field in Pennsylvania. Also, frankly, such talk presupposes a far greater level of competence than we ever saw from the Bush II Administration. Such efforts would be better spent on investigating the profiteering that has occurred in the years since 9/11.
I.G.2: Instead of reducing human-staffed space exploration, I want to see a greatly increased human staffing of space exploration, but I want it to be true exploration. I want to see manned teams on Mars and elsewhere in the Solar System to look for evidence of current or former life. Mars is a great first step on the way to Europa and other places of interest.
II.A.1.b: A list system would probably be the best way to accomplish that, similar to The Netherlands and other Western democracies.
II.A.1.n: Any actions that address the concerns of domestic violence should also acknowledge and address male victims of domestic violence, and they should include robust protections for the rights of the accused in full accordance with the Bill of Rights.
II.A.2.d.ii: Point of order, really. Those have already been repealed by virtue of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
II.A.4: The Hawaiian people have long since decided to join the United States. While I support the preservation of Hawaiian culture, by and large, they're already there.
II.C: To accomplish that goal, I see no harm in taking the wage limit off of collection of Social Security premiums, and frankly, a needs test would also be just. Someone with a net worth of $10 million or more wouldn't notice the addition of the Social Security check. This should be for those who need the help, much like automobile insurance only pays out to those who get in a wreck.
I agree with Article II, Section D, except I would use the means listed above instead of a negative income tax. That's it for now. I'll say more as time permits.
I.E.6: I disagree fundamentally with the Green Party stance on Puerto Rico. Frankly, it smacks of the same arrogance shown when they were annexed in 1898. If the Puerto Rican people want independence, fine. However, if they want to maintain the status quo or be granted full statehood, let them. Our actions on the mainland should strictly be in support of whatever decision the Puerto Rican people make. That said, I support the environmental cleanup of Vieques and Culebra, as not only it is just, it is simply the right thing to do.
I.F.1: It's next to impossible to fake a crime scene as large as the World Trade Centers, Pentagon, and the field in Pennsylvania. Also, frankly, such talk presupposes a far greater level of competence than we ever saw from the Bush II Administration. Such efforts would be better spent on investigating the profiteering that has occurred in the years since 9/11.
I.G.2: Instead of reducing human-staffed space exploration, I want to see a greatly increased human staffing of space exploration, but I want it to be true exploration. I want to see manned teams on Mars and elsewhere in the Solar System to look for evidence of current or former life. Mars is a great first step on the way to Europa and other places of interest.
II.A.1.b: A list system would probably be the best way to accomplish that, similar to The Netherlands and other Western democracies.
II.A.1.n: Any actions that address the concerns of domestic violence should also acknowledge and address male victims of domestic violence, and they should include robust protections for the rights of the accused in full accordance with the Bill of Rights.
II.A.2.d.ii: Point of order, really. Those have already been repealed by virtue of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
II.A.4: The Hawaiian people have long since decided to join the United States. While I support the preservation of Hawaiian culture, by and large, they're already there.
II.C: To accomplish that goal, I see no harm in taking the wage limit off of collection of Social Security premiums, and frankly, a needs test would also be just. Someone with a net worth of $10 million or more wouldn't notice the addition of the Social Security check. This should be for those who need the help, much like automobile insurance only pays out to those who get in a wreck.
I agree with Article II, Section D, except I would use the means listed above instead of a negative income tax. That's it for now. I'll say more as time permits.
Monday, May 28, 2012
A change in party affiliation
Perhaps I should have put the words "Spoiler Alert" up there, but I've done some soul searching recently. My beliefs no longer mesh with the Democratic Party in its current incarnation as a center-right party. So, I took one of those online quiz things, and it had a rational basis for saying my views mostly agreed with the Greens. Not trusting a quiz for much more than entertainment purposes, I then went to the Green Party website and took a long, hard look at their platform, and found I agree with pretty much all of it, with only a smattering of minor disagreements. I also looked up Dr. Jill Stein's campaign page, and while it was far thinner than I would have liked, I did catch a CNN interview she did. She and they make a lot of sense. For the Ron Paul fanatics, these guys really are what they mistakenly think he is. They have some serious ideas and real solutions for what ails this country.
I will still vote for Democrats when they have a realistic chance against a GOP candidate, or when the only other option is voting for a GOP candidate, because center-right is still far better than voting for fascists. However, if there is a Green Party alternative and the Democratic Party candidate stands less than a snowball's chance in Hell, which is not uncommon in Alabama, I'll vote for that candidate. Of course, if a Green Party candidate has a legitimate chance at winning a race, that would be ideal, and I will give that candidate my full support. Before this, I had been under the mistaken impression that the nearest political party that met my needs was in Canada, the New Democratic Party. I'm quite pleased to find that is not the case, though I wish the Greens had more support.
I hope you are all doing well.
I will still vote for Democrats when they have a realistic chance against a GOP candidate, or when the only other option is voting for a GOP candidate, because center-right is still far better than voting for fascists. However, if there is a Green Party alternative and the Democratic Party candidate stands less than a snowball's chance in Hell, which is not uncommon in Alabama, I'll vote for that candidate. Of course, if a Green Party candidate has a legitimate chance at winning a race, that would be ideal, and I will give that candidate my full support. Before this, I had been under the mistaken impression that the nearest political party that met my needs was in Canada, the New Democratic Party. I'm quite pleased to find that is not the case, though I wish the Greens had more support.
I hope you are all doing well.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Year four for Obama: Time for the report card.
If you're the type to wash the balls of those in power, you'll probably be offended. If you want an honest critique, you've come to the right place.
Civil Rights: A. Between his tireless efforts to work with Congress to repeal DADT and his refusal to defend DOMA, citing states rights grounds as one of his many justifications (chortle), I don't see how he can possibly get less than an A on this one. Also, we can't forget his efforts to push the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
Civil Liberties: D-. I'm being generous on this one simply because he's slightly better than Dubya. His expansion of the powers of the TSA/Homeland Security in ways that run deeply afoul of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution demand nothing less than this score. Largely, he has continued our descent into a police state that began under Bush. The sole mitigating factor is that he has done so less than those on his right would have. Topper Harley, you're the best of what's left.
Immigration: D-. Again, I have to compare him to the alternative to get this score. He has proven every bit as aggressive as Dubya when dealing with immigrants, without whom our nation's population would have decreased in the last decade, a state that would have caused all sorts of problems. Still, he's far less rabid than the alternative.
Drug policy: C-. He has not been as aggressive with the medical marijuana dispensaries as he could have been. That said, he's been fairly aggressive.
Economy, including those who are the poorest: A. Given the Tea Taliban faction of the GOP blocking everything he proposes, what he has managed to accomplish is remarkable. It's not enough, but I don't think many could have done more as long as the filibuster still exists. Of particular note are his work to extend unemployment insurance for those who need it and his work to save people's mortgages.
Environment: B, and Women's Rights: B. See above.
Foreign policy: B-. He's at least started to pull us out of our unnecessary wars, which is more than any GOP candidate would have done. Also, he is willing to use diplomacy as a tool, instead of first going to the military. That said, his use of drone strikes, especially against American citizens, sets a questionable and dangerous precedent.
Health care reform: A. In light of the challenges he has faced and continues to face, the fact he was able to pass anything is remarkable. Also, I like most portions of the PPACA. That said, I still hope for single-payer one day.
Since the areas I weight highest are also his biggest weaknesses, I give him an overall score of C+. He's a former professor of constitutional law, for Christ's sake. When I voted for him, I had hopes he would respect it more than he has. That said, he's far better than Mittens.
Civil Rights: A. Between his tireless efforts to work with Congress to repeal DADT and his refusal to defend DOMA, citing states rights grounds as one of his many justifications (chortle), I don't see how he can possibly get less than an A on this one. Also, we can't forget his efforts to push the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
Civil Liberties: D-. I'm being generous on this one simply because he's slightly better than Dubya. His expansion of the powers of the TSA/Homeland Security in ways that run deeply afoul of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution demand nothing less than this score. Largely, he has continued our descent into a police state that began under Bush. The sole mitigating factor is that he has done so less than those on his right would have. Topper Harley, you're the best of what's left.
Immigration: D-. Again, I have to compare him to the alternative to get this score. He has proven every bit as aggressive as Dubya when dealing with immigrants, without whom our nation's population would have decreased in the last decade, a state that would have caused all sorts of problems. Still, he's far less rabid than the alternative.
Drug policy: C-. He has not been as aggressive with the medical marijuana dispensaries as he could have been. That said, he's been fairly aggressive.
Economy, including those who are the poorest: A. Given the Tea Taliban faction of the GOP blocking everything he proposes, what he has managed to accomplish is remarkable. It's not enough, but I don't think many could have done more as long as the filibuster still exists. Of particular note are his work to extend unemployment insurance for those who need it and his work to save people's mortgages.
Environment: B, and Women's Rights: B. See above.
Foreign policy: B-. He's at least started to pull us out of our unnecessary wars, which is more than any GOP candidate would have done. Also, he is willing to use diplomacy as a tool, instead of first going to the military. That said, his use of drone strikes, especially against American citizens, sets a questionable and dangerous precedent.
Health care reform: A. In light of the challenges he has faced and continues to face, the fact he was able to pass anything is remarkable. Also, I like most portions of the PPACA. That said, I still hope for single-payer one day.
Since the areas I weight highest are also his biggest weaknesses, I give him an overall score of C+. He's a former professor of constitutional law, for Christ's sake. When I voted for him, I had hopes he would respect it more than he has. That said, he's far better than Mittens.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Luke 12:48, bane to "Christian" conservatives
I know this is bizarre for an avowed, if closeted, atheist, but it's sometimes necessary to look at what one's opponents really believe.
"For unto whomever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." The first half of this has to do with punishing servants, yet aren't these "Christian" conservatives claiming to be servants of God? Also, they believe in Hell, and some believe in Purgatory. Also, they believe in Leviticus when it suits them, hence their insane stance against gay marriage and often abject hatred of the entire LGBT community. How about Leviticus 19:18, "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD." This was reiterated in Matthew 22:39 and elsewhere should they then say "oh, it's the OLD Testament. Most of it doesn't apply these days."
I think about Mitt Romney and his time as a vulture capitalist. I think about the people he was "good at firing" and his net worth in the low 9 figures, and I wonder how many children could be fed for 1/4 that, or how many people could have affordable health care if he were taxed as heavily as the working class. I say working class because there is no middle class worth mentioning any more. Unto whom much is given, of him shall much be required, yet he and his allies have done everything they could, by lobbying and by working to get friendly legislators elected to avoid just that.
I close with a quote by Gandhi: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Having been raised in the same faith as Romney, Luke 12:48 is one of those lessons that has stuck with me. It was something I remember being discussed often through my childhood and teen years. Looking at Romney, Santorum, and what a colossal dick he is (Sorry Charles P. Pierce, but it's a great line), and their fellow fringe-dwellers, I like their Christ, and I don't like those Christians, because they are so unlike their Christ.
"For unto whomever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." The first half of this has to do with punishing servants, yet aren't these "Christian" conservatives claiming to be servants of God? Also, they believe in Hell, and some believe in Purgatory. Also, they believe in Leviticus when it suits them, hence their insane stance against gay marriage and often abject hatred of the entire LGBT community. How about Leviticus 19:18, "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD." This was reiterated in Matthew 22:39 and elsewhere should they then say "oh, it's the OLD Testament. Most of it doesn't apply these days."
I think about Mitt Romney and his time as a vulture capitalist. I think about the people he was "good at firing" and his net worth in the low 9 figures, and I wonder how many children could be fed for 1/4 that, or how many people could have affordable health care if he were taxed as heavily as the working class. I say working class because there is no middle class worth mentioning any more. Unto whom much is given, of him shall much be required, yet he and his allies have done everything they could, by lobbying and by working to get friendly legislators elected to avoid just that.
I close with a quote by Gandhi: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Having been raised in the same faith as Romney, Luke 12:48 is one of those lessons that has stuck with me. It was something I remember being discussed often through my childhood and teen years. Looking at Romney, Santorum, and what a colossal dick he is (Sorry Charles P. Pierce, but it's a great line), and their fellow fringe-dwellers, I like their Christ, and I don't like those Christians, because they are so unlike their Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)