chaff.aeaeae.net

If you’re like me, every once in a while, between blustering about it, you ask yourself critically why we’re arguing about such stupid topics. If you’re not, you’re probably one of the ones pressing the argument. It’s true. The American public is ridiculously easily distracted by irrelevance in politics. The issues put before us may be emotionally compelling (gay marriage & “sanctity of life”), but they are more often than not shoved under our noses to distract us from real problems (war, the economy). What results is a situation in which the American public spends more time busy-bodying (or arguing about it)- meddling in the affairs of others for the sake of building a world we’re only slightly more comfortable in- than focussing on what matters.

We could learn a few things from the Europeans. They aren’t arguing about teaching good science in schools (evolution), or the legitimacy of human-caused climate change (they accept it as truth, because it is universally agreed upon by the scientific elite). Why should this matter to us? Why would we consider living by example? Call it respecting your elders. Cities and countries ravaged by devastating wars? Been there. Forests ravaged by industry (acid rain)? Been there. Whole peoples ravaged by disagreements about religion? Been there. Massive disagreements about how to govern? Also been there.

But, Gore Vidal aptly describes the US as “the United States of Amnesia”. We can’t even learn from our own past, let alone the legacy of our European ancestors. Just like children, our comparatively young country insists on learning through experience. (And, promptly forgetting.) For a country that made a book entitled “Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff” a best seller, we sure are pre-occupied with it.

What American political thinking needs is a re-adjustment. Political affiliation to Americans has become like choosing a favorite sports team. We root for them regardless of how idiotic their rhetoric and actions are, no matter how counterproductive that is. For the good of the country, and more importantly for the good of our people, we need to drop the petty partisanship and accept empirical truths: Focus on what really matters, as best as we can agree upon that.

That stated, why are we arguing about things that should be a matter of personal preference, are irrelevant, or are indisputable truths? Because someone wants us to. In the process of adjusting our thinking, it would be very wise of us to ask why.

In truth, I’m no fanboy (girl) of our president, but if there is one thing I hate, it’s hate for the sake of hate. Everyone deserves a chance. Ever since the string of slanderous e-mails I received from rightys comparing Obama to the anti-christ and lying about him supposedly not visiting victims at Ft. Hood, I’ve been trying. In fact, I’ve tried desperately, because I genuinely want to believe that there is some modicum of decency on the right and that the world is really not that crazy. However, there’s a point where you just have to admit reality, and the hard truth is increasingly that there is not, and it is. One wonders in a sea of negativity, anger, and childish antics where the rational voices are.

Obama’s opponents were railing from day one with the birther movement and the assault has continued non-stop. From the violent acts and death threats in response to healthcare reform and the apparent approval of prominent right-wing figures via jokes about violence aimed at liberal politicians, to support for Arizona SB 1070 and racial profiling, declaring a confederate history month (which might be fine except that it includes no mention of slavery), attempting to eliminate negative connotations implied by the term “slave trade” by revising the term to Atlantic Triangular Trade, and Rand Paul’s criticism of the civil rights act (the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree), to calling the president “juvenile” and “thin skinned”, mocking his 11 year-old daughter, rooting for everything to fail while Obama is in office (including cheering when we did not get a bid for the Olympics- something that is good for the country as a whole) and their commitment to shutting the government down and prohibiting progress, voices on the right continue to suggest that at this stage in the game, they’re basically nothing but childish, tantrumming (and potentially downright batshit crazy– the Hutaree, and this guy as examples) stingy, racist bullies.

Yes folks, that is the picture you are painting of yourselves. No wonder the GOP is losing support.

And, the pathetic thing is, this is the best they can do as far as criticisms are concerned. Why? Because frankly, they’ve got a lot to be happy about. Dems caved on the public option. Healtcare reform is a huge win for coporate America. If you need any other proof, consider that when it seemed imminent that the bill would pass, stock in the insurance companies went up. Even Ron Paul is now pointing out that Obama is not a socialist, as the right would so like to claim, but rather a corporatist just like Dubya. This should have some of these guys jumping for joy. Further, consider the relatively favorable response of the right to Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court, who called her predecessor-to-be’s opposition of the usage of tax-payer dollars to fund religious institutions (thus emphasizing the separation of church and state) “ridiculous”. Given the other folks on the short list, she’s a huge win for the right. Then there is the fact that Obama signed off on an extension of the Patriot act (which is a substantial threat to our civil rights but the right still seems to love), and he hasn’t touched gun control.

But, they still keep crying, because just like a child, nothing will ever be right unless it’s exactly their way. The truth seems to be this: the right is so wrapped up in hating Obama and hating liberals that it seems they will pretty much say anything if it reinforces their idea that liberals are just bad people, regardless of if it makes any sense. Take Mona Charen’s claim that “Every liberal initiative, from welfare to antismoking measures, is justified by reference to ‘the children.’ Yet the clear result of liberal policies is to harm children even more than adults.” (Explain to me how anti-smoking measures harm children, Mona?), and Glenn Beck’s recent demonization of the word “empathy” (um, Glenn, “euthanasia” as in what we do for our pets without even a thought when they are suffering is different from “genocide”, and Hitler clearly knew it).

But hey, I hope they keep it up, because they’re cutting their own throats. Despite how appalled I am regarding the number of folks who apparently aren’t, I continue to believe that most Americans are decent folks. Progressives might just have a chance in this climate of xenophobia and hatred. Negative campaigns really only work on the choir and instead tend to be off-putting to the rest of us. No wonder the party is a mess and losing support when they allow such voices to speak for them. And, every time a new article comes out calling the president a whiner or a weakling it just becomes more clear, and the rest of us take you a little less seriously.

This is pathetic and immoral.

Where is the woman’s “right to life”? It’s tremendously ironic that a group of people so worried about “property rights” and “the sanctity of life” fail to acknowledge that a woman’s body is fundamentally her property, and are willing without compunction to further destroy a 10 year-old girl’s life and let a woman die (and likely the fetus with her) rather than give her an abortion and provide cancer treatment. Adult women are not just incubators, they have a right to life too. In defending that right, they are not criminal monsters an unborn cluster of cells must be protected from. They are exercising their fundamental right to do what is right for them, for their health and for the health and welfare of their future offspring.

To be perfectly clear: I’m not arguing for late-term abortion (except in cases where the mother’s life might be in danger), nor that it be used as a form of birth control. We should all be encouraged to take responsibility for our choices and if you don’t want to be pregnant, you can surely figure it out prior to that point. But, I genuinely believe that no woman wants to be put into the position of considering abortion. And, obstructing a young woman in getting access to a legal post-coitus drug after she has been raped and laws such as those that threaten not just women’s but parent’s rights to know if their baby is physically deformed or otherwise compromised so that they can make an informed decision are barbaric, immoral, and unconscionable. Enacting legislation that attempts to guilt women into changing their minds by requiring invasive procedures and dragging things out when they have already struggled with the decision is similarly so… and any law that could be misconstrued to suggest that a woman is a criminal for falling down the stairs is completely, utterly unacceptable.

Even if it doesn’t concern us, we should be concerned. I’ve never had an abortion. I’ll soon be beyond the age when it will matter for me. But, I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again. My body is my property to do with as I please. GET OFF MY LAND!

We dunt need none o’ dat science stuffs!

Maher did some parodies- funny stuff!

“To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places (and there are so many) where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction. And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory.”

-Howard Zinn, historian and author, via the Organic Consumers Association

Okay, not really. I’d missed this spoof on the Huffingtonpost site but it’s a good laugh and worth sharing.

From the December 7-13 Alibi:

Dateline: Colorado– Peace on Earth, goodwill toward men? Not in southwestern Colorado. The Loma Linda homeowner’s association in Pagosa Springs had threatened to fine resident Lisa Jensen every day until she removed a Christmas wreath in the shape of a peace sign. The association in the 200-home subdivision 270 miles southwest of Denver sent a letter to Jensen saying residents were offended by the sign and the board “will not allow signs, flags, etc. that can be considered divisive.” Bob Kearns, president of the homeowners association, said three or four residents complained to him, believing the peace sign to be either an anti-Iraq War protest or a symbol of Satan. Jensen, a past association president, calculated the fines would cost her about $1,000, but refused to remove the wreath until after Christmas. Kearns recently ordered the community’s architectural control committee to require Jensen to remove her wreath. Instead of complying, the three-member committee resigned in protest. The homeowners association has since dropped the fines.

Wow… Just… Wow. Who are these people who think peace is divisive and the peace sign is a symbol of satan… Onward Christian Soldiers!

Hold me, I’m scared! (Really.)

I’m a thoughtful traveler, mostly because I don’t like hassles. Yesterday morning, I got up, painstakingly went through my toiletries, removing anything remotely resembling a “liquid, gel, or aerosol” (or so I thought). In fact, I was concerned enough about it that the day before, I went out and bought cake foundation and left the liquid I usually use behind. Never underestimate the power of fear and ignorance in the hands of the poorly informed though… The most recent terror events have catapulted us to a new level of stupidity. That’s right ladies, they took my mascara.

So I am thinking, I’m not a big makeup wearer… and fortunately, I don’t spend a lot of cash on the products I use, but this event was just stupifyingly, inconceivably ridiculous. The TSA officer looked at the stuff… He didn’t say it, but I could hear it in his demeanor “Strictly by the book, Ma’am!”. Only as an afterthought, after expressing my annoyance am I told I could check it with my bags. (Default mode= trash can.)

Ok, so maybe there’s good reason for this ridiculous rule and it’s not enough that the product itself can be identified as advertised. This morning, I went to the TSA site and did a little research on what supposedly constitutes our newest terrorist threat worthy of confiscating my tiny container of mascara, foiling my clearly insidious plot to remain well groomed. Their list can be found here. I can have 4oz of non-prescription liquid eye drops and cough syrup. (Way more than enough to adequately deal with my non-existent contact lenses or persistent cough, at least for a few days. GG TSA!) However, my 0.35 oz of (non-essential although the masses might disagree) mascara is right out!

A little cursorial digging found me information on acetone peroxide, aka TATP. But, what does this have to do with mascara? I dug a little deeper and found that morpholine, which also reacts with peroxide is a common component in eye makeup (in some countries- as an aside read its effects if you need to be convinced about considering less toxic products). Perhaps this is what we’re worried about?

However, writers for The Register suggest that there is serious doubt as to the feasibility of any plot to create liquid bombs on airplanes utilizing components brought on board by terrorists due to the sheer quantity of components it would require, and time needed to synthesize the explosives themselves were it possible to even get the ingredients on board. My chemistry background isn’t terribly strong, but if I buy this argument, which I am inclined to, it sounds to me like not even an entire plane full of women with mascara in their bags would be enough to gather enough of any potential ingredient which might be useful to terrorists… (Further consider this is not pure morpholine we’d be dealing with, it is only a small component of my 0.35oz tube of mascara… that alone may be enough to render the argument that it’s a dangerous substance for people to be carrying moot.) But hey, if they want to implement a plot along these lines, we might darn well be onto something in terms of ending the terrorist threat! Okay, so we may not want to let the Mary Kay dealer with her gym bag full of tubes if mascara carry it on, but given the aforementioned details this concern remains pretty darned ridiculous. But, to be patently clichè, I digress…

So, where am I going with this? Why in the heck am I spending so much time and energy on something I know I am going to be subject to regardless? 1) I don’t like being messed with unnecessarily; 2) I like to be informed and if I am wrong about thinking something is stupid, I’d like to know that too; 3) I don’t like being subjected to stupid rules arising from knee-jerk reactions based on fear. My objection is this: We all want to be safe… but part of that is not being stupid and knowing how to recognize a genuine threat. I don’t believe for a second that a Ph.D. Chemist would suggest my tube of mascara is insidious. I’d feel substantially more secure if those in charge of my well-being exhibited a genuine ability for free, critical thought. This appears to be sorely lacking in both policy and execution of regulations concerning my safety. Terrorists really have won when poorly thought out policies and rifling through the makeup cases of unsuspecting housewives becomes our solution while we only scan one in how many(?) bags that are placed into the cargo holds of commercial airlines.

Seriously… there’s prudent and then there’s just plain stupid.