Good Reason

It's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to stay wrong.

Category: politics (page 18 of 19)

Bush approval down among Mayan priests

10 March 2007 / / 2 Comments

I view religious ceremonies as purely symbolic, but even so, I’d still say that this one is perhaps intrinsically worthwhile:

Priests to purify site after Bush visit

GUATEMALA CITY – Mayan priests will purify a sacred archaeological site to eliminate “bad spirits” after President Bush visits next week, an official with close ties to the group said Thursday.

“That a person like (Bush), with the persecution of our migrant brothers in the United States, with the wars he has provoked, is going to walk in our sacred lands, is an offense for the Mayan people and their culture,” Juan Tiney, the director of a Mayan nongovernmental organization with close ties to Mayan religious and political leaders, said Thursday.

If only it were that simple — alas, in the USA, the priest class is part of the problem. What’s it going to take to fumigate the USA after FratBoy leaves office?

People of faith

21 February 2007 / / 6 Comments

Part one:

A Pakistani minister and woman’s activist has been shot dead by an Islamic extremist for refusing to wear the veil.

Zilla Huma Usman, the minister for social welfare in Punjab province and an ally of President Pervez Musharraf, was killed as she was about to deliver a speech to dozens of party activists, by a “fanatic”, who believed that she was dressed inappropriately and that women should not be involved in politics, officials said.
…
The gunman, Mohammad Sarwar, was overpowered by the minister’s driver and arrested by police. A stone mason in his mid 40s, he is not thought to belong to any radical group but is known for his fanaticism. He was previously held in 2002 in connection with the killing and mutilation of four prostitutes, but was never convicted due to lack of evidence.

Mr Sarwar appeared relaxed and calm when he told a television channel that he had carried out God’s order to kill women who sinned. “I have no regrets. I just obeyed Allah’s commandment,” he said, adding that Islam did not allow women to hold positions of leadership. “I will kill all those women who do not follow the right path, if I am freed again,” he said.

Part two:

We need to have a person of faith lead the country.

Mitt Romney, 17 February 2007

Was there ever a man of more unshakable faith, of greater moral certainty than Mohammad Sarwar?

Would you vote for an atheist?

20 February 2007 / / 5 Comments

Dead last. This must not stand.


Muslims aren’t listed because they actually went into negative territory. Which actually can happen; someone says ‘no’ with such vehemence that it negates other people’s ‘yes’ votes and then some. Happened in Ohio, too.

But how come there’s no category: alcoholic with a criminal record? What would they score? Obviously between 49-51 percent.

A few reasons, perhaps. Atheists have been the Scary Monsters of the American political scene for fifty years. Everyone can dump on them with impunity. And why not? No one knows any atheists. Or if you do, they just tell you that your beliefs are made up, and who likes that? They have no morals, except for the ones they catch by osmosis from Christians. Plus they’re angry. Angry! Grrrrrr.

Wow, I’d scarcely vote for myself! Too scary!

UPDATE: I realised that ‘alcoholic with a criminal record’ doesn’t really cover Bush because the question said ‘generally well-qualified’. My bad.

You think your job sucks.

19 February 2007 / / 1 Comment

Just be glad you’re not a Republican running for U.S. President.

First of all, you’re horrendously unpopular, with self-reported Republican identification the lowest in years. Then you have to Defend the Indefensible and argue for escalation of the war in Iraq/Iran/Syria. I mean, maybe you’re a sensible person and maybe you can even count, and you’d like to take some positions that Americans actually agree with, so already you’re a little edgy.

Then you have to take a position like this:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, looking to improve his standing with the party’s conservative voters, said Sunday the court decision that legalized abortion should be overturned.

“I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned,” the Arizona senator told about 800 people in South Carolina, one of the early voting states.

Suicide! I seem to remember that Roe vs. Wade is immmensely popular, and has been for, oh, about 30 years.

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Jan. 19-21, 2007. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its 1973 Roe versus Wade decision concerning abortion, or not?”

Would: 29
Would Not: 62
Unsure: 9

Yes, that’s about right. So why run against that? Oh.

McCain is trying to build support among conservatives after a recent rebuke from Christian leader James Dobson, who said he wouldn’t back McCain’s presidential bid.

Tsk.

So after kissing Dobson’s shiny white ass, followed by Robertson’s, Swaggart’s, and probably Haggard’s (but that one’s on your own time), you’re still not done. You have to cap off the evening by doing something really Christian, like attending a purity ball, or…

McCain later attended an evening rally promoting an abstinence program.

Yeah, something like that.

He told the crowd of more than 1,000 teens and parents that young people have pressures far different from the ones he faced while growing up. “Sometimes I’ve made the wrong choice,” McCain said.

So, that’s a ‘no’ on abstinence? I think I need a less ambiguous comment on that.

I wonder what it must be like for the Republican candidates. To ignore the vast majority of Americans so you can court the vote of the most freaked-out minority just seems nuts. It would drive me crazy. But then, I’m not masochistic enough to be a Republican.

And another thing: Whose (the fuck) business is it anyway that you took a tumble in the hay with Mary Lou in 1955? Imagine having to flagellate yourself publicly over it at an abstinence rally in 2007. Unbelievable!

Here’s me at the rally: Kids, we got it on! And it was great! I don’t regret it for a second! We were young and gorgeous, and our skin was soft yet firm. I’ll never boink an eighteen-year-old woman again, and it’s one of my choicest memories.

No wonder they don’t vote for atheists. Mom and Dad and Grandma wouldn’t have liked that part of my speech.

Impeachment for Bush and Cheney

18 February 2007 / / 8 Comments

Most of the impeachment talk that was swirling around last November after the elections has died down, sadly. There was quite a bit of hand-wringing from liberals. ‘But is impeachment the right thing to do?’ they would ask.

Well, if the president has committed a crime, which wiretapping is (but that’s just one example), and if he’s admitted to committing these crimes, which he has, then yes, charging him with a crime is the right thing to do and not a partisan thing at all. The only reasons not to impeach the president is that you lack the gumption to stick it to Bush/Cheney (sadly true for most of the Democrats in Congress), or you are sufficiently not committed to the rule of law (sadly true for most of the Republicans), or you are trying to see if that’s the best way to ‘play it’. Which is so cynical I can hardly believe it.

Lots of people have argued against impeachment, among them Kos. The argument is that Democrats can try for an unsuccessful impeachment bid, or Democrats can show American voters that they can run the country in preparation for 2008. Hey, why not both?

So I’m quite pleased to see that my home state of Washington is starting (and I see that New Mexico has already passed) an impeachment resolution of its own.

Washington State is one of several states racing to see which will be first to send the U.S. House of Representatives a petition to impeach Bush and Cheney.

State Senator Eric Oemig, on February 14, 2007, introduced a resolution (PDF) calling on the Washington State Legislature to petition the U.S. House. Please thank him: oemig.eric@leg.wa.gov

Having this come at the state level is great: it costs Congressional Democrats nothing, and keeps the heat on Bush/Cheney. With these psychos, anything that can keep them off-balance and not invading Iran is good.

This is the way the right wing has done it for years. People like Limbaugh and Coulter say outrageous things, and listeners say, “Oh, that’s far too extreme,” and maybe the blowhards even cop some heat for saying it (but more likely they make money). But in the process, they push the dialogue over to the right. Then ‘moderate (by comparison)’ Republicans get to split the difference:

Interviewer: Right-wing Pundit, do you agree with these statements that liberals should be killed?
Right-wing Pundit: No, I’m advocating the rather more sensible step of imprisonment for treason.

And this is how American discourse has gotten to this sorry state. So I’m happy to see some pushback toward the left at the state level. Hey, aren’t conservatives the ones who are so big on states’ rights? Here it is in action.

Hero of the week: Bill Purcell

14 February 2007 / / 2 Comments

Nashville mayor Bill Purcell has put the smack down on an ugly and unnecessary piece of legislation that would have made English the official language of Nashville. And along the way, he makes some points I wish everyone could hear:

English is our language. It has been so since before the city existed more than 200 years ago.

It is the language we use to conduct the city’s business. In order to get ahead in Nashville a person needs to be able to speak English.

This has been the case for more than 200 years. It is not going to change.

We don’t need a law to tell us what language we are already speaking.
…
This is not who we are. At the heart of this ordinance is the issue of immigration. We are dealing with that issue by supporting the deportation of illegal aliens who commit crimes. But this ordinance goes beyond illegal immigration to put at risk our community and its ability to welcome and work with those people who come to our city legally and want to be a part of our city.

These English-only bills pop up once in a while because they tap into resentment of ‘furriners’. But it’s a bit harder to legislate prejudice so overtly these days, so try to accomplish the same thing by pulling support for other languages. Once again, right-wingers try and hit the people who have it the hardest, just so insecure Anglos can feel safe and superior.

It would have been easy for Purcell to go along with this, reasoning that it’s a meaningless symbolic gesture that wouldn’t have any real impact. Instead, he chose to fight the hatred, xenophobia, and small-mindedness represented by the English-only movement. And so I’m naming Mayor Bill Purcell my Hero of the Week.

Get responsibly with Frank Luntz.

23 January 2007 / / 2 Comments

The reason I hate the Huffington Post is that they carry articles by nimrods like Deepak Chopra and Frank Luntz.

The reason I love the HuffPo is that every time they do, commenters take them out to the woodshed and give them a well-deserved public stropping with the switch of reason.

Take the latest by dishonest Republican shill and word-twister Frank Luntz. He’s warning Democrats not to use words in nasty or irresponsible ways.

The Republicans are a party in peril, but all is not milk and cookies in Democrat land. The Democrats – flush with majority status – have a crucial choice right now. They can use their newly-won mandate to settle some old scores…or they can get responsibly and move ahead. They would be wise to opt for the latter.

Democracy is at its best when its practioners use language to unite and explain rather than divide and attack.

Fine words from someone who helped Republicans in their destructive quest to win at all costs. Now that his party’s down, suddenly he realises the value of Being Nice.

The Democratic Party has only done well when they’ve ignored the trollishly helpful advice from conservative creeps like ol’ Frank here.

Luntz, you call yourself a linguist? Shame, sir. Linguists are scientists. You, sir, are a hack. I’ll see to having you disbarred.

The next two years of Bush

12 January 2007 / / 1 Comment

If I had to make a condensed summary of the Bush presidency, it would go like this:

2000 – 2001: Bush does not very much, panders to base
2001 – 2005: Bush screws up the whole damn world and the universe, with huge popular support/apathy
2005 – 2006: Everyone suddenly realises that Bush is a tool, Republicans lose big time

So what does 2007 – 2008’s entry look like, now that Democrats are in control of Congress?

One possibility: Bush chills out and lets the Democrats have their way on the most popular policy points. When this somehow fails to right all the wrongs in the world, Bush shrugs and says, “We let them have it their way for two years, and their solutions have failed.” People would go back to thinking that Republicans and Democrats are all just the same really; politicians can’t get anything right, blah, blah, blah.

But what will really happen is this:

2007 – 2008: Bush digs in, keeps being Bush, insisting on his own way, vetoing… well, everything.

Just for fun, have you googled ‘Bush threatens veto‘ lately? Check it: everything sensible, he’s agin’ it. He never had to veto a thing for the first six years, and now the veto threats are coming faster than Republican indictments. How did such a baby become president?

This will draw a stark contrast between Democrats, who are attempting to pass enormously popular legislation, and the president, who is trying to veto the whole guacamole. I wonder if there will even be a Republican voter left in 2008.

This is a job for…

6 January 2007 / / 6 Comments

So Bush wants to have a ‘surge’ in Iraq, which is a Latin word that means ‘more troops‘.

The president, who is completing a lengthy review of Iraq policy, is considering dispatching three to four U.S. combat brigades to Iraq, or no more than 15,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops, the officials said.

Sending more people to the Iraq meat grinder is a terrible idea, but getting past that — are there any more soldiers to send?

Meanwhile, the U.S. military has been stretched by four years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, meaning few active-duty combat units are available for deployment.

To marshal even 15,000 to 20,000 additional troops, Bush would have to accelerate the return of some units to the battlefield, cutting their time to train between deployments.

How is he going to get the extra forces? You can’t just wish them into existence.

Wait a minute… I have an idea!


Eeep!

Magical Wishing Ferret reporting for duty!

Bigot’s office spray-painted: Goode.

5 January 2007 / / 2 Comments

You may have heard of Virgil Goode (R-Va). He’s taken on Keith Ellison, the Muslim congressman who used Jefferson’s own Koran for his private swearing in. Goode is responsible for writing this piece of asshattery to a constituent:

if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country.

And so on.

Well, it seems that Goode’s office has been vandalised, though it’s doubtful that the vandal did more damage to Goode’s office than Goode himself. To wit:

As much as I like a good bit of culture jamming, I really can’t condone this act of vandalism. In fact, I find it deplorable. There’s really no excuse for what this stenciler has done. I mean, look at it. Mixing serif and sans-serif within the same block of text? You must be mad!

Next time, make sure that you use Caslon and not Helvetica:

It’s just as easy to get these things right the first time.

Older posts Newer posts

Meta

© 2024 Good Reason

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑