tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-209371302024-03-07T09:06:06.300-05:00Liberals In ExileThe gAyTM is closed! No Gay Rights, No Gay Dollars! No Gay Rights, No Gay Votes!Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.comBlogger290125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20937130.post-67439329038825223902010-08-11T18:28:00.001-04:002010-08-11T18:29:27.473-04:00Yes, I stopped blogging...I'm thinking about restarting, but time and energy have been very limited. We'll see what the future holds.Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20937130.post-87073396346129539252009-08-26T09:50:00.000-04:002009-08-26T09:51:15.699-04:00Hey! Biological Determinists! Listen Up!I have a question. When you get the urge to urinate, do you just whip it out (or squat) and piss wherever you happen to be standing, regardless of whether you're in a board meeting or standing in line at the DMV? No? Didn't think so. <br /><br />Do you know why you don't? <strong>Because biology produces the impulse, it does not dictate your actions.</strong> Simplistic but true. So, stop pretending that simply having certain biological impulses justifies or explains irresponsible, illegitimate, illegal, or immoral acts.<br /><br />Thank you. You may now return to your regularly scheduled idiocy.Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20937130.post-60914248369526448232009-06-13T10:16:00.000-04:002009-06-13T10:17:09.249-04:00Not One Nickel<a href="http://www.notonenickel.blogspot.com/">Not One Nickel</a> lays out the new voice of the LGBT Community in the face of constant betrayals by the Democrats, who want our money, our votes, our time, our energy and our support but force us to live as second-class citizens in our own country and refuse to support us on even those issues where we have public opinion behind us. We will not stand for these cowardly betrayals any longer. As we approach the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, a new radicalism is emerging. I, for one, think it's about damned time.<br /><br />No Gay Rights, No Gay Dollars!<br />No Gay Rights, No Gay Votes!<br /><br />If you support the LGBT cause, whatever your orientation, please return any Democratic contribution requests with the words above or some equivalent written on them. If you have a web site or blog, please post this request or some version of it. Please help us send the message that human rights should never be sacrificed for political expediency.<br /><br />UPDATE: If you wish, you may also like to participate in <a href="http://domaflipflop.com/">Operation DOMA Flip Flop</a>. It'll only take a few minutes and won't hurt at all (unless you get a paper cut, in which case, it'll hurt like a bitch).Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20937130.post-42905866225958868082009-06-12T21:59:00.001-04:002009-06-12T21:59:38.259-04:00Homophobama...In addition to flip-flopping on Don't Ask Don't Tell, under which 13,000 men and women in our armed forces have been discharged for being gay, Obama has now allowed his DOJ to <a href="http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html">defend the Defense of Marriage Act</a> by, in part, comparing gay relationships to incest and pederasty. <br /><br />Sadly, I'm not even remotely surprised. Once again, I was right all along.Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20937130.post-63772666597854573302009-06-02T10:02:00.001-04:002009-06-02T10:02:59.256-04:00Fellow Pro-Choicers...Please stop making us look stupid. <br /><br />You think it's clever to challenge pro-lifers with miscarriage and spontaneous abortion as some sort of counterpoint to their opposition to induced abortion. Often, you'll snicker and pat yourself on the back after making this argument because you're sure that the stunned look on their faces is proof of your ideological and rhetorical victory. You're wrong. It's not clever. You deserve neither to snicker nor to pat yourself on the back. That stunned look is not proof of victory but a response to the complete stupidity that is your argument. Look at any intelligent pro-choicer's face after you've made that argument and you'll probably see the same stunned look.<br /><br />You see, whether you like it or not, there is a difference between miscarriage/spontaneous abortion and induced abortion just as there is a difference between dying of natural causes and dying due to some action on the part of another human being, be it manslaughter or murder or self-defense. There is a HUGE difference. To say that pro-lifers have to be opposed to G-d or nature's creation of miscarriage in order to be ideologically consistent is just ridiculous. That's the equivalent of saying that a person can't be ideologically opposed to murder or manslaughter if they're not also ideologically opposed to dying of old age. <br /><br />So, please stop making that argument. You've embarassed the movement enough.Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20937130.post-17117967967735377562009-05-27T20:17:00.001-04:002009-05-27T20:17:53.988-04:00Taking "Marriage" Out of the Equation?Many people, including the President, suggest that we should reserve the word "marriage" for heterosexuals in deference to "religion." To them and to you, I say this:<br /><br />I'm a Reform Jew. Both the Central Conference of American Rabbis and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations resolved in the late 90's to oppose governmental restrictions on gay marriage. In 2000, the CCAR voted to allow rabbis to perform the actual Jewish marriage ritual for gay couples. (The kiddushin thing is kind of complicated.)<br /><br />Anyway, if we take the word "marriage" out of the equation in deference to "religion" as many politicians, including the President, have suggested, we allow a subset of Christian denominations to become the government-approved "official" religion of this country. We would also say that my religion and so many others are invalid and unworthy of recognition in the United States.<br /><br />Personally, I would not readily surrender my 1st amendment rights any more than I would readily surrender my 14th amendment rights, the basis upon which equal rights and equal protection stand.Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20937130.post-1499655363237643782009-05-25T12:40:00.002-04:002009-05-25T15:41:35.891-04:00Obama--Constitutional Scholar?I've been confused by this since the primaries. How has everyone bought this Obama the Great Constitutional Scholar bullshit hook, line and sinker? As far as I know, Obama managed to become Editor of the Harvard Law Review and a Professor while never having produced ANY original scholarship in constitutional law and having very little experience actually working as a lawyer. Perhaps he had some stellar academic credentials, but we don't know that because he had his academic records sealed. I, for one, highly doubt that his academics were that impressive considering his efforts to conceal them. (What candidate proud of their academic credentials has them sealed when all other candidates have provided theirs?)<br /><br />In virtually every field with which I am familiar, Obama's story would be impossible. In my own field, journalism, you can't get even an associate professorship at any reputable university without having produced original, published work AND having worked as a journalist. You sure as heck would not be made editor of any of the journals without extensive publication.<br /><br />Is the field of constitutional law completely devoid of such a standard?<br /><br />Update: Did some research. Obama was "President" not Editor of the review. My bad. I'm used to the editor title. Anyway, it was considered extremely unusual for a President of the Harvard Law Review not to publish at that time, since membership in the review was considered "publish or perish." The Review had a policy of stripping membership from members who didn't meet a publishing due date. Those who were stripped of membership were required to contact all firms that had offered them jobs and inform them that their membership had been revoked and that they did not have the right to list it as a credential on their resumes. How did Obama escape this requirement? There is a heavily edited, unsigned "note" from before Obama's membership that is occasionally attributed to him but Obama's own people denied he'd ever published. Since it was prior to his membership, it also wouldn't have fallen within the review's publication requirement as far as I can tell.<br /><br />Interestingly, it was also expected that an outgoing President would work as a clerk following graduation. EVERY outgoing President did so BUT Obama. Another oddity.<br /><br />I stand by my assumption that it is ridiculous to call someone a distinguished scholar in a field in which he produced no original scholarly work.Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20937130.post-49140083438651925612009-05-21T10:22:00.001-04:002009-05-21T10:22:35.355-04:00Stupid Politicians!<a href="http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/symbolism-by-digby-heres-state-of.html">Digby</a> and <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/20/guantanamo/index.html">Greenwald</a> have excellent posts on the Republic and Democratic politicians' exaggerated fear of keeping terrorists in American prisons, as well as the MSM's complicity in the lies and fearmongering. I have two questions:<br /><br />Why is it that suspected terrorists get fewer legal protections and less humane treatment than the men we KNOW planned, organized and carried out the brutal occupation of most of Europe, the enslavement of millions and the carefully executed murder of 12 million people (6 million of them Jews) in the Holocaust? Are we saying that Afghan shepherds are more dangerous and less human than genocidal, warmongering maniacs like Goering?Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20937130.post-52509745469661813652009-04-21T18:53:00.002-04:002009-04-21T20:49:09.056-04:00In Remembrance: Still We Have Not ForgottenToday is Yom Hashoah, the day of remembrance for those who perished in the Holocaust. The following video may be a bit too sad for some. So be forewarned.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dr9e639d1Js&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dr9e639d1Js&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />In case you were wondering, the song is "Ani Ma'amin" or "I Believe." which was sung by Jews on their way to the gas chambers at Auschwitz. These are the words in Hebrew (transliterated) and English:<br /><br />"Ani ma'amin b'emunah shleimah beviat haMashiach, v'af al pi sheyitmameiha, im kol zeh achakeh lo b'chol yom sheyavo."<br /><br />"I believe with perfect faith in the coming of the Messiah, and though he may tarry, nevertheless I await his coming every day."Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20937130.post-48353374835468371622009-04-19T15:50:00.004-04:002009-04-19T15:58:22.792-04:0011-Year-Old Commits Suicide Over Anti-Gay Taunts<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/Story?id=7328091&page=1">Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover</a> was 11. Bullies at school called him fag and sissy. They tormented him because they thought he was gay. His mother continually demanded that the school intervene. They didn't. Carl killed himself 2 weeks ago. Once again, Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover was 11. Think about it.Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20937130.post-6302250788692631012009-04-19T15:42:00.001-04:002009-04-19T15:42:46.848-04:00Maddow: Torture Must Be Prosecuted<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l94puZS3IXs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/l94puZS3IXs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20937130.post-10567398952169395982009-04-19T15:40:00.000-04:002009-04-19T15:41:28.756-04:00Olbermann: "President Obama: You're Wrong."<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7Fk5wfAYX0U&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7Fk5wfAYX0U&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20937130.post-77582464114565332642009-04-19T15:15:00.002-04:002009-04-19T15:28:46.990-04:00Obama and the Nuremberg DefenseThe infamous Nuremberg Defense, rejected then by the U.S. and her allies, was "I was just following orders." It has long been American law that a member of the military or any agent of the American government MUST refuse to obey an illegal order. Although some military interrogators and military lawyers spoke against torture as illegal, immoral and counterproductive, various members of our military and the CIA (or Blackwater contractors acting in their name) conducted torture against men, women, and children (those under 18), both the guilty and the innocent. In at least one case, American military resources were diverted to chase the torture-induced fantasies of a <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/07/suskind/index.html">literally insane person</a>. By all definitions, these acts were war crimes both on the part of those who ordered them and those who obeyed. Under American and international law, anyone suspected of war crimes MUST be prosecuted.<br /><br />Recently, Obama released Office of Legal Counsel memos, which he was legally compelled to do. At the same time, he promised war criminals that they would not be prosecuted for their crimes and invoked a rehashing of the Nuremberg Defense. <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/17/prosecutions/index.html">Glenn Greenwald</a> has a strong legal examination of this illegal promise, replete with links to others well worth reading. <a href="http://rebelreports.com/post/97614598/un-rapporteur-on-torture-to-obama-refusal-to-prosecute">Rebel Reports</a> has the UN Rapporteur on Torture's response to Obama and condemnation of a decision that is itself a violation of law and considered a war crime.<br /><br />When American leaders quote Nazi defense arguments, we can only pray that G-d and destiny will have mercy upon our nation.Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20937130.post-81872844856912500052009-04-15T15:55:00.002-04:002009-04-15T16:21:05.904-04:00No, They Didn't!<a href="http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/904759988.html">Yes, they did.</a> The so-called "Christian News Wire" has drawn a line between gay marriage (and the sexual revolution) and mass murder. Yes, "teh gayz" caused mass murder. <br /><br />These people seriously need to remove the word Christian from their name or the Christians who are actual sane people need to go over there and kick some faux-Christian ass!Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20937130.post-11877009175541237482009-04-11T19:30:00.002-04:002009-04-11T20:04:46.295-04:00Oy! Not Again!<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/T69TOuqaqXI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/T69TOuqaqXI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />There are certain truths in this video, borrowed from <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/clock/?utm_source=bloglist&utm_medium=dropdown">A Blog Around the Clock</a>, but I have a few problems.<br /><br />The first, I think is obvious, with the false dichotomy between believing scientific things and believing supernatural or nonscientific things. The creator mistakes the scientific ideal for how science actually occurs and ignores the fact that many nonscientific ideas are produced with the same intellectual rigor as scientific ones. Many ideas caught on in the scientific community though there was no good evidence for them, such as the multiverse theory. On the other hand, the scholar's study of history, for one example, demands a careful examination of evidence and the willingness to challenge the current paradigmatic interpretation of past events. Nonscientific is here and in too many places used to mean "not based on evidence" or "not intellectually rigorous." This breed of scientism is dangerous at worst and foolish at best.<br /><br />Secondly, and perhaps most important, is that the standard of demanding evidence before accepting a piece of information is an impossible one and one which would quickly cripple the mind of anyone who attempted it. The complexity of society and the variations in human ability and knowledge demands that we depend on others for information, often without being able to know or examine the evidence for the information they provide. <br /><br />Our willingness to accept claims we cannot verify is often a practical necessity and is rarely a character flaw. Few people accept anything and everything they're told. Most filter information as well as they can based on what evidence is available to them, what seems right based on what they already know or think they know and a basic "common sense" of the kind of ideas that may need to be further examined. Both good and bad ideas get through the filter, so trust is added to the mix as well. If we trust a person for some reason, be it personal experience or the person's expertise, we accept what they tell us.<br /><br />This need to trust others to some extent often leads us down false paths and makes us prone to accepting foolish claims or ones that would seem foolish to someone who knows more about X, thinks they have opposing knowledge or simply has a different worldview. But the source of those foolish claims is not always nonscientific or pseudoscientific or supernatural. Sometimes, science or at least a scientist is the culprit. <br /> <br />Whether we like it or not, the man in the white coat is treated with the same deference as the man in the white collar. Many of the studies conducted on people's willingness to blindly follow an authority figure used scientists as the authority figures. And for good reason. We see the man in the white coat as knowing more than we do and having better judgment about many issues. <br /><br />Considering the scientist's field of expertise, we're usually making a safe bet, although there are many scientists who have used fraud to further their own flawed hypotheses and their authority to have them accepted in the mainstream. Outside of the scientist's field and within circumstances where moral, political or practical decisions must be made, we're often wrong to accept the scientist's authority simply because he's a scientist. His expertise does not apply in these areas and is therefore no reason to trust him implicitly. Yet we do. <br /><br />Again, this is not a character flaw, nor is it a character flaw to occasionally reject a good idea because it doesn't get through our filters or make sense based on what we think we know to be true. This also is a practical necessity. It can lead us down false paths, but it makes living life possible. <br /><br />In the end, being closed or open minded in regards to a particular type of information doesn't mean we necessarily have some character flaw. There are limits to the usefulness of both and a practical need for both in varying circumstances. There are also limits to the human brain's potential to have the right attitude towards every possible type of information which we'll encounter in our lives. Trial, error and humility are the best we can do.Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20937130.post-31041562698003922672009-04-11T12:15:00.002-04:002009-04-11T12:24:22.693-04:00GG: Taking it to the ManGlenn Greenwald is doing such a good job taking down the constitutional violations and <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram/index.html">now war crimes</a> of the Obama presidency that I can't add anything to the analysis but this:<br /><br />The Obama cult of personality aside, some liberals and progressives saw this coming, including yours truly. Obama's vote for FISA proved he wasn't that interested in civil liberties. Obama's use of what I called <a href="http://liberalsinexile.blogspot.com/2008/11/putting-country-first.html#links">Rovian tactics</a> (including "stealing" the nomination through <a href="http://liberalsinexile.blogspot.com/2008/11/we-will-not-be-silenced.html">caucus fraud</a> and backdoor deals with the DLC) during the Democratic primaries proved he was much further in the game than people realized and much less of a man than they hoped.Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20937130.post-28105697647141649682009-04-09T10:22:00.002-04:002009-04-09T10:27:51.417-04:00The Gay Marriage Myth....Many people are confusing ceremonies performed by clergy for gay couples with marriage ceremonies. Here's the truth.<br /><br />ONLY the state can ratify a marriage. Clergy who perform ceremonies for gay couples outside of states where it is legal, must perform "commitment ceremonies" or "union blessings" NOT marriage ceremonies. It is a crime to perform a marriage without a license from the state. <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-15-ny-gay-marriage_x.htm">One clergywoman in New York has already been charged for performing a same-sex ceremony and calling it a marriage.</a><br /><br />The clergy make every effort to make the ceremony as close as possible, religiously, to the sacrament performed for heterosexual couples but they aren't marriages and cannot legally be recognized as such.<br /><br />UPDATE: It'd been a while since I read about the case. It was actually TWO clergywomen charged for performing THIRTEEN marriage ceremonies for gay couples.Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20937130.post-51202349951595870532009-04-08T11:07:00.001-04:002009-04-08T11:07:14.364-04:00Lies and the Lying Christians Who Tell ThemNote: Not Christians in general, just the specific ones discussed here. I love me my Christian friends, even if they do eat pork and work on the sabbath!<br /><br />Anywho, an anti-gay marriage group is running an ad against gay marriage, saying that the passage of gay marriage has led to violations of religious freedoms. You can read more about their lunacy at <a href="http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/?last_story=/politics/war_room/2009/04/08/marriage/">Salon's War Room</a>.<br /><br />Here was my response:<br /><br /><blockquote>In all of these cases, the religious body was acting as an agent of the state, receiving state funding or running a business open to the public. Allowing them to discriminate would be a violation of anti-discrimination laws and a violation of separation of church and state, as the churches would then get special privileges not offered to secular agencies operating in the same capacities.<br /><br />The churches remain free to discriminate in non-state funded, non-state related activities. There is NO violation of freedom of religion in these cases, just the "freedom" to take taxpayer money while discriminating against those same taxpayers.<br /><br />It's a cheap shot, but imagine that one of these churches asked to use taxpayer money to discriminate on some other basis, such as religion, race, etc. Would anyone take their claims seriously?</blockquote><br /><br />I'd like to add that I'm astounded that the religious groups running anti-gay marriage campaigns for the last couple of years have used some of the most dishonest arguments available, ranging from substantive distortions to outright lies. How is it that those who claim to speak for G-d traffic so readily in lies and aren't being called out by anyone but their opponents? Don't the so-called Christians who oppose gay marriage have a problem with their co-religionists breaking one of the big ten so publicly? Isn't hypocrisy condemned in the Christian scriptures? And lying? And self-righteousness? <br /><br />Step up, Christians. You're free to disagree with gay marriage. You are not free to drag the name of our G-d or your G-d through the mud with your lies and filth.Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20937130.post-22844445149901186972009-04-05T08:51:00.003-04:002009-04-05T09:05:59.808-04:00Obama's Lessons from Enron?You simply must read <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/04/summers/">Glenn Greenwald's take on Obama's economic shenanigans</a> and the steps he's taking to subvert the necessary regulations and oversight that could save this economy by restoring faith in the system. Make sure you also read the articles he links to for background and watch <a href="http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.html">Bill Moyer's interview with William Black</a>. (The very last sentence is priceless.)<br /><br />My favorite is this quote from a WaPo article: <br /><br /><blockquote>The Obama administration is engineering its new bailout initiatives in a way that it believes will allow firms benefiting from the programs to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress, including limits on lavish executive pay, according to government officials. . . .<br /><br />The administration believes it can sidestep the rules because, in many cases, it has decided not to provide federal aid directly to financial companies, the sources said. Instead, the government has set up special entities that act as middlemen, channeling the bailout funds to the firms and, via this two-step process, stripping away the requirement that the restrictions be imposed, according to officials. . . .<br /><br />In one program, designed to restart small-business lending, President Obama's officials are planning to set up a middleman called a special-purpose vehicle -- a term made notorious during the Enron scandal -- or another type of entity to evade the congressional mandates, sources familiar with the matter said.</blockquote><br /><br />That's right. Obama is using the same fraudulent practices that tanked Enron and saw its leaders convicted of criminal activity. Who could have known that Obama would be unwilling or unable to do what it takes to save our country from the largest economic disaster since the Great Depression? Wait, I remember. You read it here in November:<br /><br /><blockquote>I assure you that his policies are the exact opposite of what needs to be done right now and what is being done by state and local governments around the country. The decisions are hard, but they have to be made if we're going to stabilize our economy. Obama refuses to either see or admit that. </blockquote><br /><br />At best, Obama's shenanigans will be pushing the can down the road a bit, hoping another bubble will improve the economy enough to make it look like his policies worked. Ultimately, however, his failures now will lead to even bigger disasters down the road, mimicking the same boom/bust cycle that led to the Great Depression not the investigations, regulations and public investment that stabilized our economy, shortened recessions and prevented depressions until they were gutted during the last four presidencies.Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20937130.post-53456228088959896912009-04-04T21:56:00.003-04:002009-04-04T22:03:57.762-04:00Someone Please Teach Obama ProtocolThe diplomatic faux pas are piling up. Some are petty, like giving the British PM DVD's that are useless in British machines or giving the Queen an iPod. Others are a little bigger, like refusing the traditional joint press conference with the visiting Prime Minister, rescheduling a visit with the President of Brazil, and misspelling the name of a visiting head of state on the formal announcement. But this one is gigantic! The President of the United States bowed before the Saudi king! This gesture implies that the POTUS and, by extension, all Americans are subjects of the Saudi king. Lovely! <br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9WlqW6UCeaY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9WlqW6UCeaY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20937130.post-50347064529227633352009-03-22T18:52:00.002-04:002009-03-22T18:57:19.713-04:00I LOVE Being RightIn November, I said this:<br /><br /><blockquote>Obama is a liar. Over and over again, Obama has changed his story and his stances on the issues. Call him on it and he denies he ever held the previous view, despite the existence of video, audio or written evidence.</blockquote><br /><br />and this:<br /><br /><blockquote>Obama is for Obama and nothing else. From his revolving door for associates and friends who no longer serve his needs to the willingness to provoke old hatreds, Obama seems to care little about anyone and anything but himself.</blockquote><br /><br />Now, Obama has done <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/17/dodd/index.html">this</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>The exemption for already existing compensation agreements -- the exact provision that is now protecting the AIG bonus payments -- was inserted at the White House's insistence and over Dodd's objections. But now that a political scandal has erupted over these payments, the White House is trying to deflect blame from itself and heap it all on Chris Dodd by claiming that it was Dodd who was responsible for that exemption.</blockquote><br /><br />That's right. Obama is cannibalizing his own party, throwing a distinguished ally under the bus, and lying through his teeth (despite publically available evidence) all to save his own ass. It's good to be right, but how I wish I'd been wrong.Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20937130.post-59899022807279205282009-03-12T15:49:00.003-04:002009-03-12T16:11:31.140-04:00You say secular, I say secular...I saw this as part of one comment on a <a href="http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2009/03/10/hijab/index.html">Salon Broadsheet</a> piece about a Muslim woman being asked to leave the teller line because she was wearing hijab:<br /><br /><blockquote>The USA is a secular country, and you have the right to look secular. I don't care if it's your religion or a personality disorder that makes you a non-conformist but wearing head-to-toe garments is no different from going barefoot or shirtless. No shirt, no shoes, NO DICE.</blockquote><br /><br />This is mild, of course, in comparison to some of the frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Muslim/anti-religious nonsense that passed for comment in this thread. However, it pinged one of my pet peeves, so I'm on it.<br /><br />Secular has multiple meanings. It can mean non-religious in a categorical sense: like football is secular or T-shirts are secular clothing. It can mean non-religious as in secular humanists, who reject religion and theism generally. It can mean non-religious as in the secular state is separate from and takes no official stance on religion. <br /><br />In France, secular means the third usually but the second in many cases, even when referring to the secular state. France has passed laws forbidding the wearing of certain religious attire in public schools, for instance, an act that would be illegal and unconstitutional in the U.S. Unfortunately, the French response to diversity is not an effort at multiculturalism, but an effort to conceal differences rather than tackle bigotry. <br /><br />As far as the U.S., our government and our rights, secular takes the third meaning. So, you have the right to look secular, sure. But you also have the right to look religious. Heck, you have the right to walk down the street dressed as a Klingon monk or Vulcan priestess if you want. As far as the government is concerned, it is unconstitutional to pass a law that would impede the free practice of faith and the free participation of all people of all religions (or none) in our society. It is also illegal to discriminate based on religion or lack thereof, if you are a private entity operating a public business, such as a bank. <br /><br />Which brings us to hijab. Asking a person to remove a baseball cap to enter a bank for security reasons makes sense and doesn't do any harm to the person involved, unless he or she is wearing a cap for some medical reason (like concealing the effects of chemotherapy.) Culturally, asking a woman to remove hijab is like asking her to remove her shirt. Big difference. <br /><br />A standard policy of "no head coverings", no matter how universally applied, has a very different effect on Muslim women then and impedes their free participation in our society. It's bigoted. It's unnecessary. It's illegal.<br /><br />*For the anti-Muslim bigots who like to invoke woman-beatings and redneck-ized versions of Muslim men when hijab comes up, I'll point out that many Muslim women wear hijab voluntarily and see it as an act of basic modesty, like wearing a shirt. Liberal women defend this choice, because it is a <strong>choice</strong> worth defending. There is no hypocricy in supporting a woman's choice of culturally-relative modesty while opposing the <strong>forced</strong> covering of women and the <strong>persecution</strong> of women who would not or do not choose to wear hijab, niqab or burqa. So, get off your high horse. <br /><br />And by the way, If you want to stand in judgment, imagine how "oppressed" some cultures would find us Western women, forced to cover our breasts in public (even while breastfeeding)under threat of arrest for public nudity.Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20937130.post-3171713348122796282009-03-09T11:54:00.004-04:002009-03-09T12:01:16.565-04:00No, That Is NOT The Writer's Duty...Salon has a fawning paean to <a href="http://www.salon.com/books/int/2009/03/09/jonathon_keats/">Jonathon Keats</a> and his supposed duty as a writer to commit blasphemy. Strangely, I find this offensive, not as a Jew but as a writer. Since when is it a writer's "duty" to trot out a trope as ancient as, well, Ancient Greece? Writers since time immemorial have defamed sacred figures, both religious and secular, as a way of challenging people's notions about the sacred and profane. In many cases, they have a great point to demonstrate in doing so. However, to claim that blaspheming in and of itself is the writer's duty is the argument of the hack who puts predictable tab A into outdated slot B and proclaims himself an artiste. Please, stop pretending that tired repitition and immitation are art, that being edgy or blasphemous for the sake of being edgy or blasphemous are anything other than exercises in masturbation.Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20937130.post-20179476799831626242009-03-08T14:21:00.001-04:002009-03-08T14:21:50.947-04:00I Lied...Okay, there's one more thing you should read. <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/03/06/neoliberalism/">Salon</a> has an excellent, snarky take on the changes in our political system and Obama's policies in relation to those changes.Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20937130.post-88256323088391275762009-03-08T13:25:00.003-04:002009-03-08T13:37:31.427-04:00If you read nothing else....Read <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/">Glenn Greenwald's</a> ongoing examination of the Obama administration's attacks on our constitution and the rule of law, all in the name of "the institution of the presidency." No, not the actual constitutionally-mandated institution of the presidency. That would be too liberal. Instead, Obama is seeking to preserve the expanded, illegally-constructed "institution of the presidency" brought to us by Bushco. <br /><br />When, oh when, will the liberal chattering classes learn the difference between liberalism and centrist neoliberalism? When will they get that the centrist neoliberals are more than willing to throw the constitution, human rights and the rule of law under the bus for political expediency and power politics? Soon, I hope. It's been a couple of decades now since the DLC destroyed the influence of the left and liberal political philosophies in America and turned the Democratic Party into America's center-right party. Only the truly dense would take much longer to figure that out.Melindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16138968066861006638noreply@blogger.com0