If You’re Not A Terrorist, You Have Nothing to Worry About

“We helped ourselves to the buffet and then sat down to begin eating our dinner. I was just about to tell Asher how I’d eaten there before and how delicious the vegetable curry was, but I never got a chance. All of a sudden, there was a terrible commotion and five NYPD in bulletproof vests stormed down the stairs. They had their guns drawn and were pointing them indiscriminately at the restaurant staff and at us.”

So the moral of this story is, if you’re not a terrorist, and if you don’t eat in any Indian restaurants, you have nothing to worry about.

Continue ReadingIf You’re Not A Terrorist, You Have Nothing to Worry About

Who is Running Our Country?

Garner: Americans Should Beat Chests with Pride:

The retired general overseeing Iraq’s postwar reconstruction said on Wednesday that his fellow Americans should beat their chests with pride at having toppled Saddam Hussein (news – web sites) without destroying the country’s assets.

(Except for those crappy 5,000-year-old artifacts in the Iraqi National Museum. But who gives a shit about those as long as the oil wells are safe?)

Continue ReadingWho is Running Our Country?

Molly Ivins Hits The Nail On the Head

As always, Molly writes an excellent column, this time on one of my favorite subjects, the Mystery of the Disappearing Weapons of Mass Destruction. “In the weeks before Gulf War II, the United States told the world Saddam Hussein was hiding mobile chemical laboratories, drones fitted with poison sprays, 15 to 20 Scud missile launchers, 5,000 gallons of anthrax, several tons of VX nerve gas agent and between 100 tons and 500 tons of other toxins, including botulinum, mustard gas, ricin and sarin. Also, we said he had over 30,000 illegal munitions. So far, we have found bupkes.”

Continue ReadingMolly Ivins Hits The Nail On the Head

Feminism 201: The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), affirming the equal application of the U.S. Constitution to both females and males, is still not a part of the U. S. Constitution. The ERA has been ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 states. When three more states vote yes, the ERA might become the 28th Amendment.

The ERA was written in 1923 by Alice Paul, suffragist leader and founder of the National Woman’s Party.” She and the NWP considered the ERA to be the next necessary step after the 19th Amendment (Woman Suffrage) in guaranteeing “equal justice under law” to all citizens.”

The ERA was introduced into every session of Congress between 1923 and 1972, when it was passed and sent to the states for ratification. The seven-year time limit in the ERA’s proposing clause was extended by Congress to June 30, 1982, but at the deadline, the ERA had been ratified by 35 states , leaving it three states short of the 38 required for ratification. It has been reintroduced into every Congress since that time.

The 15 states that have not ratified the ERA are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.

Alice Paul

Continue ReadingFeminism 201: The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

Political Compass 2003

For about the third time in the last month I’ve been called a lefty, and I’m getting pretty shitty about it. Actually, I think the most recent quote was “It would be hard for any man to be to the left of your political views.” To which I replied: “either you don’t know shit about politics or you don’t know shit about my political views, one of the two.” So if you’re really interested in finding out where I am, and where you are in comparison to me, take the political compass quiz.

Then check out where you are on the grid, compared to me. As you can see, it isn’t hard for anyone to be to the left of my political views. Gandhi is, for one.

Political Compass 2003

2019 Update: I took a different Compass Quiz in 2006.

And again in 2008..

Political Compass 2008

Continue ReadingPolitical Compass 2003

White House holds meeting seeking ways to punish France

One of the proposed ways it wants to do that is to lessen it’s power in NATO, among other things. Apparently, our attempts to control and manipulate sovereign nations that have their own governments doesn’t just extend to the Middle East. Are we invading France, next? Seriously, the words “Drunk With Power” don’t even begin to describe the arrogance of this. I’m buying a French flag. When are we impeaching this dumbass?

Continue ReadingWhite House holds meeting seeking ways to punish France

Where to Get News

I just remembered that over Easter one of my brothers said something about me always reading “liberal websites” when we were talking about where I read the news. Google News is what I generally read. It’s a news aggregate that pulls stories from various sources, and will post numerous links to the same story in different publications. This isn’t Mother Jones, kids. Not that I don’t read Mother Jones, but that’s not where I get all my news.

Continue ReadingWhere to Get News

And on the homefront…

I should take some time out from all the ranting and raving to note that Dru, my new cat, came out from under the bed last night, played around in the room, jumped up on the bed, and came over to be petted, all without any coaxing from me. Apparently she’s realized I know where the canned food is and how to get it. 🙂 She’s the cutest thing. With the exception of climbing on the curtains, that is.

Continue ReadingAnd on the homefront…

Rick Santorum is an Idiot

And he needs to be removed from a leadership role in the GOP, just like Lott was. Here’s why:

Santorum says homosexual acts are threat to American family
WASHINGTON (AP) — Rick Santorum, the Senate’s third-ranked Republican who is under fire from gay-rights groups and Democrats, says he has “no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts.”

In a wide-ranging interview with The Associated Press two weeks ago, Santorum, R-Pa., said he believes homosexual acts are a threat to the American family. He drew criticism from gays and Democrats after parts of the interview — during which he compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery — were published Monday.

“I have no problem with homosexuality — I have a problem with homosexual acts, as I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships,” Santorum said during an interview taped April 7 in his Senate office.

“And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual,” he said. “I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who’s homosexual. If that’s their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it’s not the person, it’s the person’s actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.”

Note that this means he says that it’s okay to be gay, but you should never fall in love and have a romantic relationship with some one of the same sex if you are. You should be celibate and single all of your life, or you should do something terribly destructive like have a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, which would be based on a lie and harm both parties. But if you have a romantic relationship with someone of your own sex, you should do so under fear of being arrested.

Given a chance to clarify his comments before the story was published, Santorum said: “I can’t deny that I said it, and I can’t deny that’s how I feel.”

During Santorum’s interview with the AP, he brought up a pending Supreme Court case over a Texas sodomy law within the context of his discussion on homosexual acts.

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”

First of all, note that he said “consensual sex” not “gay consensual sex” — so he’s asserting that the government has the ability to come into the bedrooms of heterosexuals as well as gay people. That should scare everyone. Lots of news services are mis-quoting this by adding the word gay in parentheses, but that’s not what he said, and he’s clarified that’s not what he meant. Second, how does it follow that gay people’s right to consensual sex would somehow lead to societal approval of incest? The vast majority of incest occurs under non-consensual conditions. Also, this is based on the “slippery slope” argument, read here why this argument is completely invalid (this is Logic 101, folks.)

On Tuesday, Santorum’s office released a statement to underscore that those comments were made in the context of the court case.

“My discussion with The Associated Press was about the Supreme Court privacy case, the constitutional right to privacy in general, and in context of the impact on the family,” Santorum said in the statement. “I am a firm believer that all are equal under the Constitution. My comments should not be misconstrued in any way as a statement on individual lifestyles.”

No? You’re condemning an entire group of people to celibacy under fear of arrest, and somehow suggesting that is equal protection under the Constitution? How do you figure that?

Santorum also criticized, during the April 7 interview, what he called “a whole feminist movement that’s built around the fact that fathers are unnecessary.” He answered “absolutely” when asked if liberalism takes power away from the family.

There has never been any part of the feminist movement that says that fathers are unnecessary. This is nothing but bull-shit rhetoric. It’s true that many lesbians have children. Most of them have some type of father figure. Some don’t. There are many single women in this country, either divorced or widowed, that don’t have father figures for their children. Should they be forced to get married to “provide a father” for their children? Scores of studies prove that children raised without a father or without a mother are not harmed in any way by the lack of a “role model.” Does this mean that fathers are “unnecessary”? No. But they aren’t mandatory, either.

“The basic liberal philosophy is materialistic, is relativistic, to the point of, you’ve got candidates for president saying we should condone different types of marriage,” Santorum said. “That is, to me, the death knell of the American family.”

How? How How How? I’ve never heard a real answer to this one. How does my falling in love with women have any effect on the “American Family”? If a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman want to get married and have a bunch of kids, how is my love life interfering with their decision? I’m certainly not standing in front of the church door tripping them as they go in. If I get married to my female partner in a church, that has no effect on the “traditional American Family.”

And what does he mean by “materialistic, is relativistic”? I’m sorry, but the whole “moral relativism” critique is again, a simple-minded repeating of the slippery-slope argument. Ethics hasn’t ever been that simple, and shouldn’t be dumbed down because the Republicans have cut their own school budgets so far that their own Stepford children are too ignorant to understand the world around them, and thus feel they should force everyone into their own tunnel-vision of the world.

Rick Santorum

Continue ReadingRick Santorum is an Idiot