Truth is the first casualty...
This morning, my brother sent me an email entitled, "Ethno-sectarian competition."
When I say the subject line, my first thought was that it was a rant about the Olympics.
Turns out it was actually a politically correct euphemism by Gen. David Petraeus to describe the civil war in Iraq.
It's sad when our miltary leaders dishonor themselves into spouting the same mealy mouth obfuscation as ordinary self-serving politicians. Petraeus' tortured explanation is more worthy of something from the satirical site The Onion than of a high-ranking general.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Taking care of your loved one: worse than terrorism
For most of the last decade, conservatives have controlled the presidency, the Congress and because of that, increasingly the judiciary. And let's not forget the regulatory (or deregulatory in this case) agencies of the executive branch. So since they control the governmental levers of power, they need to contrive boogeyman in order to keep their base scared and thus engaged.
The activist's second worst enemy is the perception of victory. This is because the perception of victory creates the activist's worst enemy: lethargy.
Some of those boogeyman pre-dated this most recent period of governmental control. The 'liberal media.' Hollywood. The ACLU and other segments of the anti-theocracy crowd.
One of the more strange obsessions of conservatives is with homosexuality and the so-called 'homosexual lifestyle.' Of course, there really is no such thing as a 'homosexual lifestyle' (singular) any more than there is a 'heterosexual lifestyle' or a 'white lifestyle' or a 'left-handed lifestyle.' There are many different versions of each. But hard core ideologues rarely let nuance get in the way of their stereotypes. Reality just needlessly complicates things.
(It goes without saying that these dynamics apply to all sides of the ideological circle and that activists on the left have their boogeymen too)
Many view this mythical 'homosexual lifestyle' as part of the broader hedonistic, sinful culture that the 'liberal media' and Hollywood are supposedly pushing. Though many do not share this view of, say, hedonistic corporate consumer culture.
Some take this to an extreme.
Recently, a member of the Oklahoma legislature said that gays were a bigger threat to America than terrorists. Apparently, two guys who love each other are a greater threat to this nation than people who want to commit mass murder.
To most sane people, this seems just as fanatical as anything al-Qaeda spews. But to a minority fringe, it makes perfect sense. In their eyes, we can defend against al-Qaeda because they are outsiders. Just throw a dart on the map, bomb that country into oblivion and everything will be ok.
But they see gays as being far more dangerous because they... (insert menacing music) walk among us. Because they are us. Because they are us, not them. Gays don't want to destroy our culture. They want to do something even more insidious: change it.
What most bothers the Theocracy Brigade is not so much that gays exist. What really bothers them is that many no longer practice their 'lifestyle' in secret. That many want legal recognition for their relationships.
Legal recognition implies some form of social acceptance. And that's really about the only thing that both the pro- and anti-equal rights movements would agree on.
Some argue over the terms 'gay marriage' and 'civil unions.' To me, the semantic difference is meaningless. The point should be that gay couples should be afforded the same legal protections as straight couples. What the state chooses to call it is irrelevant, so long as they are equal in every other way.
Many folks that that those who support gay rights want gays to have special rights. That they want to force poor, persecuted American Christians to celebrate these immoral sinners.
Of course this isn't true. I do not support bigotry, but I do support the equal free speech rights of bigots.
Many say that if sexual orientation is not anyone else's business, why do these relationships need state recognition? If it's private, why can't it stay private?
Here's why.
As The Human Rights Campaign points out:
In every paycheck you've ever received, you've been contributing to Social Security. Imagine knowing that, should you die, your partner won't receive the survivor benefits you've paid for.
Or imagine moving to another state, only to find that your partner will be kicked off of your health care plan.
Situations like these happen every day to GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender] people across the country.
It's a sad state of affairs when wanting to make sure your partner has financial security or access to health care is treated as worse than terrorism.
The activist's second worst enemy is the perception of victory. This is because the perception of victory creates the activist's worst enemy: lethargy.
Some of those boogeyman pre-dated this most recent period of governmental control. The 'liberal media.' Hollywood. The ACLU and other segments of the anti-theocracy crowd.
One of the more strange obsessions of conservatives is with homosexuality and the so-called 'homosexual lifestyle.' Of course, there really is no such thing as a 'homosexual lifestyle' (singular) any more than there is a 'heterosexual lifestyle' or a 'white lifestyle' or a 'left-handed lifestyle.' There are many different versions of each. But hard core ideologues rarely let nuance get in the way of their stereotypes. Reality just needlessly complicates things.
(It goes without saying that these dynamics apply to all sides of the ideological circle and that activists on the left have their boogeymen too)
Many view this mythical 'homosexual lifestyle' as part of the broader hedonistic, sinful culture that the 'liberal media' and Hollywood are supposedly pushing. Though many do not share this view of, say, hedonistic corporate consumer culture.
Some take this to an extreme.
Recently, a member of the Oklahoma legislature said that gays were a bigger threat to America than terrorists. Apparently, two guys who love each other are a greater threat to this nation than people who want to commit mass murder.
To most sane people, this seems just as fanatical as anything al-Qaeda spews. But to a minority fringe, it makes perfect sense. In their eyes, we can defend against al-Qaeda because they are outsiders. Just throw a dart on the map, bomb that country into oblivion and everything will be ok.
But they see gays as being far more dangerous because they... (insert menacing music) walk among us. Because they are us. Because they are us, not them. Gays don't want to destroy our culture. They want to do something even more insidious: change it.
What most bothers the Theocracy Brigade is not so much that gays exist. What really bothers them is that many no longer practice their 'lifestyle' in secret. That many want legal recognition for their relationships.
Legal recognition implies some form of social acceptance. And that's really about the only thing that both the pro- and anti-equal rights movements would agree on.
Some argue over the terms 'gay marriage' and 'civil unions.' To me, the semantic difference is meaningless. The point should be that gay couples should be afforded the same legal protections as straight couples. What the state chooses to call it is irrelevant, so long as they are equal in every other way.
Many folks that that those who support gay rights want gays to have special rights. That they want to force poor, persecuted American Christians to celebrate these immoral sinners.
Of course this isn't true. I do not support bigotry, but I do support the equal free speech rights of bigots.
Many say that if sexual orientation is not anyone else's business, why do these relationships need state recognition? If it's private, why can't it stay private?
Here's why.
As The Human Rights Campaign points out:
In every paycheck you've ever received, you've been contributing to Social Security. Imagine knowing that, should you die, your partner won't receive the survivor benefits you've paid for.
Or imagine moving to another state, only to find that your partner will be kicked off of your health care plan.
Situations like these happen every day to GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender] people across the country.
It's a sad state of affairs when wanting to make sure your partner has financial security or access to health care is treated as worse than terrorism.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Rwanda: remembrance day
Note: I am remiss for having neglected to publish this on Sunday.
14 years ago, a plane carrying the leaders of Rwanda and Burundi was shot down, killing both men. The event was used as the pretext to carry a pre-planned genocide in Rwanda. At least 800,000 people were murdered in the slaughter.
A few years ago, I marked the 10th anniversary of the massacres' start with a series of essays and analyses exploring the genocide more deeply as well as addressing many myths surrounding its causes and implementation.
As i wrote in my introduction back in 2004:
Ten years ago today, the airplane carrying the leaders of Rwanda and Burundi was shot down, killed both. This was the pretext used by a group of extremists to execute a pre-planned genocide against the minority Tutsi community. It also targeted Hutu political opponents, most of whom were moderates in favor of a power-sharing deal with the Tutsis, a deal opposed by the regime's hardliners. In the slaughter, around 800,000 people were killed in only 100 days -- approximately 5 1/2 murdered every single minute of every single day for over three months. It is widely believed to be the most "efficient" mass murder in history. And far from being secretive or in the fog of war like previous genocides, this was unique in that it was broadcast around the world live and in color on CNN and the BBC.
Pieces in the series can be found:
-Pre-genocide history of Rwanda
-How the genocide unfolded
-Myths and realities about the genocide (part 1)
-Myths and realities about the genocide (part 2)
-The genocide's orphans
-Hate media and its role in the genocide
-International and American law on genocide
-Post-genocide justice
-The post-genocide government
-Lessons and conclusions
Please take a moment from your day to remember the dead.
14 years ago, a plane carrying the leaders of Rwanda and Burundi was shot down, killing both men. The event was used as the pretext to carry a pre-planned genocide in Rwanda. At least 800,000 people were murdered in the slaughter.
A few years ago, I marked the 10th anniversary of the massacres' start with a series of essays and analyses exploring the genocide more deeply as well as addressing many myths surrounding its causes and implementation.
As i wrote in my introduction back in 2004:
Ten years ago today, the airplane carrying the leaders of Rwanda and Burundi was shot down, killed both. This was the pretext used by a group of extremists to execute a pre-planned genocide against the minority Tutsi community. It also targeted Hutu political opponents, most of whom were moderates in favor of a power-sharing deal with the Tutsis, a deal opposed by the regime's hardliners. In the slaughter, around 800,000 people were killed in only 100 days -- approximately 5 1/2 murdered every single minute of every single day for over three months. It is widely believed to be the most "efficient" mass murder in history. And far from being secretive or in the fog of war like previous genocides, this was unique in that it was broadcast around the world live and in color on CNN and the BBC.
Pieces in the series can be found:
-Pre-genocide history of Rwanda
-How the genocide unfolded
-Myths and realities about the genocide (part 1)
-Myths and realities about the genocide (part 2)
-The genocide's orphans
-Hate media and its role in the genocide
-International and American law on genocide
-Post-genocide justice
-The post-genocide government
-Lessons and conclusions
Please take a moment from your day to remember the dead.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Com-Post
I was in one of my small city's four Stewart's shops this morning and I noticed the woman in front of my was my county's district attorney buying a coffee and a tabloid. And it made me wonder why a smart, well-spoken moderate Republican was spending money (let alone time) on The New York Post.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Hillary: working class hero
One of the key tenets of Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is how she's glomming on to her husband's legacy. That her 'service' as First Lady makes her ready to lead on day one in a way that Barack Obama isn't. Forget for a second that the only official policy role she had ended with a hideously complex plan that failed miserably to gain public support. Let's just go with this idea that she'll head the Restoration of the House of Clinton. Let's go with the idea that she was virtually co-president during the 90s.
The first Clinton administration effectively ushered in the end of American manufacturing. It was already in decline to some extent, but its death knell was the NAFTA and WTO agreements put it on life support. The House of Clinton (of which Hillary claims to have been an integral part) essentially completed the Reagan Revolution. The House of Clinton and the afforementioned agreements completely dismantled both public and workers' health and safety protections in the name of the mythical panacea known as 'free trade.' Or at least, whatever hadn't been previously been annhilated by Reagan-Bush I.
Even aside from the fact that she's far and away the most corporate-owned candidate left in the race in either party, this legacy she's leeching on to makes me truly at a loss to figure out why her strongest base of support is from none other than... blue collar workers.
Why is someone claiming this record, someone who was on the board of one of the most infamously anti-union corporations in this country (Wal-Mart)... getting so much support from unions? Why is someone who claims to have been an integral part of an administration that emascualted worker protections so strongly supported by the working class?
I am truly mystified with this is the case. Can anyone offer me some insight? Even speculation or conjecture is fine. I'm really at a loss trying to wrap my mind around this. Of all the candidates for the working class to attach themselves to, why her?
Especially when you have a candidate like Ralph Nader who's done the exact opposite, who's based not just his campaign but his whole life advocating on behalf of public and workers' health and safety issues.
The first Clinton administration effectively ushered in the end of American manufacturing. It was already in decline to some extent, but its death knell was the NAFTA and WTO agreements put it on life support. The House of Clinton (of which Hillary claims to have been an integral part) essentially completed the Reagan Revolution. The House of Clinton and the afforementioned agreements completely dismantled both public and workers' health and safety protections in the name of the mythical panacea known as 'free trade.' Or at least, whatever hadn't been previously been annhilated by Reagan-Bush I.
Even aside from the fact that she's far and away the most corporate-owned candidate left in the race in either party, this legacy she's leeching on to makes me truly at a loss to figure out why her strongest base of support is from none other than... blue collar workers.
Why is someone claiming this record, someone who was on the board of one of the most infamously anti-union corporations in this country (Wal-Mart)... getting so much support from unions? Why is someone who claims to have been an integral part of an administration that emascualted worker protections so strongly supported by the working class?
I am truly mystified with this is the case. Can anyone offer me some insight? Even speculation or conjecture is fine. I'm really at a loss trying to wrap my mind around this. Of all the candidates for the working class to attach themselves to, why her?
Especially when you have a candidate like Ralph Nader who's done the exact opposite, who's based not just his campaign but his whole life advocating on behalf of public and workers' health and safety issues.
Thanks for the heads up!
How very kind of the US government to warn us that visitors to this summer's Beijing Olympics not to expect any privacy and they might be subjected to surveillance.
This is the same US government that has demanded the 'right' to spy on its own citizens arbitrarily and without any oversight whatsoever (in order to 'protect their freedoms'). The same US government that protects its own citizens' privacy by making private information on passport applications fair game to any Tom, Dick and Harry that feels like snooping... because such work is shipped out to private contractors with apparently less-than-rigorous controls.
And the consensus is that the most spied-on country that's a likely destination for US tourists is not China, but Britain.
This is the same US government that has demanded the 'right' to spy on its own citizens arbitrarily and without any oversight whatsoever (in order to 'protect their freedoms'). The same US government that protects its own citizens' privacy by making private information on passport applications fair game to any Tom, Dick and Harry that feels like snooping... because such work is shipped out to private contractors with apparently less-than-rigorous controls.
And the consensus is that the most spied-on country that's a likely destination for US tourists is not China, but Britain.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Only 290 more days to go
Wow, it's amazing how the impending end of the Bush nightmare is enough make everyone a little happier.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
"We don't make news. We just report it" and other fairy tales (pt. 233)
I've written countless times before about how the corporate media's coverage of politics deifies trivia over substance. Here's yet another example.
Guess what the latest tempest in a teapot has the insular little world of yapping heads in a tizzy.
Fox News [sic] taunted Chelsea Clinton for explicit refusing to answer questions about her father's affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Apparently, the corporate media feels that the ten-year old story has been ignored, swept under the rug, not at all dealt with by the political class.
And while it's easy to pick on Fox News [sic], the 'story' was also harped on by CNN*, which may stink but remains the least bad TV news broadcaster in the country.
(*-That's the always disappointing CNN Domestic, not the fairly decent CNN International)
Why should the corporate media focus on trivial stuff like the threat of stagflation and skyrocketing food prices when there are juicy sex scandals to titilate the public with?
Guess what the latest tempest in a teapot has the insular little world of yapping heads in a tizzy.
Fox News [sic] taunted Chelsea Clinton for explicit refusing to answer questions about her father's affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Apparently, the corporate media feels that the ten-year old story has been ignored, swept under the rug, not at all dealt with by the political class.
And while it's easy to pick on Fox News [sic], the 'story' was also harped on by CNN*, which may stink but remains the least bad TV news broadcaster in the country.
(*-That's the always disappointing CNN Domestic, not the fairly decent CNN International)
Why should the corporate media focus on trivial stuff like the threat of stagflation and skyrocketing food prices when there are juicy sex scandals to titilate the public with?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)