Again, I’m breaking the no-politics rule… but I was just reading the blogs and I stumbled across this pearl by Rick “I Can’t Tie My Own Shoes” Santorum, who waited a bit but finally had to find a venting outlet for his gay marriage induced man-on-dog fantasies.

So on my birthday (woohoo!) the CA District Court overthrew a ban on gay marriage because, duh, it’s blatantly unconstitutional. And, according to Little Ricky, that was the same day that men in California started having sex with their dogs. (And, possibly, photographing the whole thing and emailing it to Santorum’s office).

I don’t want to rehash the whole anti-gay marriage screed because, embellished man-on-dog details aside, it’s basically the same everywhere. And it’s always completely based on strawmen and reverse logic, is never statistically backed up (oh right, there are no statistics that really back it up…) and is, in general, stupid and backwards.

BUT - he brought up some silly points I just want to poke at. First - the whole idea that anti-discrimination laws are somehow discriminatory to bigots… a common Fundie argument since they don’t have anything else. Let’s get clear about the law here (I have to forgive these guys though, there’s really only one law school that’ll accept them and it happens to be Bob Jones University…) - it’s not illegal to be a bigot. You can hate anyone you want without getting in legal trouble - unfortunately for the rest of us, stupidity and ugliness are not generally illegal in this country. You only get in trouble when you actually try to use that bigotry to harm someone else.

He makes the argument that THE GAY MARRIAGE VOTE WILL SHUT DOWN CHURCHES AND KILL GOD BY REMOVING TAX EXEMPT STATUS OMG OMG OMG. Because, as he says, churches that preach anti-*anything* screed will lose their federal tax protection and that somehow is the same as being illegal. I realize this may be a complex train of thought for most of these folks, but let me try to be clear: It’s not illegal to preach in your church (nor, unfortunately, will it ever be); however, (as one Pandagon commenter put it) tell the congregation they’ll be excommunicated for voting for a gay candidate, and BAM you lose your funding and federal protection.

And anyway - churches already discriminate based on religion, a protected class. A Catholic church is not obligated to marry two Jews, a synagogue not obligated to marry two Protestants, etc… and they’re not facing legal trouble for it. Exclusion and discrimination are the nature of religion, they have to show us what not to be like in order to teach us what to be like. So I don’t understand why they get their panties in such a knot over adding gays to the list of protected classes that their federally tax-exempt church can officially discriminate against.

WHICH leads me to my second point. In his article he goes into uncontrollable spasm over churches and religious organizations losing their tax protections. I have to admit, I read that and had to re-read it several times to figure out that he was casting it as a bad thing - at first I thought he was providing one good possibility of an outcome from the crazy string of logic he laid out.

Let me go out on another limb here and make another crazy prediction. Within 10 years, clergy will be sued or indicted for preaching on certain Bible passages dealing with homosexuality and churches, and church-related organizations will lose government contracts and even their tax-exempt status.

Quick! Somebody call the WAAAAmbulance!

Hmm… let’s see. Cancellation of federal protection for churches… church-affiliated organizations losing government contracts and other boons just for preaching… that sounds like further separation of church and state to me! What business does the government have supporting churches anyway?! “Church-related organizations” getting government contracts - that sounds like it should be illegal in this country. If you can prove non-profit legal status based on reasons OUTSIDE of simply being a church (genuine charity, community development, etc), fine. Otherwise (Tammy Faye Baker?), why exactly do you deserve tax exemption?

I’d be happy as shit if my tax dollars were no longer going to support religious organizations against my choice. It’s borderline money laundering that my federal taxes are currently going to these groups to protect them from paying federal taxes, and to allow them to send missionaries overseas and within the US to harvest souls.

Because these groups aren’t about community development anymore, they’ve been hijacked by Right Wingers using them to snuggle up to the US Government, who after 8 years of the current regime will gladly push their interests forward, while continuing to evangelize… on my dime.

So cry me a river about religious tax exemption and man-on-dog action - I haven’t heard one single, legitimate, well reasoned argument as to why the decision was anything other than a genuine triumph of an independent judiciary, and a needed recheck to the Bush-era legal machine.

Could that be because there simply isn’t a good argument to be made? Hmm.

I usually try to avoid anything political here, but I can’t always succeed.   I saw something on the news today that I just have to vent about because, well - a favorite webcomic sums it up pretty well here:

xkcd, and me

This morning on CNN, there was an article commenting on immigration rights marches, that inevitably involve undocumented immigrants, demanding immigration reform measures to be top priority for the next American president.  The title of the article was: “Mexican flag waving’s one bad tactic,” and it was written by Latino-American opinion writer Ruben Navarrette, Jr.  And here’s where I begin to take issue: first - an opinion piece, which wasn’t labeled as such, simply does not belong among the top headlines on a news website, where it blends in with facts and figures and purports to be fact unless you look closely enough (which most people reading the news, sadly, do not) - one person’s opinion is not fact to be taken along with the daily news.  But that’s just the beginning.

Reading the article it doesn’t take long to realize that this opinion piece is nothing more than a thinly-veiled screed against immigration-rights reform and activism to that end, and a particularly insidious form of it no less.  Let’s take the first sentence that jumps out, from the first paragraph:

…illegal immigrants are in no position to demand anything, except maybe a window seat on the deportation bus..

So here, the essence of the argument is basically that the best strategy for marginalized populations is to stay silent, and just really really hope that things will change for the better for them.  And then if they hope hard enough (and, of course, quietly and out of the way of the white/privileged majority), things really will change!  Because that’s how things have always changed in this country, right?  Minorities and marginalized populations have quietly and politely crept up to the master’s table and asked, piece by piece, for some shadow of equality that ‘they’ should ‘just be happy with’ already.

Fucking wrong. The essence of the article was pretty simple at its core - though veiled in journalistic eloquence: how dare you take to the streets and make yourselves visible, demanding rights and justice? Navarrette’s resentment towards the people taking to the streets was clear from the beginning of the article - no matter how hard he tried to hide it; the entire piece parroted the dangerous and ugly sentiments of the people on the wrong side of the civil rights movement, and then the women’s rights movement and gay rights movements, that ‘these people’ should ‘learn their place,’ and worst, he perpetuates the circular logic of marginalization: that silenced populations have no voice because there’s some virtue in their silence.

Real and lasting change comes from running through the process — illegal immigrants becoming legal residents, and legal residents becoming U.S. citizens who can vote and run for office.

Well, in a perfect world this might be right - except that here the process is broken, racist, and slanted against people who have for whatever reason come to this country without documentation.  It’s basically impossible, without some type of immigration reform, to take Mr. Navarrette’s advice - so here’s our argument: Don’t engage in activism for immigration reform, just go and get citizenship, which, because of our racist system, is impossible and will be impossible without serious immigration reform.  Brilliant.

If Navarrette had his way, undocumented immigrants would stay comfortably away from his world view and off of his neighborhood streets - they wouldn’t be out waving flags and demanding the rights and justice that every human being deserves based on the fact that they are human beings, regardless of citizenship, nationality, ethnicity, race, gender, sexuality, religion, or any other category or classification.  If Navarrette got his way, he could continue to construct them as second-class human beings, as less-worthy of rights and respect, and he could continue to expect them to cower and be somehow grateful for whatever tiny movement on immigration reform manages to come through the US government process.

I sincerely hope he won’t get his way.

But, you say, Navarrette is Latino-American, so surely, this can’t be an example of racism.  Surely, you remind me, he speaks on behalf of the undocumented immigrants’ “best interests.”  Well aside from the fact that nobody but oneself speaks on behalf of one’s own best interests - this is, I think, a most insidious example of our system’s deep racism.  Racism and privelege, or working for the greater good?  Let me quote Navarrette again:

So which came first — the chicken or the huevos rancheros?

It seems to me that this article was nothing more than racist propaganda, under the guise of “news,” further under the guise of “advice on ‘good civics’”.

The most dangerous part of this article is that it’s just too easy for people to read it and say, hey here’s this Latino-American guy who agrees with me, and it’s on CNN, so it’s not racist and it must be right, I guess it’s okay to think this way.

Well it’s not, and Mr. Navarrette may have done a lot more harm than he’ll ever realize - so shame on him, but even more than that, shame on you CNN, for printing this nonsense and tacitly consenting to it alongside news headlines and, in the minds of god knows how many people, thereby making it fact.

 RE: The Omaha Mall Shootings… (the sad part is, this song will, I think, always be relevant to our society).

the sun is setting on the century
and we are armed to the teeth
we’re all working together now
to make our lives mercifully brief

and school kids keep trying to teach us
what guns are all about
confuse liberty with weaponry
and watch your kids act it out

and every year now like christmas
some boy gets the milk fed suburban blues
reaches for the available arsenal
and saunters off to make the news

and the women in the middle
are learning what poor women have always known
that the edge is closer than you think
when the men bring the guns home

look at where the profits are
that’s how you’ll find the source
of the big lie that you and I both know so well
by the time it takes this cultural
death wish to run it’s course
they’re gonna to make a pretty penny
and then they’re going straight to hell

he said the chickens all come home to roost
malcolm forecast the flood
are we really going to sleep through another century
while the rich profit off our blood

yeah it may take some doing
to see this undoing through
but in my humble opinion
here’s what i suggest we do
open fire on Hollywood
open fire on MTV
open fire on NBC and CBS and ABC
open fire on the NRA
and all the lies they told us along the way

open fire on each weapons manufacturer
while he’s giving head to some Republican senator
and if I hear one more time
about a fools right to his tools of rage
I’m gonna take all my friends
and I’m going to move to canada
and we’re going to die of old age

{ani - to the teeth}

It’s not very often that I end up in a situation that makes me feel like a moderate, so I felt this was worth expressing in words.

So, I studied abroad in Europe, at a very liberal university (as most are in the EU at this point), and I was studying International Development, so I ended up in a lot of seminars where the main theme was “European hippies bashing the US for all sorts of reasons, even though it was obvious they knew nothing about American politics nor had they ever been to the US.” And I did learn a lot, and I think so did they, because I participated actively, and reminded them that Americans do, in fact, also have points of view and educations in political science and maybe, just maybe, something interesting to add to the conversation. Not a fashionable thing to say right now, I know.

Let me just set something straight. I’m not little miss poster-child patriot right wing flag waiver. Ha. Far from it. I’ve been more than happy to admit there are any number of faults in this country’s government, but it’s also my home, and I also believe that there are some virtues that get missed when people engage in the typical uninformed, canned US-bashing that happens to be chic at the moment. And that’s just the problem. It’s canned, uninformed, and over-repeated, and people just eat it up because it’s the political fad at the moment.

Yes, the US empire is going to fall, ok, we get that. But I went to this lecture today, and it was so awful because, as a political scientist, it was so hard for me not to a) interrupt him rudely or b) leave the room rudely. At first I was thinking, this guy is a total crack - he’s lost it. He’s 80 years old, he must have been good in his earlier days, but he’s gone now, and this is even a little bit embarrassing. But then I started to listen a little while longer, and I recognized the exact same crap I was listening to at SOAS in London - uninformed, poorly thought through, impractical, canned anti-US crap.

He mentions the imperialism of having US military bases around the world, and how the “global feeling” is that the US should just withdraw all those bases right now and go home. From everywhere. And that everyone agrees about that.
A couple of things on this.
1) South Korea. The South Korean government does not want the US to withdraw bases from its soil, that’s why we’re still there. Believe it or not, we’ve been trying to scale down our military presence there for the past 7-10 years but every time we get to a certain point the SK government, no matter how left-leaning, flips out and begs us to come back. Remember who’s looming right on the other side of the DMZ there. Yeah, and remember who’s guarding that DMZ. Right. I’m not saying we haven’t made mistakes - the behavior of the US marines against SK civilians a few years back was unforgivable, heinous, and absolutely inexcusable under any circumstances, civilian or military. Nonetheless, our bases are needed there as a force for peace. This may be hard to comprehend but try to look at it from the perspective of someone who has to look at that fence every day. Would you rather see an American GI or an NK First Guard looking back at you?
We don’t actually do anything in SK anymore, but the presence is symbolic, and the nature of the balance of power in Northeast Asia is such that if one piece were removed the entire structure could crumble, and I don’t think it’s wise to force the US to be that piece.

2) We are scaling down our bases in Europe. By 2010, most of our GI’s in Germany will be in Iraq. Lucky them. They’re thrilled.

3) How would an isolationist US foreign policy help the world right now? What these people say they want is the US out of everything, right now. Basically, they want to return to the sort of Jeffersonian isolationist America where we feared “foreign entanglements” abroad and stayed happily protected by our little oceans. (Right up until the exact same people who are telling us to do that came begging us for help with their stupid wars) - a demand like this betrays an overwhelmingly limited knowledge of international politics and international political economy. Whether you like it or not, this is a globalized world — the United States, though we provide percentage-wise, the smallest portion of aid by GDP, provides one of the largest gross amounts of foreign assistance, in addition to technical assistance, FDI, etc.

Not to mention special assistance packages such as the ones to Israel and Egypt, our two largest recipients of aid. Okay, US out. Suddenly, the two countries we promised to protect (from each other, no less) go to war. Bye bye, Middle East/North Africa, because you just lost your stabilizing force, we’re not there to keep a lid on Israel, the treaty between Egypt and Israel is gone, and they’re both armed to the teeth and scared shitless of each other. Good plan!

And can we talk about India and Pakistan for a moment? Can anyone say nuclear war? Fun times.

Standing international arrangements, norms, financial and capital flows, the importance of foreign assistance, and the role of the United States in stabilization and humanitarian assistance as well as economic engagement make this demand not only ridiculous but completely impossible. Even if we wanted to - how would we go about doing that, oh Doomsday Seers?

Then, my favorite part, he goes into American domestic politics which is great because he’s never actually lived here or studied that, and he asks “where will resistance come from within the US?” He goes on to answer his own question, saying where it won’t come from: The American South (which he completely generalizes as the “Southern Baptist Convention”), it won’t come from women, it won’t come from “blacks”, it won’t come from “hispanics” (on this he quotes his ‘friend’ Sam Huntington)…..

I’m just going to leave out the blatant racism from this, except to say that anyone who quotes Samuel Huntington immediately loses my respect.  The old racist bastard and Cheney adviser devised “The Hispanic Problem” as the next issue facing the “Clash of Civilizations” and wouldn’t recommend interracial relationships because cultural differences are simply irreconcilable.  You know, all that tribal stuff and whatnot.

Resistance is everywhere!  The only person who could make a statement like this is someone who has spent less than a month in total on US soil.  As a young woman who marched both in Seattle at the WTO protest at 16 years old and had her first experience of tear gas at that young age, and also who marched on Washington in the March for Women’s Lives in 2004 with over a million of my fellow women activists, I have a hard fucking time buying this statement.  Everywhere I go I see resistance.  It comes in people of every color, every class, every gender and ever sexuality.  Protests, passive resistance, college forums, movements, push towards education - it’s all there.  But someone who just looks at the surface wouldn’t see that.

Someone who looks at the South and generalizes it in a way that was clearly meant to be derogatory probably wouldn’t see that many of the poorest counties in the deep South vote dependably democrat.  They’d discount that, or they wouldn’t even notice because it doesn’t fit in with their propaganda line.

Yeah, we’ve got our idiots.  So what?  Everywhere does.  But we’ve also got our activists.  I’d venture to say, some of the best, and most educated, in the entire world.  But if you don’t look, then how can you expect to find them?  And if you discount everything you see, what do you expect to find?

He also made a comment that really got under my skin, about how the seat of all killing, (like in the world) was in Seattle, with Boeing.   

I’d like to clear up that though Boeing has factories in Seattle, the headquarters are now in another city.  And if you want to insult my city and insult Boeing, fine, but I’d like you to think about the 380,000 people who lost their jobs when that company decided with no reason to leave Seattle after years of serving as an economic foundation for Seattle’s development.  Boeing left, Seattle still hasn’t recovered.

Maybe the headquarters of Boeing are evil puppetmasters of death, but the truth is that the people who got hurt in Seattle are Americans who had devoted their lives to that damned company and then suddenly had nothing.  Boeing betrayed Seattle, betrayed 380,000 Americans who have families, many of whom became homeless shortly thereafter.  It was a crisis that still hurts Seattle.  So go ahead, make a jab at my city.  You clearly don’t care about the cost of human life when it’s American suffering.

And jab my city.  Go on, insult it.  It’s rated the #1 most fuel efficient, greenest, most eco-conscious city in the United States by several independent analysts.  It’s also one of the most politically liberal cities in the country.

But go ahead.  You’ve probably never been there.  You’ve never had a friend who had to drop out of school because her dad went to work one day and his job wasn’t there.  Go on.  Sure, it’s the seat of all killing.  Because of Boeing.  Tell that to those people, I’m sure they’d love to hear that.

But if you’d like to be accurate in your next speech, Boeing is now located in the beautiful city of Chicago.  Thank you.

Yes, the Iraq war sucks. Yes, the American media lies a lot. Find me a country whose media doesn’t. Ok, our health care system bites - you think it’s better in Europe? Well try waiting 2 years for urgent surgery in England because NHS is backed up. Yeah, Social Security blows and should be better, but try living in a ghetto/slum in Paris where you have no rights and no voice and work under the radar for less than $2/day. It’s not really all that romantic anywhere else. Really. Yeah, we’ve made some pretty big mistakes, domestically and abroad. So go ahead, be anti-US, criticize America - I do all the time. But please, do it in an educated way. Because otherwise you’re just as ignorant as the other side, just eating up a line of bullshit propaganda that you don’t understand, and making yourself sound like an ass in the process.


RedHoll Cpanel Hosting