Watch this. Please. Or at least read the transcript.
Olbermann on Rumsfeld
1
Category Archives: Right-wing watch
US House votes for theocracy
The House just voted to bar federal courts from hearing Pledge of Allegiance cases. Aside from the sheer inanity of grandstanding for God and country instead of solving pressing issues that affect people’s lives (say, oh, the Iraq war, health care, minimum wage), this is a frontal assault on the Constitutional separation of powers.
Contrary to conservatives’ propaganda, the courts do not exist to rubberstamp the legislature or referenda. They exist to interpret cases in view of the law, and the law in view of Constitutional principles. This is Civics 101, which apparently many a member of Congress slept through. Seeking to limit matters that may be brought before the courts is the beginning of a slippery slope towards theocracy. (Side note: isn’t it funny how the conservatives uttered not one peep about the “activist judges” who ruled against gay marriage in New York and Georgia?)
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. Matthew 6:5
Hate in the Rose Garden
The President of the United States is not a uniter, he is a panderer.
In his weekly radio address this weekend, he reiterated his support for the Federal [Anti-]Marriage Amendment. This man, and many in Congress, clearly feels that not giving legal protection to couples who are committed to each other is much more important than stopping the killings in Iraq, the crisis in Darfur, the inexorable degradation of the environment, the rise in anti-intellectualism, the lack of ethics in government, health care for all Americans, and a living wage for all workers.
What can you do? Get active! Write your officials! Pull out your wallet!
Become a member of the Human Rights Campaign . Have a postcard sent to Congress on your behalf. Check where your Senators stand, and write to them expressing your views!
Let’s talk about sex
Sex is fun, but as we all know, it has potential consequences: it can give rise to strong emotions, expose one to STDs, and (for straight folks) carry the possibility of an unintended pregnancy. For this reason, there is general agreement that people are socially and economically better off holding off on sex until adulthood. Even the modern adult, however, is hardly constrained by older notions of “procreative sex only, and only in marriage.” Some choose to hold off on marriage until reaching a more secure and stable point in their lives. Others do not wish to get married, or are not allowed to. Even a married straight couple may choose to limit how many children they have. This does not change the fact that most adults are sexual creatures, and sex can be extremely gratifying.
Which brings us to the Sex Wars. Many conservatives want to establish abstinence-only sex education, reasoning that it will cut down on pre-marital sex and the myriad social problems they claim it brings about: the decay of morals, rampant hedonism, and teenage pregnancy. Many conservatives also want to restrict or criminalize abortion, in part because they see it as breaking the link between sex and procreation. For this reason, too, many conservatives are waging a war on contraception, so that every sexual act (remember, only the straight missionary position is allowed) may lead to pregnancy and the growth of the family.
These solutions put the cart before the horse. Sure, youngsters should wait to have sex, but human nature hasn’t changed in millenia: just as they did in Biblical, medieval, and Victorian times, some fraction of young people will have sex (sometimes covertly, sometimes with a wink from society). Admonitions to abstain have not worked in all that time, and they don’t work now. Given that fact, what is the best we can do? Surely it is to educate people so that the undesirable consequences are reduced as much as possible! This means comprehensive sex education, including information on contraceptives and their risks and benefits. Withholding this information, knowing human nature as we do, is tantamount to cruelly keeping our children ignorant and condemning them to carry the burden of their uninformed, if less than wise, choices.
A similar reasoning applies to abortion. Getting an abortion is no walk in the park, and I doubt many women rely on it as a means of birth control. More to the point, women have abortions even when abortions are criminalized: the rich do it with the discretion that only money can buy, while the poor do it in back alleys. Criminalizing abortion will not stop it, but will drive it underground. The results, at least for the poor, will be a higher rate of health complications and deaths, as well as the additional stigma, vulnerability to extortion, and criminal record that can dash all aspirations of building a better life.
If the conservatives really care about making lives better and not having abortions, they should make it possible for people to be informed about sex, prophylactics, and birth control, so that those who invariably can’t or do not want to live up to conservatives’ moral codes can make informed decisions. In other words, given that some people will choose to have sex in situations that put them at risk of STDs or unwanted pregnancies, our social policy should be to help them and society minimize those risks and associated costs. For this reason, the third front in the sex wars is also important: access to contraceptives must be guaranteed. This way, we can help reduce disease and unwanted pregnancy before they happen, when it’s cheaper and safer.
What seems to drive many of the conservatives in the Sex Wars is the notion that sex and reproduction ought to always remain coupled. That is a moral judgment to which they are entitled, but which should not be forced on the rest of society. I submit for their consideration a different tenet which works for other people: when done in a way that is respectful of all parties and which prevents unwanted consequences, sex is not only harmless, it is a celebration of life.
Dictator
(n) a ruler who is unconstrained by law
From The Boston Globe:
WASHINGTON — President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Here’s a comparison to other presidents and some examples.
Thanks to Dan Froomkin of The Washington Post for pointing this out.
UPDATE: Some more commentary from Slate.