acroyear: (sp)

But damn, the Washington Post in their Congressional endorsements (yes, Comstock) show a naivete that is unheard of in a national-level newspaper.

Seriously? "our endorsement is a calculated hope that after wrapping herself in a bipartisan banner, her actions will match her rhetoric."

Drinking the kool-aid indeed.

acroyear: (sp)

I *almost* posted this on FB. I really did. Sanity saved me at the last second.

The ACLU has openly come out against the idea of using the No Fly List as a criteria for any further restrictions against those whose names are on it.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms

I seriously agree with the ACLU on this one. The No Fly List is horrid, in its accuracy, its consequences on the innocent, and on the utter lack of due process. It is one of the grossest violations of the 5th Amendment ever accepted by modern America (the other being civil asset forfeiture).


On top of that, it is obvious that it would not have even stopped San Bernardino at all, as 1) neither shooter was on the list, and 2) they weren't the ones who purchased (from a store) the applicable weapons in the first place, so they never would have been detected by such a check even if they were on that list.

When a proposed solution doesn't actually solve the problem, and it wouldn't solve the problem of ANY of *big* events of the last few years, either because these types of weapons weren't involved, or they weren't on the no-fly list, then it is not a solution, it is rotten theater.

And that's all I'm going to say about it.
acroyear: (normal)
One of the common questions asked is why haven't the "moderate" Middle Eastern governments taken a harder stance against ISIS. Even Turkey, a NATO ally, kept the border rather porous for individuals to cross and join with ISIS, and resisted letting us use our own air strips within their country for strikes against them until the nutcases crossed the border to harass the Kurds. Turkey may hate the Kurds, but their own Kurds are their problem, not ISIS's, to deal with. Jordan as well, has armed their border, but not dared to cross it...but then again, Jordan itself hasn't actually seen a direct threat yet, in spite of their more secular attitudes to personal behavior compared to the hardline ISIS leadership.

Today I read a detail about Beruit that the media, even when finally mentioning that city at all, didn't say.

ISIS's target wasn't the city as a whole. ISIS didn't even target the (eastern) Christians in that city.

ISIS's targets were Shia. All of them. Village and family, it was a Sunni strike against Shiites, not a fundamentalist strike against moderates nor a Muslim attack against non-Muslims, which it would have been if the Christians' neighborhoods had been the target.

A Sunni strike against Shia.

Suddenly, a lot of things made sense.
the rest behind the fold )
acroyear: (border)
Why are the conservatives so happy about passing on this NYTimes thingy that Iraq may have actually had chemical weapons, when it would be their administration's pentagon that suppressed that information in the first place? If GWB, Inc. really wanted to save face in light of the lack of evidence for WMDs, why didn't they come forward with this 5-10 years ago?

No I don't want answers to why GWB etc did nothing about this (if it is even true), I want answers to why Conservatives are so gloatful and completely missing the hypocrisy of their own administration throughout this entire time frame.

In other words, the great unanswerable question.

Hence, I'm not bothering to post this on FB.
acroyear: (number 2 judge)
Not saying anything more about yesterday's sad events other than there was also clear evidence that the blanket declaration, "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" (12/21/2012), was proven false.
NRA and gun supporters: you are welcome to use facts (as many do including some of my friends on FB), but when you start making blanket rhetorical statements like that above quote, others now have a clear reason not to believe you.

--

the temptation to put this on FB was quite strong, but I resisted.  that said, someone else say anything and I'll surely bring it up.
acroyear: (bite me)
Dear Mr. Matt Gaetz (rep, florida).  Under no circumstances are you or your ilk EVER allowed to call anything done by your opposition, "reactionary".  It does not mean what you think it means.
Stand Your Ground is, itself, the reactionary law.  Reforming it to limit the scope and the burden of proof required for it to be applicable is progressive.
signed, someone who paid attention in high school civics.
acroyear: (sick of politics)
My brain just came up with the following news item:

"House Republicans Furious with Speaker for not Allowing Them To Vote Against Hurricane Relief"
acroyear: (schtoopid)
This tweet after the election cracked me up:

Guy Nicolucci@Nicolucci1899
Karl Rove has redistributed more money from billionaires than Barack Obama ever will.

Funniest Election Tweet | Dispatches from the Culture Wars
acroyear: (sick of politics)
If Valery Jarrett is supposedly some real influential super-power within the White House, why the hell is it that nobody (even among Democrats) have even really heard of her until this likely fake 'hell to pay' quote suddenly starting making the right-wing blogosphere?
acroyear: (coyote1)
Ohio Republicans Think Romney Killed Bin Laden? | Dispatches from the Culture Wars
Every once in a while you see a poll result that just leaves your jaw agape. Here’s a perfect example. A Public Policy Polling survey over the weekend asked who respondents thought was more responsible for the death of Osama Bin Laden, President Obama or Mitt Romney.

Now the answer to this should be obvious, since Romney could not possibly have had anything to do with it. Not so to Republican voters in that state, apparently, since only 38% of them answered Obama — with 15% saying Romney gets more credit and 47% saying they don’t know. I’m dumbfounded.
Stupidity of this magnitude should be painful.
acroyear: (don't let the)
Romney Wants More Cold Fusion Research | Mike the Mad Biologist
Romney actually said this. Out loud. To another person:
I do believe in basic science. I believe in participating in space. I believe in analysis of new sources of energy. I believe in laboratories, looking at ways to conduct electricity with — with cold fusion, if we can come up with it. It was the University of Utah that solved that. We somehow can’t figure out how to duplicate it.
acroyear: (sick of politics)
"I will not talk politics on a facebook anti-Obama post."
"I will not talk politics on a facebook anti-Obama post."
"I will not talk politics on a facebook anti-Obama post."
"I will not talk politics on a facebook anti-Obama post."
"I will not talk politics on a facebook anti-Obama post."
"I will not talk politics on a facebook anti-Obama post."
"I will not talk politics on a facebook anti-Obama post."
"I will not talk politics on a facebook anti-Obama post."

and I didn't.  sanity preserved for one more day...
acroyear: (coyote1)
Not enough to paint the founding fathers as Evangelical Christians (which most weren't, certainly not by the standard of modern Evangelism which only dates back to the 1880s), the right-wing nutcases are now lying by mixing present ideologies with past political parties.

Bryan Fischer has decided that because it was Republicans that ended slavery 150 years ago, it was "Conservatives" that ended slavery and the "Liberals" wanted to keep it going.  Similarly, because Southern Democrats of the 1960s (a demographic concept that ceased to exist as Newt implemented the final step in the election of 1994) were the ones that filibustered the Civil Rights acts at the time, Fischer declares the obvious non-conclusion, that "Liberals" were the ones doing that.

The Party now is the Ideology always - history doesn't matter anymore, because nothing has ever changed, ever.

I suppose if you believe the earth to be 6,000 year old, that must make some kind of sick sense...

--

update: I'll note it is very unlikely that he'll take the example of Republican President Teddy Roosevelt and decide that
  1. National Parks are a great way to spend public funds
  2. Large monopolistic corporations, including banks, need to be split up and regulated
  3. Unions are the backbone of corporate and economic justice


acroyear: (number 2 judge)
There's the big question of why did Roberts become the swing.  More importantly (to those reading in detail) why did he change his mind so late in the process (like his namesake did in '37).

My belief: Roberts didn't do it to "protect the supreme court".  He did it to save Scalia.  He did it to protect the Wickard wide-reading of the Commerce Clause that had proven so useful for other conservative decisions like the federal ban on medical marijuana (what should be a 'states rights' issue) and the federal ban on assisted suicide (ditto).

Scalia's dissent, which if you read it right was originally meant to be the decision, as it mentions Ginsberg's "dissent" (that wasn't, it became a concurrence) several times, matched with a recent document he wrote recently basically saying that SCOTUS overreached in Wickard and that the wide reading of Commerce (which he himself used in his decisions on those two cases) was wrong.  They (Scalia, Alito, Thomas) were going to restore limits on the Commerce Clause solely to get rid of the health care law.

Roberts wouldn't let them do it.

He must have a reason. There is (and it will likely take me days to find it) an upcoming case where a Wickard-style wide-reading of the Commerce Clause is going to be the critical decider, and it must be one that is bigger than somethign as simple as charging 4 million people $500 a year for opting out of insurance.  He wasn't saving SCOTUS from being seen as partisan (far too late for that).  He is saving the Commerce Clause itself for more important conservative things ahead, real business issues rather than a simple social issue (one that fiscal conservatives actually like as they're the ones that came up with it 16 years ago).
acroyear: (weirdos...)
Chicken or the Gays: Make a Choice About Eating Chick-fil-A:
If you'd really like to support gays and lesbians in a world lousy with Chick-fil-As, how about this tactic instead: From now on, don't fucking eat at Chick-fil-A if you are a person who believes gays are equal to you and deserving of equal treatment under the law. No equivocating and no buying back karma with pity donations to gay-rights groups. Simply avoid the chain for as long as it upholds its homophobic ties. Full stop.

Is this really that hard to do? Is Chick-fil-A so delicious that people are willing to ignore their most cherished principles in order to eat a couple handfuls of its sodium-drenched chicken wads? I haven't eaten Chick-fil-A in about a decade, but the last time I did, I don't remember it being all that spectacular. The meat was average and the buns were soggy, soaked through with butter and brine from anemic pickle discs. It certainly wasn't good enough food to get me to forsake my belief that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. Which is why, when I found out Chick-fil-A's Southern Baptist leaders believed otherwise, I stopped eating there and started eating at the thousands of other places that serve greasy, hastily made, inexpensive sandwiches.
I made the decision to do exactly that. I don't miss it.  At all.
acroyear: (don't let the)
Southerners deserve better from candidates - The Washington Post:
What else would one expect, anyway, when the candidates themselves fall into a weird sort of “Southern Tourette’s,” delivering inanities apparently gleaned from the visitor’s guide to “redneck” tropes?

“Mornin’, y’all,” said Mitt Romney recently to a Mississippi crowd. He started his day off right, he said, with “a biscuit and some cheesy grits.” That would be cheese grits, but never mind. Would Romney greet an audience at a Jewish Community Center with: “Oy vey, did I ever enjoy my loxies and bagels this morning!”? Or African Americans with: “Yo, dawg, wassup?”

Actually, yes, he might. Forever tattooed in the memory is the image of Romney approaching an African American baby at a 2008 Martin Luther King Jr. Day parade. Pointing to the baby’s necklace, he said: “What’s happening? You got some bling-bling here!”

Yo.

Which means “I” in Spanish, so why not go there, too? “Buenos dias, amigos. Love me some tacos and salsies.”

Romney isn’t the only guilty party, just the most recent. Even Barack Obama loses his last syllable south of the Mason-Dixon. For Romney, however, the more he tries to get down with the people, the more he highlights the perception that he can’t.
acroyear: (don't go there)
Newt Gingrich didn't see his shadow (right before his eyes), so we're stuck with 6 more weeks of GOP primary stupidity...
acroyear: (don't let the)
Now who can argue with that? I think we're all indebted to Gabby Johnson for stating what needed to be said. I am particularly glad that these lovely children are here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed the courage little seen in this day and age.
I *so* want to stand up and say that in the middle of a Tea Party rally...

p.s., Happy New Year, all. :)
acroyear: (don't go there)
Romney and the KKK Slogan | Dispatches from the Culture Wars:
But there’s a second reason why pointing out this coincidence is reasonable and that is its inherently xenophobic nature. Romney may not be in the KKK and he may not personally be a racist, but phrases like “keep America American” appeal explicitly to American xenophobia and prejudice. It’s the kind of anti-immigration sentiment that has justified a wide range of oppressive policies over the past two centuries, aimed at pretty much every group that settled here — including white Europeans like the Irish. So racism is only part of the problem of tribalistic bigotry, and that is the kind of fearmongering being exploited by Romney’s use of that phrase.

There is nothing more American than immigration and the blending of different races, ethnicities and religions. That is the quintessential element of American life. Sadly, there have always been pockets of resistance to that idea. In every age, the immigrant is demonized and targeted by rhetoric like “keep America American.” And Romney should be held to account for trying to tap that vein of bigotry for political gain.

Profile

acroyear: (Default)
Joe's Ancient Jottings

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
91011 12131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 27th, 2017 06:57 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios