What's the word of the day? Iniquitous

How many times can you use the word "iniquitous" in a sentence? Bet you can't beat Cardinal Alfonso Lopes Trujillo, head of the Pontifical Council on the Family. I don't know why this is striking me as so funny.

"We cannot impose the iniquitous on people. "On the contrary, precisely because they are iniquitous the Church makes an urgent call for freedom of conscience and the duty to oppose. A law as profoundly iniquitous as this one is not an obligation, it cannot be an obligation."

Here's ... stuff in your eye

Ann Coulter had a pie pelted at her (hopefully you all know the story, but here's her latest article on it.)

Jane Fonda got tobacco spat at her.

If you condemn one, you have to condemn the other.

If you laugh at one, you have to laugh at the other.

I laugh at both.

Of course, I think Jane Fonda handled it a little more gracefully by electing not to press charges:

"It was a minor incident at a really wonderful evening, and I think the authorities have better things to do than press charges against this man."

And that is not an endorsement of what she did during the Vietnam War. That was wrong. I completely understand why this man felt so strongly as to spit in her eye.

It's nice when someone can admit they were wrong. It doesn't take away what they did, but it's better than never changing, never realizing that you made mistakes.

Texas may ban gay foster parents

Texas could become the only state to bar gays from becoming foster parents under legislation passed Wednesday by the House.

Huh?

What's next, take away the children naturally born of lesbians? Seriously, what's the difference?

Vile I tell you, vile!

Beautiful DC day

Every time my sister comes to Seattle, she brings amazing weather with her. I was happy to return the favor today with DC's amazingly sunny day.

Picked up 4 new photos from the brother-in-sin (yay!). Had dinner with the spook on Wednesday night. Can't talk about it, it's classified ;-).

I love DC. Of course I probably won't love it so much on Monday when I start house hunting and see the prices!

The Judiciary: They brought in on themselves?

What more evidence do you need that the right has gone off the deep end?

And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in violence.

Um, need I remind people, it is the exact purpose of the judiciary to make decisions on what is constitutional, the interpretation of law, and that by its very makeup, that is not going to always be "popular"?

If you want popular, go see the musical Wicked. I promise you a rousing and funny song on the subject. If you want popular, elect the idiot in Oklahoma who sterilized a young girl against her wishes. You want popular? Travel back in time to when slavery or misogyny was "popular." We rely on the judiciary, and their lifetime appointments, to make decisions that are not always popular. The Dred Scott case was "popular!"

My gods and goddesses, what the hell? This is what you want out of our country? And you wonder why the left questions what is going on in this day and age? Because the right wing crackpots are ruining this GD country! (Sorry, I'm really angry over this.)

We have a Senator, one Senator John Cornyn of Texas (of course he's from Texas, and here's another link) saying that judges are bringing it on themselves?

Just like rape victims bring it on themselves. Right?

Lighter (than usual) blogging next week

I know I'm not the most prolific blogger as it is (casualty of work). But next week will be even lighter than normal. I'm on vacation, in DC. Which will likely bring on many topics, but whether I get time to blog about them will be another thing. Family shindig and all that, you know.

Sin City: Brilliant, dark, disturbing, funny

I saw Sin City yesterday. This would not normally be my cup of tea (not because of the violence but because of the whole graphic novel, film noir style). Well, I was dead wrong and I'm so glad I went to see it. Brilliant visually and the vignettes were incredibly engaging, splitting my attention between being absorbed in the individual stories and trying to figure out how they all connected.

If you don't like violence, steer far clear of this film. But having it in the style it was, rather than live action, definitely dulled the edges of the most extreme scenes.

The color of blood tells you a lot about the characters in the movie.

Regardless of the hate crime charge ...

For visciously attacking a lone man on the street, for slashing his back and face with a broken bottle. And on top of that, doing it because the victim was gay. But even without that last part, this is the sentence for viscious assault?

3 found guilty of hate crime for assaulting gay man

Samusenko faces 31 to 35 months in prison, and Kravchenko and Savchak each face nine to 15 months ...

Seattle's local alternative paper The Stranger has a great article describing the victim, Micah Painter, and his attackers. And the Evangelical influences on all four of them.

There is no “Culture of Life”

Neither the right or the left actually believes in life, as an overriding goal above all else. Both sides believe in some lives and not others.

In this post, I’m making many broad and extreme statements to illustrate my point, which is that there is no such thing as a culture of life or a love of death in the ideological spectrum of left and right. I know that these statements can be picked apart and debated, and feel free to do so. But I’m making them because I am so tired of hearing this culture of life b.s. when it is simply not true.

The right cares about some lives. They don’t care about the lives lost when they make cuts to Medicaid. They don’t care about lives lost due to exposure or illness when they reduce homeless programs. They don’t care about lives lost due to war. They see them as necessary evils, losses to be expected, broken eggs in the making of an omelet.

There may be very good reasons the right does some of things they do. I too would like to see communities rather than governments deal with their homeless problems. And I am a person who understands that lives get damaged or lost in making great changes. I’m no peacenik who thinks military action is always wrong. There are decisions that have to be made for the greatest good and some will suffer along the way. I don’t often agree that the approaches they are taking are the right ones, but I don’t slap them with a culture of death label, either.

There are good reasons the left supports the causes we do. The left understands that lives get lost in some situations. The Terri Schiavo case: It was more important to uphold the rule of law, the separation of powers, and a person’s right to choose than it was to save one life, especially a life of that quality. We on the left understand that there will be women who are irresponsible about their reproductive choices and use abortion as some form of birth control. We are willing to allow a minority of people to do that to serve the greater cause of preserving women’s rights over their (our) bodies.

Neither side is—or can be—supporting a “culture of life.” That’s too broad, and no one truly practices it. So can we please drop that stupid statement? No one is “right-to-life.” We are in favor of the rights of some lives (hopefully most) in some situations depending on what we need to do right now to get to the next stage in our development.

A Sane Governor

Illinois Pharmacies Ordered to Fill Birth Control Prescriptions Without Delays

"Gov. Rod Blagojevich approved an emergency rule Friday requiring pharmacies to fill birth control prescriptions quickly after a Chicago pharmacist refused to fill an order because of moral opposition to the drug.

The emergency rule takes effect immediately for 150 days while the administration seeks a permanent rule."

A pharmacist can make whatever decisions they like about their own life, own medical treatment, whatever. But they should not be able to interfere with the legal medical choices between a patient and a doctor.

A pharmacist's role is to dispense medication. Beyond that, they are valuable in helping a patient determine effects of multiple medications (especially if the patient has multiple doctors and one pharmacist).

But the minute we allow someone to interfere in the medical decisions between a patient and a doctor for any reason not based on facts, but on their personal beliefs, we have a huge problem.

If a pharmacist wants to open his or her own shop loudly proclaiming that they are a "christian" pharmacy and will only dispense those drugs approved by the churches, they are free to do so. But when I walk into a pharmacy—like a Walgreen's or Bartell's—I'd better not get any flak from them about their religious beliefs. Go to church and gimmee my drugs.

We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture

Dover, Pennsylvania is under attack by the educated, intelligent segment of their society:

"Since last year the school board voted to have high school biology teachers raise doubts about Darwin's 145-year-old theory and suggest an alternative Christian explanation for life. The city has since been deeply riven over the issue of separation of church and state. "

They are asking that the unintelligent, uneducated opinion prevail in schools?

That's pretty rich.

My short view on religion

• Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity
• Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
• Theist: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.

I guess I fall into the category of agnostic.

I don’t believe in any religion known or that has ever been known to man. But at the same time, I think atheists have to believe the un-provable too. If someone were to prove to me, irrevocably, that there is a supreme being, I could deal with that. If someone were to prove to me irrevocably that there isn’t, I’d be fine with that, too.

But what really matters is how I view religion in the realm of law. And it’s simple. It has no place in our government. It has no place in our laws. Religious people believe their faith transcends all. I don’t believe in their faith, therefore they believe they know more than I and can make decisions for me. That has no place in law.

My religion, if you would call it that, is the U.S. Constitution. Those are the rules by which I am governed. Not the Bible. Not the Talmud. Not the Koran. Not Wicca. No religious doctrine rules me.

There are many places where secular law and religion intersect. Murder is a great example. Murder takes away someone else’s rights. In religion, murder is unlawful and a sin. That’s great, we coincide. But where religious doctrine and secular society differ, without a Constitutional basis for the former, then secular society must win. This is why gay marriage should be allowed, abortion should be legal, the Ten Commandments should not be displayed in courtrooms, and why there should be no school prayer. It’s also why Janet Jackson’s boob was nothing to get worked up about.

Religion relies on providing un-provable reasons for the things that have not yet been proven. When those things are proven through science or evolution, religion is thrown into a crisis. If they were wrong about one thing, what else were they wrong about? So they can’t admit they were wrong about anything. Secularism takes in the new evidence and comes up with new conclusions.

I completely agree that we have freedom of religion in this country. And no matter that I think religious people are inherently irrational and even dangerous, I respect their right to raise their children as they see fit. To be part of a church community. But the minute they stray into my life, well, sorry, I don't respect you anymore.

Abortion: It’s not nor should it ever have been a state’s right

Saying that abortion should be a state right is the same as saying slavery was a state right.

When slavery was a state right, what it meant was that a black person was only a person if he/she lived within a particular political/geographical border. One foot in one state, you were property, one foot in another state, you were a free citizen.

We have rightly determined that is wrong.

A woman is a woman no matter what state she resides in. Her biology does not change when she crosses the Texarkana line. Her rights over her body should not be determined based on geography.

I live in Washington State currently. There are all kinds of laws that are specific to Washington State. Like Port issues, or border issues, or how much the cost of gas is and how much it should be taxed. All these issues are driven by the geographical uniqueness of the state. When I lived in Florida, building codes were different than in Kansas because Florida gets hit by hurricanes. Kansas doesn’t. Whether to drill for oil in Florida is a state issue, because the ramifications are unique to Florida. If certain produce is not allowed through Washington State because it is prone to carry an insect specifically detrimental to the Washing State apple industry, that is an appropriate state right.

State rights should be issues that are unique to the state. Laws against murder are a state right. Does anyone honestly believe that if a state were to remove all its statutes against murder, that we would still consider it to be a state right? Hell no. We’d be passing a federal statute faster than Congress and the President passed the law for Terri Schiavo. The only reason we haven’t, is that no state has made it an issue for us to address.

I am a woman no matter which state I reside in. And my rights as a woman should not change depending on which state I happen to be in.

It is a no brainer in my mind that abortion is and should remain legal across the entire United States of America. It is no one’s business but my own what happens in my uterus. I am not going to say what I think of abortion. Because legally speaking, that doesn’t matter. Each time a woman decides to have an abortion, it is her life, her body, her choice. I may or may not agree with it. But laws are not (or should not be) made on the basis of my feelings. The instant someone says that a fetus has a right to life, you have taken away a woman’s rights. If the fetus has a right to life, the woman doesn’t. And if the fetus has a right to live, the woman is robbed of any right to make any choice that might imperil the potential of that fetus’s right to live. Because all fetuses are really only potential. Until they are birthed, they cannot be separated from the woman’s body.

Take the feelings out of it, and abortion becomes a question of rights only. I understand the feelings. I really do. But feelings don’t make laws. This country has felt so many things that we look back upon with revulsion or giggles. The human race has felt so many things we know are horrific or ridiculous. That’s why feelings have no place in this debate.

And to call abortion a state right is a smoke screen. Any pro-lifer who says abortion is a state right merely hopes that if they get their way, they can pressure most states to pass anti-abortion laws. Any pro-choicer who says abortion is a state right (and yes, I know some of these) are only doing so is because if the legal right to an abortion is overturned in SCOTUS, they want a safe haven for women somewhere.

But neither side really believes this is a state right. Can we drop this lie, please?

Antonin Scalia - The Hypocrite

I'm in the middle of reading this article in The New Yorker about SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia. It doesn't look like the article is online, so I can't refer you to it, but here's an interview with the author. I haven't read that yet.

While I don't agree with him, I almost could respect him in his originalist philosophy. If he were consistent about it. He doesn't like to deal with what a law means, only what it says. Same thing with the Constitution. If he were pure in practicing what he preaches, he could be one of those people I respectfully disagree with.

But he throws all that out the window when it comes to religion.

Scalia quoted Justice William Douglas, who said that American institutions "presuppose the existence of a Supreme Being."

But nowhere in the Constitution is God or a Supreme Being mentioned.

So where's he get this? From his religion of course. Which he would love to impose on the rest of us.

Why must we suffer intelligent people who let irrationality blind them?

Wicked Witch of the Right

The one and only Ann Coulter. They truly broke the mold after making her. Thanks to the gods!

I would ignore her, but she's makes it too easy! Like there was any doubt she would use the Terri Schiavo case to smear anyone who disagrees with her.

STARVED FOR JUSTICE

Some choice excerpts:

Liberals' newfound respect for "federalism" is completely disingenuous. People who support a national policy on abortion are prohibited from ever using the word "federalism."

Huh? Rights to privacy are only supposed to apply by state? Give it up. A woman shouldn't have different rights to control her own body depending on what latitude and longitude she happens to be in. That was a crap argument about slavery, and it's a crap argument now.

There is nothing in the law, the Constitution or the concept of "federalism" that mandates giving courts the last word.

No, the last word is the Constitution. Don't like a court's ruling of a law as constituational, amend the Constitution. That's why the religious wack jobs want a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Cause they know what they are doing is unconstitutional.

Just once, we need an elected official to stand up to a clearly incorrect ruling by a court.

We did. Gavin Newsom in San Francisco. Oh, sorry Ann, you mean only when it's for your pet unconstitutional causes.

Terri has yet to receive either an MRI or a PET scan.

Ann, before you start throwing around acronyms you know precious little about, how about explaining to your readers the difference between an MRI, PET, and CAT scan and why a CAT scan isn't sufficient (it is). But ooh, you learned two new acronyms and conveniently forgot a third. Are you Dr. Ann Coulter now?

Greer has cut off the legal rights of Terri's real family and made her husband ... her sole guardian.

That's what husbands and wives are to each other. I thought that was the core piece to your sanctity of marriage b.s. Oh, are you about to tell me that the gays have destroyed the sanctity of Terri's marriage. How hypocritical can you get on this topic?

They [the courts] can't be stopped — solely because the entire country has agreed to treat the pronouncements of former ambulance-chasers as the word of God.

But, according to your Antonin Scalia, the laws are derived from the word of God. C'mon Ann, pick a side. Are the laws of this country, upheld by the courts, derived from your one true god or aren't they? I can't keep up with your ideological flip flopping.

"... Republican governor disgraced by the illiterate ramblings of a state judiciary ..."

She's referring here to Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts wrt the gay marriage decision. An illiterate state judiciary appointed by Republicans I might add. And you want Bush's appointees pushed through? Doesn't look like your party's picks help you out much. Even Scalia turned on your boy by not letting him deprive American citizens of their constituational rights.

Well, that was a fun morning read. Ann, thanks for giving me a laugh. Your contortionist rationale designed to justify whatever weird position you've decided to take on any given day is always amusing.

No, actually it's not. I know Bill Maher's got a huge crush on Ann. Calls her his dominatrix. They should try some role reversal. I think Ann would look smashing in a ball gag.

I wonder how the Brothers Bush would react ...

... if the Terri Schiavo case was a little different.

If it were a gay couple. And the partner was fighting to keep his/her partner alive, and the parents were fighting to remove the feeding tube.

Would the Bushes be passing Palm Sunday compromises, making special exceptions? Would the Bushes support a partner's love in support of their culture of life?

Would Jeb be trying to take custody of the patient away from the parents?

We didn't politicize this case, Jeb Bush did. George Bush did. Bill Frist did. And since you did, don't expect us not to explore the ramifications of what you've done.

The Tyranny of Eminent Domain

Originally posted at LIBTeam on 2/22/05

On February 22nd, the future of property rights in America will be at stake as the Supreme Court begins oral arguments in the case of Kelo v. New London. The central question at issue is: should the government be able to use its power of eminent domain to seize property from one private party and transfer it to another?

I first became aware of this case from this op-ed from the Ayn Rand Institute.

This is scary. I don’t care which side of the political divide you are on, as long as you aren’t socialist left or wackjob right, you should be paying attention to this case. This is the fruit of our labors.

If you are conservative, you contributed to this case by insisting that all private enterprise is the ideal.

If you are a liberal, you contributed to this case by arguing that, fiscally, the common good trumps individual’s economic rights.

I cannot even begin to guess which way SCOTUS is going to go on this. I sincerely hope and pray they will do the right thing, like they did in the detainee case.

I’ll be watching this one.

Introducing Pandora's Politics

For a few months I've been posting as part of a blog contributed to by a wonderful group of people, LIBTeam.

I fully intend to cross post there. But I've long been meaning to create my own standalone blog. This one at blogspot is really just a transitional until I get my own set up on my own servers.

It's too much trouble to duplicate everything I've posted there. Even if by most standards my library of blog posts is small. So I just re-created today's posts and refer anyone who is interested to previous posts at http://libteam.com/?author=10..

This version of my blog was set up very quickly. I will be adding more posts detailing my positions, politics, beliefs, etc. What do they say? Watch this space.

Wife of sailor battles U.S. over abortion

“This young woman didn’t have the money to pay for it herself,” Power said. “Her husband is an enlisted man, and she was essentially earning minimum-wage working at the Navy Exchange, and the procedure becomes more expensive and risky to the mother the further along the pregnancy is carried. We essentially asked the court to force the government to stop withholding payment.”

This culture of life b.s. is going way too far.

You know, I’m a staunch supporter of abortion rights. I don’t think there should be any restriction on it at all and that it is absolutely a personal and medical decision. Period.

But, I’m not really a big supporter of federally funded abortions. I think insurance companies are smart to cover it, along with all reproductive health services. But I get that there are a lot of people out there that have issues with it and are opposed to having their tax dollars pay for abortions. Basically, I get the issue. It’s the same issue I have with any of my tax dollars going towards religious institutions (a.k.a. cults in my opinion).

But this is just f’cked up. This woman essentially has substandard health coverage. She is a part of the United States of America military family, essentially. And we’re too devoted to the culture of life to pay for a medically necessary abortion. Now that’s supporting our military!

I realize this is a unique case. But if the federal government can pull together a bill specific to one woman in hours, surely they can realize that bugging this poor woman for $3000 is stupid and pointless.

Am I the only one who is upset by this?

Only three senators were present for the actual voice vote approving the legislation. No more were needed because of a long-standing rule that permits approval of certain measures without a majority of the 100 members present as long as the leaders of both parties agree, Senate historian Richard Baker said.

What are those certain measures? I can understand that type of rule for little bitty things that need to get addressed, but doesn’t this blatant abuse of this rule garner any attention?

THREE! That’s it, THREE, people voted for this law. That is absurd and a complete distortion of our process.

But then, the Republicans and our Republican-lite minority leader don’t give a rat’s ass about that. Twist the constitution any which way you want as long as it achieves the goals of the Christian wack jobs.

Republicans I could support

Finally doing this. It’s not as eloquent as I would like, but I definitely wanted to follow up.

“identify and write a bit about three living politicians that we appreciate and respect from an opposing political party from our own”

Arlen Specter
Lincoln Chafee
Olympia Snowe

All are willing to buck their party on many issues. The thing I love about Democrats is that you don’t have to lockstep to be a member of the party. The DLC HATES Dean, and he still is head of the DNC. Harry Reid is pro-life, and he’s Minority Leader. We bicker, we fight, but we include for the most part. Not so with the Republican Party. Nudge a toe out of line and you will get slapped down. Rove is trying to do it to Tacredo over immigration. Gingrich famously did it to Hatfield back during the Contract on America. So while I don’t like that Specter went back into his shell about the judicial nominees, I have to admire him for bucking his party.

All three of these Senators support a lot of my core issues: women’s rights/privacy, sound environmental policies, separation of Church and State, fiscal sanity, individual rights.

I don’t require perfection out of my Democrats, so I don’t require perfection out of all Repubicans. But these three hit the majority of my issues correctly and they have minds of their own.

Christian/Communist Religion?

“The government as the final arbiter of your circumstances and needs; if it weren’t so wrapped up in American Christianity, what we’d be talking about is Communism.”

Great line from SimianBrian’s blog, via the Unpaid Punditry Corps. Specifically regarding the Schiavo case.

It makes me laugh and think, because I actually believe Communism is much like religion in it’s irrationality. Atheists have to believe without evidence just as strongly as religiosos have to cling to their make-believe world. Communism is as demanding of adherence and blind loyalty as Christianity is.

And yet they hate each other.

We secularists are not atheists nor communists. Both insist that you believe something without proof. I always veered away from being called an agnostic, but I guess that’s the best label to apply. I’ll make one instead about intelligent design, I would be perfectly fine if someone proved to me that there was an ultimate intelligence that was behind the design of the universe. I would also be perfectly fine if it were proved to me there weren’t.

But it is not fine for the religious, because every time a religious aspect is disproved via science and reason, it weakens the entire religious institution. Well if they were wrong about that, what else were they wrong about? So the religious institutions cannot tolerate certain beliefs being disproven or in cultures evolving.