Partisan Schmartisan

--posted by Ilyse Kazar

A party-line Senate committee vote on legislation to remake the nation’s health care system underscored the absence of political consensus on what would be the biggest changes in social policy in more than 40 years.

Sheeeeeesh. I feel SO done with all parties.

Sorry, You Can't Take the Sandbox Home With You

Washington Post: Maliki Suggests U.S. Troop Timetable

Iraq's new government should determine Iraq’s future. I'm glad to see that steps are being taken. Of course, I am concerned about the stability of the country, but nobody's saying the US should pull out all troops tomorrow. They're working on a timetable, and I'm sure that if the ground situation calls for it, Iraqi government will accept our helping hand. To stay in Iraq for the next 100 years would be an act of imperialism. Permanence of US bases on Iraqi soil would constitute, I believe, a quartering of soldiers, something the US Bill of Rights strictly prohibits here on American soil. The Declaration of Independence listed among the many usurpations by the king of England:

1. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws…

We cannot continue to hold troops in Iraq indefinitely and pretend to control their affairs. Iraqis are their own people. While they may be in need of resources we are (somewhat) capable of offering, they can make their own decisions. They’re not stupid just because their country is built on sand.

2. For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us…

I think you can see how this correlates to the “War”

3. For protecting them [troops], by a Mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders that they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States…

The Administration doesn’t even bother with mock trials. Do some research on BlackWater and other US contracted commando/mercenary organizations. Not to mention Abu-Ghraib type situations.

4. He has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.

Oil fields anybody? How about the fact that US forces were totally ill prepared for the initial invasion (which everybody who was anybody knew) and allowed countless precious artifacts to be plundered that dated back to the birth of civilization? And of course we’re killing innocents, they look just like the “insurgents.”
(Aside: Isn’t it funny that we call the enemy the “insurgents” when we’re the ones committing to a surge of troops entering the sandbox?

5. He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.

Again, BlackWater. Waterboarding and other forms of torture were suggested/supported by Cheyney. Don’t let anybody tell you higher-ups in the Administration don’t support torture — they condone it.

6. He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us

We are responsible for the Iraqi civil war.

So, my message to al-Maliki (if you don’t know who he is, read a fucking newspaper article once in a while):
Be strong. Don’t allow US imperialistic values to bamboozle you. YET, we can be helpful. Meet diplomatically with leaders from the main political groups within Iraq and the leaders of surrounding nations (yes, even Iran). Figure out a plan that will lead to lasting stability, and use the US to your advantage. It will be difficult, there’s no doubt about that, but security is NEVER a reason to give up freedom, and freedom is not something to be trusted in the hands of US government.

Gay Marriage Was Decided 197 years ago:Get Over It

**UPDATED: Please forgive my horrible mis-citation. Madison wrote Federalist Papers, not Jefferson. Duh.**

I'm sick and tired of gay marriage being a key issue in politics. Get over it, people!

As a preamble, I feel the need to warn you: I refuse to get into debates about the values and/or downfalls of any one religion. I realize that in discussing morals and base values the line between politics and religion can be blurred. Although I do personally find the religious right offensive, abrasive, and sometimes just plain stupid -- I appreciate the value of faith, and would never attack an individual on the basis of their beliefs. You would think that a faction so often berated for their beliefs would not attack others simply because of their love life. Since when are we a nation of Evangelists?

On that note, a law based solely on religious beliefs would be entirely unconstitutional. Have we forgotten about separation of church and state? Apparently we have. Check out our coinage, our Pledge of Allegiance, the mottos plastered all over federal buildings. I'm sick of it.

Some argue that the words "separation of church and state" never appear in the Constitution, and so there need be no concern over religious rule of law. Alright. How about the 1st amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." It was the foremost concern of our founding fathers -- many of whom (religious themselves) came to the New World to escape intolerance perpetrated by ruling religion elsewhere.

If that's not enough, some may argue that the Constitution does not protect sexual rights. Well...

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" (Amendment IX)

How about the big one?

"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priveleges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..." (Amendment XIV, Section 1)

I'd like to point out that any ban appearing in a constitutional amendment would be unprecedented and untrue to the original spirit of the document. The Constitution and joined Bill of Rights are intended to protect the civil liberties of the people from institutionalized oppression, not to prohibit so called undesired behavior by individuals. As shown in the Federalist Papers (a series of 85 essays by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay -- designed to grow the support base for the Constitution during the failure of the Articles of Federation) [see www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/], the major goal of the founding fathers was to protect the people from the people, and thus the tyranny inherent in big government. America has been a haven for systematic intolerence only in our worst hours. Why should we revert to the days of segregation and the destruction of civil rights based only upon arbitrary categorical labels?!

If you believe that "it is wrong to be gay," then don't be gay! How is gay marriage hurting the country? If single parents can raise functioning productive citizens, then so can LGBTQ couples. Why is family planning a governmental issue anyway? Laws against murder for example, are devised because the act directly threatens the people. What is the threat of two people in love, who only want an official outlet for it?

I will not even justify the argument that individuals choose to be gay with a counter-argument. I merely ask: Do you choose to be straight? Hypothetically, do you think you would suddenly be aroused by members of the same sex if you chose to be gay?

I've heard people say that "if gay marriage is allowed, polygamy will be next!" This is simply hogwash. First off, I'm not sure how I feel about the intolerance of polygamy. But more importantly, our currently adopted policies concerning marriage are very specifically written for unions of two people. The laws can be immediately put into effect for gay marriage without any changes to policy whatsoever. Multiple marriage (MM- a term which is more PC than polygamy as that only applies to men with many wives and not vice versa), cannot be injected into our system. That would require multitudinous amendments and retractions to current policy, which would most likely take at least a decade to accomplish.

Furthermore, do not permit those who would ban gay marriage to call themselves "conservative."  Conservatism is based on the belief that the government has absolutely no business butting into the people's personal lives. By calling themselves conservative, these haters (for lack of a better modern phrase) are merely trying to trick the public -- most of whom pull the lever for their party members without knowing the issues.

Not too long ago it was illegal for inter-racial couples to marry. I'm sure that there are still people in this country who disagree with that act. I'm also sure that their protest is strongly founded in faith. Does this mean we should ban racial integration again? I thought we've gone over all of this... SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, a ban on gay marriage would be in DIRECT violation of the 14th amendment. By being married, straight couples receive many benefits financially and legally. I don't feel like listing them, so look it up if you don't take my word for it. "Equal protection" as named in the 14th amendment applies to all priveleges and rights allotted to the people. If one receives them, all must receive them. This country was founded on the belief that all political factions should be feared, monitered closely, and protected, whether in the majority OR minority. I've taken this directly from a Madison Federalist Paper (#51 if my memory serves me correctly).

Marriage should not be a legal institution. Let any two people be joined in a civil union, with equal priveleges given to all regardless of color, sex, age (as long as consenting), or any mixture thereof. If a couple wishes to have a ceremony outside of City Hall, let them use whatever place of worship that will have them.

So STFU already.

Did I miss anything?

Good luck in W. Va., Barack!

Because you'll need it. This was the state, after all, where (speaking of Voting While Ignorant) many folks believed that the Dems wanted to ban the Bible.

If you don't vote, don't complain; If you're not informed, don't vote!!

It's not about whether voters are college educated or are any particular color. The media have the love of exit polls all wrong.

It's about folks who rely upon hearsay rumors to make the most important decision an American citizen is called upon to make: which lever to pull (or touchscreen button to push -- here in NYC we still have voting machines from the '50s with rows of levers).

It's about folks who do not understand or care about what it takes to keep oneself well-informed, to dig deeper than viral videos and fleeting sound bytes. It's about folks who believe unsourced (or falsely sourced) "forward to everyone you know" emails claiming that a particular candidate is Muslim, or that they voted for/against some piece of legislation, or that they said Kim Jong Il is their hero.

It's about those whose knowledge of what America is really about, and whose memory (if they ever bothered to read) of what the Declaration and Constitution actually say, is so pitifully wrong that they believe the United States was set up as a Straight Christian White nation and that anyone who is not a Straight Christian White person is probably not Patriotic, and is definitely not qualified to represent "us". The ones who think that being any particular religion, or none, ought to disqualify anyone from serving in the U.S. government.

The ones who thought, after hearing Dubya repeat ad nauseum the "9/11" mantra when selling his daddy's used War in Iraq to the nation, that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attack. (The percentage of Americans who swallowed the hook, the line, the sinker, was staggering.)

The ones who re-elected George H. W.'s Mini-Me in '04 because they really thought he had been acting to make us safer, and that Wiffle-Waffle Kerry had no interest in protecting us.

Indeed the media leaves so many of these mendacities unchallenged or under-exposed, so we can point some of blame for the Mass Stupidity Factor at the networks and other news outlets. But there are also many men, of whatever educational level and whatever color, who go the extra mile to seek multiple sources of news, there are also many who simply click Delete and feel slightly disgusted when they receive an email claiming that Candidate X is a neo-Nazi or a Muslim or Squeezes The Toothpaste In The Middle.

I submit that the folks who vote based on beliefs and rumors spoon-fed to them in spurious emails, in news bytes that would not overtax the attention span of a flea, and in politicians' speeches and press conferences ... should be required to take a Voter IQ Polling Place Entrance Interview (IQ for Informed and therefore Qualified). If you think Obama is a Muslim (or if you think that, even if he were, this automatically makes him an undesireable candidate unfit to lead your country) or that he was sworn in with his hand on the Koran, you just disqualified yourself. Go home, and invest some actual time and thought and care into this process. You can try to pass the test again in 2 years ... meanwhile you're on probation for Voting While Ignorant.

Who let the dogs in?

To this day I have in my files a copy of the front page of the New York Times from 1984, with a photo of Presidential candidate Walter F. Mondale and his choice for Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro raising their clasped hands in an upside-down V. Of course their hopes for victory were doomed, as perhaps foreshadowed by the gesture.

Irrespective of their failure to foil Ronald Reagan's re-election, I will never forget, as a girl who came to political consciousness during the late '60s and early '70s, the feeling of joy and hope that literally swelled my chest to almost bursting with pride that a wif was on the ballot. I was so grateful (and still am) to the wifs a half-generation before me, who took put their marriages, careers, and futures on the line in their quest to bust up the lingering 1950s concepts of what it means to be female, and who had such a strong impact on my own road to self-liberation from all those restricting and oppressive preconceptions of wifhood.

One would expect, then, that I might be passionately backing Hillary Clinton in her bid for the Presidency. NOT! Hillary is chalk squeaking across the political board. Hillary is riding around on her husband's coattails and claims 35 years of experience whereas the extent of her service is merely 1.7 terms as a carpetbagging Senator. Hillary can't figure out who she really is and instead strings together an odd assortment of personnae. (The difference between Hillary and Bill, and one department in which she is far superior to her wer, is that generally speaking she has nearly perfect -- actually, scary -- control over which personna to use under what circumstances; whereas Bill's behavior seems fairly out of control lately.)

Apart from my distate for her personality, and some differences I have with the policies she is laying out ... my biggest fear if Hillary is nominated and elected is that she will need to maintain her cool and make rational decisions while sitting, most of the time, in the Oval Office -- the room where Bill used his cigar on Monica. I imagine that always present somewhere in her consciousness will be that lovely image and remembrance of all the pain and shame that ensued. On the other hand, if Hillary can compartmentalize the present from the past so thoroughly that the Memory of Monica is truly not present anywhere in her psyche while she fulfills her duties as President of the United States ... well, then, she scares me more than ever.