Party like it's 1964

By Capt. Fogg

If you haven't been so immersed in sports and entertainment that you haven't read or listened to the news, you probably know about the rash of  state level legislative efforts to affirm the "right" of business owners to refuse service to people whose private lives include amorous proclivities inimical to religious bigots.  Yes, if you won't give a glass of water to a thirsty homosexual person you're a bigot and most definitely not the sort of Christian who credits the canonized teachings of Jesus. If you don't agree, I maintain the right to call you a bigot anyway and worse, actually. 

"I think anybody that owns a business can choose who they work with or who they don't work with, but I don't know that it needs to be statutory. In my life and in my businesses, if I don't want to do business or if I don't want to deal with a particular company or person or whatever, I'm not interested. That's America. That's freedom."  

Said Arizona governor Jan Brewer, obviously a Republican, who has not yet signed the bill and  has, to her credit, vetoed a previous effort. The question of course is whether freedom really means the right to do anything one wants without concern for the freedom of others. There are other questions as well and amongst those might be the question of how absolute personal freedom for one person affects or relates to the personal freedom of all others.  After all, if  no one will do business with me, I'm no longer free to live in the place where such "freedom" prevails.  A comparison to the freedom of wild animals seems inviting, as well as a discussion of whether this kind of liberty is compatible with any definition of civilization, much less a Democratic one.

Of course on the practical level, such a business model will not favor businesses who refuse service to any significant group and I certainly wouldn't patronize any establishment that decides that no Irish may apply and neither would a a significant number of others -- and that doesn't offer a bright future to any business that restricts itself to skinheads, Nazis and Reverend Phelps types?  Government sanctioned discrimination would of course bring down the Federal government on Arizona like a wolf on the fold as such abuses have been illegal for longer than many of us have been alive and hard fought for it was.  It would be likely to make Arizona a laughing stock and certain to clog the streets with protests and sit-ins if not riots, and certain to clog the courts with sufficient lawsuits to bankrupt any hotels, restaurants, gas stations and convenience stores stupid enough to demonstrate their "freedom" in this way.  Lets not even discuss doctors, clinics, drug stores and hospitals who decide to seceed from civilization and all semblance of decency in favor of practicing their "beliefs."

Actually I would rather welcome this dying gasp of the ultra right and the pseudo-right who support them the way Hindenburg supported the Nazis, as I would welcome anything that displays their true and swastika emblazoned colors and hastens their ignominious demise.  Of course it won't happen, but wouldn't it be nice to see Arizona legislators  jailed for passing laws that are illegal in full knowledge thereof?  Ah well, it's a beautiful warm, dreamy Florida Saturday morning and perhaps I can be forgiven a flight or two of fancy.

The last true freedom fighter of his generation

Nelson Mandella is dead. He was among us for longer than most of our present day heroes. His body wasn't even cold before his former critics and enemies leapt to co-opt Mandela's legend to score cheap political points.

I'm not reading any of cheap potshots and vile conservative commentary. For myself, I choose to reflect on my good fortune to have lived to witness so much of his life and work. Many have already spoken of his legacy so I'll spare you my inadequate thoughts and simply outsource to Charlie Pierce's eulogy.

Nelson Mandela died yesterday, and he was the last of them, the last of the patriots in a line all the way back to George Washington who fought to rid their native countries of the deadweight of colonialism, who fought for self-determination against the rule of distant, unyielding governments that slid into tyranny without even knowing they were doing it, who fought and won and, in Mandela's case, like Washington, but unlike Michael Collins and so many others, outlived the stifling detritus of dying empires. Nelson Mandela was a reminder of all the others, famous and obscure, who fought the same battle in so many places against so many oppressors, known and unknown. He was the last in their line, the last of them -- people like, to name only one, Ho Chi Minh -- who drew strength and purpose from the deep, lasting echoes of what a group of wealthy merchants and planters -- and, yes, slaveholders -- set loose upon the world in Philadelphia in 1776. What they did was to set freedom itself free, although most of them probably didn't know they were doing it at the time, and many of them would have blanched at the prospect. But the one thing they did, Mr. Jefferson and all of them, was throw out to the world in their magnificent rhetoric a magnificent bluff. Nelson Mandela was the last man who called it in the last place it was called.

All men are created equal.

Endowed with certain inalienable rights.

Self-evident.

Read the rest at the link. You won't have to read anything else.

When silence speaks louder than words

Most brilliant protest ever:



Haddockmopnger tells us the tickets were actually free. No idea if this is true. Don't really know any of these guys. It was retweeted into my stream by Jay who was a random follow back. Might add he's been a pleasant addition to my timeline. He rarely posts politics. Most of his tweets are beautiful photos.

But whether it's true or not, it's a brilliant idea for a silent protest.

Both Sides, Now

By Capt. Fogg

No, this isn't about Joni Mitchell and I'm not going to talk about bows and flows of angel hair,  just about stunning hypocrisy.  How many ice cream castles have been built upon the idea that a fertilized human egg cell is a human being possessed of  human rights?  It would be hypocritical enow that those rights are allowed by Church doctrine to foetuses when they have been so often denied to adults by religious authorities, but that's not what this is about. It's about, as I said, hypocrisy; about arguing both sides when needed to avoid guilt, or at least to avoid prosecution and penalty.

Catholic Health Initiatives, with assets estimated at around 15 billion dollars, operates a chain of hospitals and as a response to a wrongful death suit involving twin foetuses who died before birth, their attorneys argued that in cases of wrongful death, the term “person” only applies to individuals born alive, and not to those who die in utero, says Raw Story today.

Perhaps that will be a precedent that plagues them in future when they try to argue otherwise according to Roman Catholic doctrine regarding abortion and birth control, but looking at this cloudy argument from both sides now is pretty entertaining, don't you think?  And of course we remember all the adages telling us that when they argue principle, what they mean is money.

Feather canyons everywhere, indeed.

Broad brush bigotry

The myth that all Mexicans are lazy illegal immigrants who only come here for the social services and to commit crimes has been around for very long time but since the GOP went all in on winning elections based on drumming up fear of "the other" with wedge issue politics, it's become much worse. You see it in the horrible Arizona "show us your papers" law but this mindset isn't only found in the southern states on the border. This poisonous fruit of conservative Republican race baiting has spread all over the country. Even in Washington State:

A Seattle freelance videographer recently captured a local cop kicking a man in the head while prone on the ground and using ethnic slurs:

The Police Department disclosed Friday that it has launched an internal investigation into the incident, in which the gang detective, Shandy Cobane, can be heard on video telling a man lying on a concrete sidewalk, "I'm going to beat the [expletive] Mexican piss out of you, homey. You feel me?"

The cop would have got away with it except for the videographer that happened to be on the scene. The guy wasn't even guilty, but that shouldn't matter. Even a criminal doesn't deserve that kind of unnecessary violence. Too many cops have become little more than violent thugs who take out their sadistic inclinations on the public. And it's not just because of the race baiting. You can also blame the war on some drugs for over-equipping them via forfeiture money and the issuance of tasers as standard equipment that allowed them to use "non-lethal" force instead of dialogue to defuse tense situations. Further there's no much incentive to behave since they so rarely get held accountable.

It's not that aren't any good and caring cops, but the thugs seems to be growing in their ranks and no one calls them out. Our LEOs have morphed over the years from public servants to becoming almost as much a menace to civil society as the criminals themselves. In the end we're less safe if the general population fears both equally.

[More posts daily at The Detroit News]

Atheists get an audience at the White House

In a counterpoint to the post below on the theocratic coup attempt going on in my state, this is a real change. In fact it's another historic first.

White House officials will this morning meet with leaders of the atheist community, who will discuss their concerns about the "privileging of religion" by the government "that harms real people," in the words of Sean Faircloth, executive director of the Secular Coalition of America.

I suspect it will turn out to be more symbolic than productive in terms of policy, but it's good to see the government acknowledge that non-Christians should have a voice too.

[More posts daily at The Detroit News]

Bread, not bombs

Diane catches an op-ed by George McGovern that speaks to my life long belief.

So let me suggest a truly audacious hope for your administration: How about a five-year time-out on war -- unless, of course, there is a genuine threat to the nation?

McGovern suggests we use the war funds for a food program that would deliver the equivalent of free school lunches to every child in Afghanistan and other poverty stricken countries where hunger is as big, or bigger, a threat than terrorism. Maybe extend it to a food program for mothers along the lines of the WIC program here. He uses as an example his own agency that is currently doing such work and co-ordinating under the UN umbrella.

With the mere mention of the UN sending Republicans into apoplexy, I'm not sure Obama could sell the idea in that form, but the basic plan is sound. You can win a lot more hearts and minds with a belly full of food than you can with a bevy of bombs and bullets. And as a added bonus, we might be able to at least partly solve the long neglected problem of world hunger.

I'm going to contact President Obama and tell him I think it's a great idea. I'd urge you to do the same. [hat tip Avedon]

[More posts daily at The Detroit News.]

Don't we look foolish enough already?

by Capt. Fogg

I don't think I want to watch the Olympics this year. It's not that this iteration of the games will be any more or less boring or fulsomely nationalistic than the event ever has been, but I'm afraid that some self-appointed ambassadors are going to make damn fools and hypocrites of us.

My first reaction was "tell me it's a joke" when I read the Reuters item telling us that an unspecified group of "human rights activists" have asked George W. Bush to complain to the Chinese government about political prisoners while he is there, and to wear a wristband that declares: "free the North Koreans." They intend to show up under full sail in Beijing wearing their version of the trendy rubber band rhetoric. I can almost hear the jeers.

Tell me it's a joke.

According to White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe, Bush will not be taking wristbands with him. I'm glad to hear it. Another thing George will not be taking with him on the trip is moral authority; or indeed anything else that gives him the right to demand that China not expel illegal aliens coming across the Korean Border looking for work, or that they release militant Islamic separatists, much less to extend them anything resembling the right to Habeas Corpus.

It's not that no criticism is due, it's that we are in no position to make it. I can well imagine my own feelings should a Chinese delegation show up here demanding that we free Puerto Rico, close Guantanamo and open the border with Mexico.

I mean, it's really a joke, isn't it?

Cross posted from Human Voices

Hooray for the city by the Bay

expatbrian

Today, San Francisco, the most gay friendly city in the world, celebrated the 38th annual Gay Pride Day with a traditional parade and festivities. Amen. The parade, which was led by the mayor and other top politicians, was the first since gay marriages were successfully legalized in California. Its about time.

And while there is no other place in the world like San Francisco, and it is the home of Gay Pride Day, it is certainly not the only place where this festive event is held. Although elsewhere, the event may not have been quite so festive.

Many other cities celebrated pride on Sunday as well, including Paris and New York, where Gov. David Paterson recently told state agencies to provide full marriage benefits to same-sex couples legally married elsewhere.

Some overseas events were decidedly different. In the Bulgarian capital of Sofia and the Czech Republic city of Brno, protesters threw rocks and eggs at parade participants. And in India, hundreds chanted for gay rights just days before the Delhi High Court is expected to hear arguments on overturning the law against homosexual sex that dates to the British colonial era.

As is traditional, leading the parade was Dykes on Bikes. Is that the coolest name for a motorcycle club or what? But in addition to their normal leather and steel, some wore white and pink wedding dresses and veils, much to the delight of the crowd. That crowd was made up of people, gay and straight, from all over the US.

Some visitors expressed surprise at the sheer size and diversity of San Francisco's event. River Byrd, 48, and his partner, 41-year-old Mark Duncan, watched the parade before catching a plane back to Tennessee, where they live in a small, conservative town called Paris.

"It's so incredible to see this many gay people," Byrd said. "We're the buckle of the Bible Belt. If we held hands in public, we'd be beat up."

At the risk of sounding regionally racist, I'm not surprised to hear that remark considering the area. In any case, it was a great day for equality and justice. It's just a shame that it only occurs in small pockets within a country that was founded on those two principles.

One less choice

By Capt. Fogg

Even though the month is barely half over, I think it's safe to award the Capt. Fogg Finger of Speech award for January to our Supreme Court, otherwise known as the judicial branch of the Republican Party and guardian of corporate and religious interests.

Without giving any explanation of their reasoning, the court decided yesterday that you or I have no right to try unapproved drugs even if we are terminally ill and have nothing to lose. It seems to me that such rights belong to anyone if one is to maintain, in keeping with law and precedent, that we are free people who own our selves, our lives, our bodies. Upholding a lower court's ruling that

"Although terminally ill patients desperately need curative treatments ... their deaths can certainly be hastened by the use of a potentially toxic drug with no proven therapeutic benefit,"

the Bush Court under God got out the rubber stamp and used it to establish that, the ninth amendment notwithstanding, we have no fundamental right to self preservation; no fundamental right to make decisions or take actions regarding our self preservation that put no one else at risk. This ruling easily reduces to absurdity. Depending on prayer rather than penicillin can kill you, why do we not force the proven treatment and deny the unproven in this case?

Of course a doctor can sell you a gun or give it to you, I can buy rat poison without a license, I can use nicotine with a proven tendency to shorten my life, but not some drug that hasn't had years of testing and approval by the Government and yet offers some small degree of hope to me and no risk of harm to anyone else. Death can certainly be hastened by withholding a promising treatment and when death is otherwise inevitable, where is the justification, legal or moral, for black Robed Republicans to withhold hope?

Our guardians of the constitution have essentially removed one more right from a thinking adult that they would so dearly love to grant to a fertilized egg and so, amongst the vast throng of deserving applicants, I have to chose our Republican packed courts as the most worthy of the first monthly Fogg Finger of Speech.


Cross posted from Human Voices