Tuesday is Newsday!
Here are your headlines for the week of Tuesday, May 09, 2006:
THIRTY (ONE) IS THE LONLIEST NUMBER: Tony Blair has the same approval rating as Bush, but it looks like the Brits will be rid of him much sooner than we can hope for the same for our fearless leader. Oh Founding Fathers, why did you have to create a government that couldn’t get rid of its own head when things went south? What’s that you say, John Adams? Impeachment? Why… what a novel concept! We haven’t had a good impeachment trial in YEARS.
THIS WEEK IN GOD: In his article this week in Time, Andrew Sullivan attempts to define the difference between ‘Christian’ and ‘Christianist.’ I think this is an important distinction that must be made, especially here where I spend a lot of time bashing Christianists for their political views without taking the time to really explain what I mean by it. Sullivan says that:
“So let me suggest that we take back the word Christian while giving the religious right a new adjective: Christianist. Christianity, in this view, is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.”
This is a really good metaphor. Because I think that we can all understand the concept of radicalism, how it twists out of control, or maybe it’s all about control-the idea that this one small group of people knows what’s best for the rest of the world and isn’t content to let them figure it out themselves, but must force them into the “right” way of thinking. It’s the same mentality that leads terrorists to blow up buildings as leads Christianists to destroy lives in other ways, through political machinations and manipulation of the media.
I also want to point out that I’m really hard line about this. I have some very conservative Christian friends who I know I will never agree with on many issues-abortion, the death penalty, and gay rights most of all. To me, it’s not enough that they don’t hate gay people. If they don’t believe that gays should have equal rights and protections under the law, then their personal feelings are totally moot, because in practice, in actuality, they are supporting and colluding in the discrimination of gays and the creation of a second-class citizenry.
ROCKABYE, ANCHOR BABY: Speaking of second-class citizenry, the debate over illegal immigration rages on. The Washington Post's Michael Powell gives us a little history lesson, one I know I wish Lou Dobbs would actually like, listen to, because watching CNN at anytime between five and seven has become an exercise in futility for the past three years with him shaking his jowels about "anchor babies" and how horrible Mexicans are. The money quote:
"But these accounts are flawed, historians say. Until 1918, the United States did not require passports; the term "illegal immigrant" had no meaning. New arrivals were required only to prove their identity and find a relative or friend who could vouch for them.
Customs agents kept an eye out for lunatics and the infirm (and after 1905, for anarchists). Ninety-eight percent of the immigrants who arrived at Ellis Island were admitted to the United States, and 78 percent spent less than eight hours on the island. (The Mexico-United States border then was unguarded and freely crossed in either direction.)"
My grandparents were among those immigrants-Russian jews driven out of their home country by prejudice and persecution. Thank god Lou Dobbs wasn't around then. I feel like we need to have a campaign to get Anderson Cooper to have a talk with Lou Dobbs, knock some sense into him, because his behavior is not only unprofessional, it's embarrassing. The US wouldn't be the country it is without immigrants, and I don't mean that in a bad way. We're a great nation, an innovative, strong nation, and we can only be that way because we have a constant influx of new citizenry. Plus this way (no offence, England) we don't all end up looking the same and having epilepsy.
DEAR MR PRESIDENT: For the first time since the Iranian Revolution in the 1970s, the Iranian President wrote a letter to President Bush. Apparently it was a long, philosophical rant about religion and politics that in all likelihood Bush didn't even understand because, come ON, the man made C's at YALE. To me this whole thing strikes me as pretty funny. It's like they're passing notes in class-
Circle only ONE:
I love Bobby
I love Mike
Iran should be able to have a peaceful nuclear program
Bush has so far not responded, and the security council members met last night to discuss options about the situation in Iran. Again though, Russia and China are not on this bandwagon. Remember, Russia has an arms deal with Iran. Meanwhile Cheney is trying to negotiate with Kazakhstan to build a pipeline that would bypass Russia, basically as a big fuck you to Putin, who the Bush administration has accused of giving up on democracy. Um, this from the people trying to broker a deal with KAZAKHSTAHN?? Cheney praises the country for its moves toward democracy, apparently because he can totally relate to a President who bans all opposition parties (except the ones run by his daughter, although seriously, Mary Cheney doesn't have the balls, no matter what people say about her private collection) and has the power to veto any legislation, lead the military, and control the courts. There is no free press in Kazakhstahn and the President's political opponents have been found shot dead. Again, Cheney can relate.
But back to Iran. The situation is very troubling to me. On the one hand, I really don't want Iran to bomb Israel. On the other hand, I don't see what right the UN has to tell Iran they aren't allowed to have nuclear weapons when all of the members of the security council do. It's a do as I say don't do as I do situation. That doesn't work on three-year-olds and it's not going to work on Iran, either.
THE UN STILL SUCKS: Peacekeepers give a whole new meaning to the word in Liberia, namely 'rapists'. I can't even believe that this shit is actually going down. The New York Times reports that girls ranging in ages from eight to eighteen are being overwhelmingly sexually exploited by aid workers and UN peacekeepers in Liberia. The girls "sell" sex to the male aid workers for small favors-extra food and supplies. This is just… I know things like this happen. I know it happened in the concentration camps during the holocaust, all the time, but that doesn't make it okay or right or good. These men are people sent by the United Nations and other humanitarian aid organizations to help people, and what they're doing is not only harmful, it's sick and wrong. And I don't want to hear it's a systemic problem, that if the situation weren't what it is in Liberia, if there was more money for aid, that this wouldn't happen. Because you know what else would stop this happening? People not being so disgusting as to abuse and exploit children just because they CAN.
NO BLOOD NO FOUL: The US has been attempting to defend its stand and practice of torturing detainees to the UN this past week, with answers that are less than reassuring. Because basically what they've been saying is, we won't torture people on US soil, or in official prisons, but there's nothing in the 1987 anti-torture treaty that prevents us from sending detainees to countries where they CAN be tortured, from making them "disappear", or from setting up secret prisons. So. You're telling us that the US won't torture people publically, but will continue to do so on the sly, and when we're caught torturing people we'll court martial a few low-level patsies and never punish the men who create the policies that allow torture to continue or tacitly approve of such policies to begin with? Ah okay. So, status quo, huh?
This is actually an interesting situation, what with Zacharias Moussaoui coming out today in an attempt to try to change his plea to "not guilty" in light of his realization that Americans CAN be fair and just. Some Americans, some government officials, in fact, believe that if they had only tortured Moussaoui and gotten that information out of him, 9-11 could've been prevented. And what, after all, are the rights of one man compared to the lives of 2000?
But that's not a just comparison, is it? If we continue down this path, allow this sort of behavior to go unchecked at the highest levels of our government, then what's to stop us? When the President of the United States declares himself above the law and the congress's hands are tied by an upcoming election in which a wrong move against the evangelical Republican base that carried the 2004 elections could cost the moderates and liberals seats, when the courts are packed with men like Alito and Scalia, how then can we hope to maintain our nation's integrity, maintain the rights of the individual? That's what allowing torture means to me. It means abandoning what we stand for and becoming exactly what Islamist radicals believe we are-arrogant oppressors and hypocrites of the worst sort.
A SEPARATE PEACE: Some good news from Darfur. Sudan maybe possibly is thinking about letting in UN troops to replace the 7000 African Union troops that currently "keep the peace", by which I really mean "stand around ineffectually while thousands of people are slaughtered." A partial peace agreement was reached last week, and no, I have no idea what "partial" means, but if Sudan will grant UN peacekeepers visas, that would be a good step forward. Of course, it could take months to deploy them, during which many thousands could die. Why yes, I am Mary Sunshine, glad you noticed!
And that's it for Newsday. There WILL be Friday is Shiny this week. I am still trying to wrap my head around last week's Supernatural. For SERIOUS, dudes.
THIRTY (ONE) IS THE LONLIEST NUMBER: Tony Blair has the same approval rating as Bush, but it looks like the Brits will be rid of him much sooner than we can hope for the same for our fearless leader. Oh Founding Fathers, why did you have to create a government that couldn’t get rid of its own head when things went south? What’s that you say, John Adams? Impeachment? Why… what a novel concept! We haven’t had a good impeachment trial in YEARS.
THIS WEEK IN GOD: In his article this week in Time, Andrew Sullivan attempts to define the difference between ‘Christian’ and ‘Christianist.’ I think this is an important distinction that must be made, especially here where I spend a lot of time bashing Christianists for their political views without taking the time to really explain what I mean by it. Sullivan says that:
“So let me suggest that we take back the word Christian while giving the religious right a new adjective: Christianist. Christianity, in this view, is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.”
This is a really good metaphor. Because I think that we can all understand the concept of radicalism, how it twists out of control, or maybe it’s all about control-the idea that this one small group of people knows what’s best for the rest of the world and isn’t content to let them figure it out themselves, but must force them into the “right” way of thinking. It’s the same mentality that leads terrorists to blow up buildings as leads Christianists to destroy lives in other ways, through political machinations and manipulation of the media.
I also want to point out that I’m really hard line about this. I have some very conservative Christian friends who I know I will never agree with on many issues-abortion, the death penalty, and gay rights most of all. To me, it’s not enough that they don’t hate gay people. If they don’t believe that gays should have equal rights and protections under the law, then their personal feelings are totally moot, because in practice, in actuality, they are supporting and colluding in the discrimination of gays and the creation of a second-class citizenry.
ROCKABYE, ANCHOR BABY: Speaking of second-class citizenry, the debate over illegal immigration rages on. The Washington Post's Michael Powell gives us a little history lesson, one I know I wish Lou Dobbs would actually like, listen to, because watching CNN at anytime between five and seven has become an exercise in futility for the past three years with him shaking his jowels about "anchor babies" and how horrible Mexicans are. The money quote:
"But these accounts are flawed, historians say. Until 1918, the United States did not require passports; the term "illegal immigrant" had no meaning. New arrivals were required only to prove their identity and find a relative or friend who could vouch for them.
Customs agents kept an eye out for lunatics and the infirm (and after 1905, for anarchists). Ninety-eight percent of the immigrants who arrived at Ellis Island were admitted to the United States, and 78 percent spent less than eight hours on the island. (The Mexico-United States border then was unguarded and freely crossed in either direction.)"
My grandparents were among those immigrants-Russian jews driven out of their home country by prejudice and persecution. Thank god Lou Dobbs wasn't around then. I feel like we need to have a campaign to get Anderson Cooper to have a talk with Lou Dobbs, knock some sense into him, because his behavior is not only unprofessional, it's embarrassing. The US wouldn't be the country it is without immigrants, and I don't mean that in a bad way. We're a great nation, an innovative, strong nation, and we can only be that way because we have a constant influx of new citizenry. Plus this way (no offence, England) we don't all end up looking the same and having epilepsy.
DEAR MR PRESIDENT: For the first time since the Iranian Revolution in the 1970s, the Iranian President wrote a letter to President Bush. Apparently it was a long, philosophical rant about religion and politics that in all likelihood Bush didn't even understand because, come ON, the man made C's at YALE. To me this whole thing strikes me as pretty funny. It's like they're passing notes in class-
Circle only ONE:
I love Bobby
I love Mike
Iran should be able to have a peaceful nuclear program
Bush has so far not responded, and the security council members met last night to discuss options about the situation in Iran. Again though, Russia and China are not on this bandwagon. Remember, Russia has an arms deal with Iran. Meanwhile Cheney is trying to negotiate with Kazakhstan to build a pipeline that would bypass Russia, basically as a big fuck you to Putin, who the Bush administration has accused of giving up on democracy. Um, this from the people trying to broker a deal with KAZAKHSTAHN?? Cheney praises the country for its moves toward democracy, apparently because he can totally relate to a President who bans all opposition parties (except the ones run by his daughter, although seriously, Mary Cheney doesn't have the balls, no matter what people say about her private collection) and has the power to veto any legislation, lead the military, and control the courts. There is no free press in Kazakhstahn and the President's political opponents have been found shot dead. Again, Cheney can relate.
But back to Iran. The situation is very troubling to me. On the one hand, I really don't want Iran to bomb Israel. On the other hand, I don't see what right the UN has to tell Iran they aren't allowed to have nuclear weapons when all of the members of the security council do. It's a do as I say don't do as I do situation. That doesn't work on three-year-olds and it's not going to work on Iran, either.
THE UN STILL SUCKS: Peacekeepers give a whole new meaning to the word in Liberia, namely 'rapists'. I can't even believe that this shit is actually going down. The New York Times reports that girls ranging in ages from eight to eighteen are being overwhelmingly sexually exploited by aid workers and UN peacekeepers in Liberia. The girls "sell" sex to the male aid workers for small favors-extra food and supplies. This is just… I know things like this happen. I know it happened in the concentration camps during the holocaust, all the time, but that doesn't make it okay or right or good. These men are people sent by the United Nations and other humanitarian aid organizations to help people, and what they're doing is not only harmful, it's sick and wrong. And I don't want to hear it's a systemic problem, that if the situation weren't what it is in Liberia, if there was more money for aid, that this wouldn't happen. Because you know what else would stop this happening? People not being so disgusting as to abuse and exploit children just because they CAN.
NO BLOOD NO FOUL: The US has been attempting to defend its stand and practice of torturing detainees to the UN this past week, with answers that are less than reassuring. Because basically what they've been saying is, we won't torture people on US soil, or in official prisons, but there's nothing in the 1987 anti-torture treaty that prevents us from sending detainees to countries where they CAN be tortured, from making them "disappear", or from setting up secret prisons. So. You're telling us that the US won't torture people publically, but will continue to do so on the sly, and when we're caught torturing people we'll court martial a few low-level patsies and never punish the men who create the policies that allow torture to continue or tacitly approve of such policies to begin with? Ah okay. So, status quo, huh?
This is actually an interesting situation, what with Zacharias Moussaoui coming out today in an attempt to try to change his plea to "not guilty" in light of his realization that Americans CAN be fair and just. Some Americans, some government officials, in fact, believe that if they had only tortured Moussaoui and gotten that information out of him, 9-11 could've been prevented. And what, after all, are the rights of one man compared to the lives of 2000?
But that's not a just comparison, is it? If we continue down this path, allow this sort of behavior to go unchecked at the highest levels of our government, then what's to stop us? When the President of the United States declares himself above the law and the congress's hands are tied by an upcoming election in which a wrong move against the evangelical Republican base that carried the 2004 elections could cost the moderates and liberals seats, when the courts are packed with men like Alito and Scalia, how then can we hope to maintain our nation's integrity, maintain the rights of the individual? That's what allowing torture means to me. It means abandoning what we stand for and becoming exactly what Islamist radicals believe we are-arrogant oppressors and hypocrites of the worst sort.
A SEPARATE PEACE: Some good news from Darfur. Sudan maybe possibly is thinking about letting in UN troops to replace the 7000 African Union troops that currently "keep the peace", by which I really mean "stand around ineffectually while thousands of people are slaughtered." A partial peace agreement was reached last week, and no, I have no idea what "partial" means, but if Sudan will grant UN peacekeepers visas, that would be a good step forward. Of course, it could take months to deploy them, during which many thousands could die. Why yes, I am Mary Sunshine, glad you noticed!
And that's it for Newsday. There WILL be Friday is Shiny this week. I am still trying to wrap my head around last week's Supernatural. For SERIOUS, dudes.