Two Republicans

You know what's really frustrating? One - someone like Obama who seems to be full of good ideas, but would rather give in to his opposition at the first opportunity.  But even more so?  Hard-Right Conservative Republicans who make sense just often enough to make you think they don't have their heads up their asses.  (I say "often enough" because it usually only takes a few minutes before they prove this wrong, but still...) This started out as a "top X Republicans I like" kind of post, but it was really triggered by recent comments by the whopping total of TWO.  And that's not a list.  All the same, I'd like to tip my cap to a couple of guys who are absolutely hard-core Right Wingers, but who, on many occasions, GET IT RIGHT just often enough to frustrate the hell out of you: Ron Paul and Lindsey Graham.

Ron Paul is always an interesting guy to listen to.  For one thing - as he'll gladly tell you - he really the only TRUE Conservative in Politics today.  And I think there's a lot of truth to that.  And his conviction to stick to his principles, even when it would be unpopular with "conservatives" was on full display recently when he, along with the ACLU, condemned the killing of American Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki.  Yep: One more example of Ron Paul getting it right, while his party and the masses of ignorant Red Necks who support it, CELEBRATE getting it WRONG.  Now I am a true-blue supporter of all that the ACLU does, including those times when the DEFEND Churches and Right-Wing Talk Show Hosts in court.  Because MY OWN principles regareding Civil Liberties are also neither negotiable, nor partisan.  Classic Liberal had a great write up on this a while back too, so check it out! 

How can anyone think that the RIGHT and the AMERICAN thing to do was ANYTHING other that (1) arrest him, (2) extradite him, (3) try him, and (4, most likely) Execute him?  (OK... I know, I know... We've already debated #4. I just threw that in to aggravate you.)

Now... Don't get me wrong: RON PAUL IS A KOOK.  One of my thresholds for Right-Wing / Libertarian / John Birch / Kook is anyone who argues for the ABOLITION of the Federal Reserve.   It's one thing to disagree with a specirfic Fed policy or practice, but to argue for the outright abolition? That's kook territory. And if you don't agree with me, then you've never passed a college-level economics or history of economic course.  (Glenn Beck? I'm looking at you!)  But hey - I will ALWAYS give credit where it's due, and Ron Paul makes too much sense, too often, for me to reconcile that with the fact that he's goes off the la-la land deep end as often as he does as well.  It's to bad he's not electable ("conservatives" hate him) though, because of ALL the Republicans out there right now? I honestly think he'd be one of the better choices. (And before all you crazy liberals start flaming me over that, please consider how low I'm setting the bar with that statement!) ;)

The other guy who makes me nod and say "Now see? THAT GUY gets it!" too often for the level of Right -Wing kook that HE is, is Lindsey Graham, one of the few Republicans to recently come out in favor of trade sanctions against China for their unfair currency manipulation:

"The institution I need to be protecting is the American workforce, who is having their clock cleaned by a communist dictatorship who cheats."
~Lindsey Graham

BOOM!

You go, Lindsey!

And this happens A LOT!  There are so many times that I find myself nodded my head and rhetorically high fiving this very Conservative, Southern, Republican Senator!  And yet...  Get him talking about Abortion, Gay Rights, or any other of the Right's pet anti-causes and suddenly he's an ignorant Redneck again!

And please, don't for a minute think that I'm suggesting that OBAMA is somehow winning over some Republicans. No way.  I've been watching these guys for YEARS, vacillating between loving them and laughing at them.  What I DO think is happening, in the case of Graham, is that he's looking at inherently good legislation and, once again, sees his party opposing it on the basis of it still being Obama's watch and he's saying "Fuck You" to his party and their four year plan to screw America for the sake of sinking Obama.

Anyway, as far as Republicans go, I do like these guys...

...But I'd still never vote for them.

(OTOH, I'm still registered as Republican in Michigan, so if there's ever a Paul/Graham ticket, I WILL give them some love in the Primary! LOL.)

(Never happen.) XD

Is that really Dick Cheney?

Interesting headline and photo on MMFA today:

Is THAT really Dick Cheney?

THIS GUY?

When the hell did he start looking like Max Von Sydow?!

If he wasn't such a scumbag, whose plane ticket to The Hague I'd glady spring for out of pocket, I'd almost be concerned about him!

WTF???

OTOH, since it is Dick Cheney we're talking about, all i can say is that I hope it's inoperable, and "fuck 'im."

Freedom of Religion

In the past, I’ve certainly made no secret about my feelings towards religion. In fact, I’ll admit that I'v not been shy about treating it with open hostility. But through it all, I have claimed to hold Religious Freedom as a matter of principle: That while freedom OF religion REQUIRES freedom FROM religion, it is still, “FREEDOM OF RELIGION.” And the time has come for me to defend this principle, and to defend what might be my least favorite religion of all, ISLAM, from a violation of this principle.

I want to issue, without equivocation, a strong condemnation of the new laws in France and Turkey banning the public wearing of Headscarves by Islamic women, and the new law in Syria banning of the wearing of the full veil by female Islamic teachers in the classroom. These laws are clear violations of these individuals' basic human right to free religious expression and represent what I believe to be an abhorrent violation of human rights.

Wow – where did THAT come from? I mean… The whole idea of the veil? I find beyond absurd. It’s a symbol of the oppression of women in particular, and of people in general by the Religion which, more egregiously than any other in the world, seeks to dominate all forms of government and public life, and which invariably seeks to outlaw all other forms of religious expression. Islam is, IMHO, the worst religion for this reason: It carries by far the most restrictive superstitious taboos, has by far the least tolerance for dissent and violation, and if left unchecked, aggressively integrates itself and it’s tenets into the State and into the Public Laws. And once it does this, it commits grave violations of human rights and despicable acts of human suppression. And to the extent that any country in the middle east (or anywhere else) DOES NOT do this, it is directly proportional to how SECULAR their government remains. IOW – it’s like I said before: How crazy you are is X times the amount of how religious you are.

So how can I so strongly condemn Islam and yet defend the veils, headscarves and burkhas? Simple: It all comes down to freedom.

I have said before that I can respect anyone’s religious beliefs provided that they are kept:

1) Out of the classroom
2) Out of our laws, and
3) Out of my face

An Islam – at least within Islamic states – aggressively violates all three. So if we’re talking about a case where someone is FORCED to wear a scarf, veil or burqua? Or for that matter, FORCED to pray, FORCED to fast, FORCED to tithe, etc… Then yes: I condemn that. But it is not the place of ANY government to tell someone who BELIEVES in that level of modesty (for example) and CHOOSES to wear the Scarf, Veil or Burqua that they CANNOT.

Just as government should not be able force any religious prohibition upon me, nor should any government prohibit me from accepting a religious prohibition voluntarily should I choose so. (Hey, this applies anywhere: I fully support the rights of nudists and naturists everywhere as well. But that doesn’t mean I’d support outlawing clothes!) No human being should be told that they MUST or CAN NOT participates in a religious ceremony, practice, tradition, custom or taboo.

The Separation of Church and State must be ABSOLUTE, for the protection of BOTH ENTITIES.

I don’t see how it can be any clearer.

------------------------------------------

BTW – I’d like to point out that this reasoning is very consistent with other positions that I hold with equal vigor:

1) I abhor abortion, but would protect most abortion rights.

2) I despise guns, but oppose most gun control measures.

3) And (in this case) while I despise what the Veil represents, and condemn its forced usage, I cannot abide the idea that it would be TAKEN AWAY from someone who believes in it, and choose to wear it for themselves.

And these are not contradictory, because for me, it comes down to CHOICE: I may not agree with the choices you make but I fight, kill and die for your right to make them. (And I will also fight, kill and die to prevent you from taking them away from someone else!)

-----------------------------------

One last thing…

It should be noted that the ALCU, that “secular enemy of organized religion everywhere” (according to the Christian Funny-Mentalists in THIS country) agrees with me.  And I applaud them  for their efforts in each and every one of those cases!

Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court

The recently announced retirement of Justice Stevens highlights the primary reason I will not be able to abide another Republican President until either the balance of the court changes of the philosophy of the party does. I mentioned the other day that one of my fears after Bush v Gore was the inevitable hard-right shift of the court. Bush replaced the hard-right Chief Justice Rehnquist was the even more hard-right, yet much, MUCH younger Chief Justice John Roberts. But that was only insurance, it didn't created a shift it just prolonged the status quo. The real shift came when regular swing-vote, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor retired, we get the hard-right Samuel Alito. (Or Justice "Scalito," as I think you can safety call him.) THAT was HUGE.

Prior to that, the vast majority of non-unanimous case lined up with Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia on one side, Breyer, Souter, Stevens and Ginsberg on the other and both O'Connor and Kennedy as swing votes. And O'Connor sided with the liberal wing more often than Kennedy did. By the time Bush was done The Right had Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and ALITO voting reliably in one four-vote block, Breyer, Souter, Stevens and Ginsberg reliably voting in the other... and suddenly Justice Anthony Kennedy was the most powerful man in the world. (Honestly? Looking at how things worked out? At this point, I'd have strongly preferred Harriet Myers! File that under, "Be careful what you wish for!")

So Obama has now replaced the retiring Justice Souter with Justice Sotomayor, and will soon have to nominate a replacement for Stevens. And not to be morbid, but givien Justice Ginsberg's health issues, I'll give you even odds that he'll be facing a third vacancy within this term, and I'll guarantee you he'll be filling her seat if he wins reelection! Now just imagine for a moment what the prospect for our civil liberties going forward would look like if JOHN McCAIN (with Sarah Palin whispering in his ear ala Greema Wormtounge) had the opportunity to replace 3/4 of the court’s liberal wing! The ACLU might as well close up shop right now!  And I have to tell you, knowing that the three of the four memebers of the "liberal wing" were also the three oldest members of the court made another conservtaive presidency a truly terrifying prospect for me.  How this wouldn't scare the crap out of ANY freedom loving American, I'll just never understand.

Anyway, that's all I really wanted to say.  As for who Obama chooses?  I'm not all that concerned.  I'm sure it will be someone, like the other three members of the Liberal Block that reliable VOTE liberally.  But that's not really the problem.  The problem is that whomever he chooses will probably not have the charisma and influence that Stevens had, and thus will almost certainly not have the level of skill in persuading Justice Kennedy that Justice Stevens had.  So while we'll still have our FOUR reliable votes, we'll inevitably be less able and likely to get that fifth vote.  Can't be helped, but if McCain had won, it wouldn't even be a issue.