A day of greatness and horror

Although America is celebrating a well-deserved victory for Barack, we have once again seen obsessive bigots trying interfere with other people's lives win. I am, of course, referring to gay marriage in California and Florida being re-illegalised. How was it done? Through a popular vote. No, I am not joking. These states left the rights of a minority group in the hands of the majority. To the people who thought this was a good idea...


SINCE WHEN HAVE THE MAJORITY EVER SUPPORTED THE MINORITY'S RIGHTS? Can you imagine if America left Brown v. Board of Education up to a vote? Would it have passed? Would American schools still have been desegregated?

Hell no. I have no doubt that if the American populace could legally overturn Supreme Court decisions, then the American people (ie at least 51%) would have staunchly refused to accept any form of racial integration: because human beings, more often then not, are afraid of change. They are afraid that if a group of people (whether it's women, blacks or gays) are given rights, then the rights of the majority are less*. Thankfully, there is a significany minority of people who recognise that giving a certain community the same rights doesn't lessen the significance of those rights for the people who already have them. The women's suffrage movement didn't lessen the importance of men's voting rights. Blacks using the same shops, carriages and education as whites didn't lessen whites' rights. And gays marrying doesn't reduce the significance of marriage for straight marriages.

That's why a democratic country should have an independent Court and leave the people out of it. Because people have nasty tendency to want to take away other people's rights. You can't leave civil rights up to a vote, because as we've seen, more often then not the majority will keep the status quo.

And just a final message-both Barack and Joe won't support equal marriage.

Cross posted here and here.

*Don't blame me for this. I didn't create this warped logic.

President XLIV*

Wow. Barack really has won it. He will become the 44th President of the United States of America. Today, we can end our fears of Bush/Cheney '08. We can end our fear of Sarah "Psychopath Barbie" Palin's trigger-happy finger entheusiastically hovering over the button whenever international friction develops. We can end our fear of more 'trickle down' ecomonics, and see for the first time American tax cuts for those who need them. We can end our fear of war as a first resort, instead of a last. And, hopefully, we can see an end to the genocide-creating global gag rule (that I'll be watching for).

This is also the 40th anniversary of Dr. King's assassination. This makes Obama's victory is more powerful and symbolic then Rudd's Sorry speech and the flag in Iwo Jima combined.

However, as Captain Lefty cynically yet accurately points out, this is not the messianic end all and be all that people believe. Even so, I'm dusting off The Audacity of Hope from the bookshelf.

And given that this is the first (and probably last) post mentioning Palin, I thought I'd share an under-used photo from the Kos.*that's 44, BTW.

Effeminate Nazis...

...where would we be without you?

Jesus was not a conservative.

"...you'd think that a religion founded on the rules of loving your neighbour, treating others the way you would want to be treated and giving everything to the poor would be a little more focused on loving your neighbour, treating others the way you would want to be treated and giving everything to the poor instead of banning abortion and contraception, hating gays and getting rich."

That was me (impressive, eh?). Normally, I am just able to tolerate hateful ultraconservatives claiming to have any Christian moral high ground. However, this pushed me over the edge.


Yup, the Aussie fundies have produced a pamphlet outlining what is apparently Jesus' most important beliefs. I also noted that the CDP couldn't cite any biblical passages to support their values-probably because Jesus never spoke on values they mention. Perhaps Nile should reread the first few chapters in the New Testament, because in fact, Jesus was:

-pro-tax

-pro-equality

-pro-compassion

-pro-pacifism

-anti-insane wealth

-anti-oppression

-anti-prejudice

-His greatest priorities never had to do with teh gays or teh 'bortions.

And unlike the ultracon pseudoChristians, I can actually quote what Jesus said to back this up.

Ultracon logic gets even worse.

Isn't it weird when you spontaneously realise something without even trying? Maybe it's just me.

Anyway, one thing I can't figure out is the idea of no sex before marriage. Specifically, how does marriage sanctify sex? Think about these contrasting examples:

1. A guy (in no relationship) goes to Vegas, gets drunk, and ends up marrying an equally drunk waitress. They have sex. In the morning, after getting over their hangovers, they divorce and go their separate ways. According to the NSBM ideal, the sex is fine because it's within marriage.
2. A youngish couple have been together for several years, and eventually decide to engage in some horizontal dancing. According to the NSBM ideal, this sex is wrong because, despite the couple's intimacy, they aren't married.
   

Somebody please tell me, how is the sex from no. 2 less 'pure' then the sex from one?* I found this, but it explain none of my above questioning (although I did drop out after the first paragraph).

Come on fundies and ultracons alike, get over it. There is nothing about marriage that makes sex more or less pure or sanctive-it's just a transparently thin cover for you lot to try and make women* guilty for experiencing sexual pleasure. And in turn this simply is a means for controlling those sex organs which you are so petrified of.

*Get ready for an EPIC rant against purity balls.

If a transluscent sack of cells in the womb dies, Jesus will cry.

Dear God. It's bad enough that the banning of aid occurs in the US-but Australia too?

Seems so:

THE Labor chairwoman of a parliamentary group on population hopes the Government will act by the end of the year to lift its ban on foreign aid being used for abortion advice and services.

Senator Claire Moore said it was important this issue be clarified before an international conference on maternal and child welfare was held early next year. "This seems to be an appropriate pressure point on the Government," she said.

Senator Moore said only Australia and the United States banned aid being used in this way in countries where abortion was legal.

Liberal MP Mal Washer, former chairman of the committee, said he suspected the Government had gone cold on removing the ban because it feared offending Family First's Steve Fielding who, as a cross-bench senator, was crucial to the Government on many occasions.

...

Dr Washer said the Government's situation with Senator Fielding appeared "very similar to the Harradine problem we had". He urged the Government to have some "sensible discussion" with Senator Fielding. A spokeswoman for Senator Fielding said the senator supported the restriction, and had spoken to Mr Smith on the issue a few months ago.

and:

Kevin Rudd should overturn the policy championed by former senator Brian Harradine of not providing foreign aid for abortion advice.

BRIAN HARRADINE, former independent senator from Tasmania, was a thorn in Labor's side for decades. Gough Whitlam in the late 1960s actually put his leadership on the line, on Harradine's side, in a party dispute involving him. Several years later, Harradine was finally expelled from the ALP, only to win a Senate spot as an independent.

...

The Howard government, in recognition of how much it would need him, agreed to a ban on Australian aid funding advice on abortion.

Now, Harradine is retired from the Senate but this legacy is causing all sorts of trouble for the Rudd Government. There is strong pressure to scrap the ban, following a recommendation to that effect from a cross-party group last year. But there's also a big push back, especially from the Catholic right in the ALP, to stop any change.

...

"Unsafe abortion is responsible for 13per cent of all maternal deaths globally - many in our region. These restrictions deny women the same access to reproductive health choices, education and services we give ourselves, even in countries when it is legal to do so. Currently if a woman is dying or injured from accessing unsafe abortion only then can she be treated or given information ... this is cruel and illogical".

Of course, that's not how the Catholic-ultracons see it.

We need human sacrifices! Preferably from Africa!

And as for Fielding...

Putting Aryan Christian Families First!

Cross-posted at An Onymous Lefty.

Yes! We have power!

You wouldn't believe the past near-2 weeks I've had. 12 days ago, one of our spies took this photo from within the enemy's HQ, before being captured and executed.



General Blair has unleashed kamikaze winged monkeys to bomb our communication systems. These primitives, although low in intellect, are vast in number and have destroyed a number of intelligence facilities, which left us temporarily defenceless. Thankfully, winged monkeys are not bred for their wit (a mindless soldier is, after all, a loyal soldier) and in their ecstasy of destruction, we were able to regroup.

For the past 12 days we've been using WW1 methods (morse code, pigeons, horses, antique tanks etc) for our defense. It was, I can assure you all, not pretty. Thankfully, We were able to set up a temporary computer system to regain footing for the war (hence, the return to posting).



Unfortunately, we have been forced to use early 20th-century technology to build it.