caudelac: (minas moscow)
I think that the US government owes reparations to the descendants of slaves.
caudelac: (yackety schmackety.)
The only thing I dislike more than authoritarian dictatorships are assholes who insist that the liberals are fascist. OMG. Yes, it is possible to be an authoritarian leftist (like a 'communist' dictatorship), but fascism/nationalism is rightist-- insular, reactionary bullshit. Just because a word is a bad thing, and you don't like some other thing, doesn't mean you get to just apply said word to the thing you don't like.

O' the March of Godwin.
caudelac: (yackety schmackety.)
"...There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."

From Life-Line by Robert Heinlien, 1939.

caudelac: (gumshoe winnar!)
B and I watched Downton Abbey while I tried not to throw up (due to hydrocodone for tooth pain) and we waited for the returns.

I am so relieved right now. If for no other reason than because YAY OBAMACARE!

g'night everybody. I have a cavity to be filled today.
caudelac: (minas moscow)
Hey! NPR says that the Iraq war ended today.

I'm pretty happy about that.
caudelac: (*facepalm*)
Originally posted by [ profile] gabrielleabelle at Mississippi Personhood Amendment
Okay, so I don't usually do this, but this is an issue near and dear to me and this is getting very little no attention in the mainstream media.

Mississippi is voting on November 8th on whether to pass Amendment 26, the "Personhood Amendment". This amendment would grant fertilized eggs and fetuses personhood status.

Putting aside the contentious issue of abortion, this would effectively outlaw birth control and criminalize women who have miscarriages. This is not a good thing.

Jackson Women's Health Organization is the only place women can get abortions in the entire state, and they are trying to launch a grassroots movement against this amendment. This doesn't just apply to Mississippi, though, as Personhood USA, the group that introduced this amendment, is trying to introduce identical amendments in all 50 states.

What's more, in Mississippi, this amendment is expected to pass. It even has Mississippi Democrats, including the Attorney General, Jim Hood, backing it.

The reason I'm posting this here is because I made a meager donation to the Jackson Women's Health Organization this morning, and I received a personal email back hours later - on a Sunday - thanking me and noting that I'm one of the first "outside" people to contribute.

So if you sometimes pass on political action because you figure that enough other people will do something to make a difference, make an exception on this one. My RSS reader is near silent on this amendment. I only found out about it through a feminist blog. The mainstream media is not reporting on it.

If there is ever a time to donate or send a letter in protest, this would be it.

What to do?

- Read up on it. Wake Up, Mississippi is the home of the grassroots effort to fight this amendment. Daily Kos also has a thorough story on it.

- If you can afford it, you can donate at the site's link.

- You can contact the Democratic National Committee to see why more of our representatives aren't speaking out against this.

- Like this Facebook page to help spread awareness.

caudelac: (*facedive*)
Because for this, I have to go to Jon Stewart.

caudelac: (philosophy!rant)
So the rest of the evening has been better. Much better. I had a pint of cider and am having Sangria and whittling away at Chapter 12 of Timothina's story, which is either going to be retarded long, or actually two chapters. Goddammit.

As a side note, as I was walking to the BMC, I saw a bumper sticker that read, "question Authority," though instead of the 'A' in 'Authority', there was the Obama O. And while I understand that this was intended as some kind of anti-Obama sentiment, it hit me-- this is the difference between the previous regime and this one; the reason why anti-Obama stuff bugs me so effing much. Because, quite by accident, this bumpersticker Got It.

Obama doesn't mind if you question authority-- even, or especially, his. You have that right. I have that right. It is god-given. That is, indeed, the point.

And correct me if I am wrong, but That Last Regime? Questioning them wasn't something that was Okay by them. At all. Pushing people to question their decisions felt like something subversive, that would piss them off. And Obama? I don't think it pisses him off. I think he expects it.

I ain't sayin, I'm just sayin.
caudelac: (gayer than a big gay thing.)
via [ profile] theferrett:

This is rather braw and well done: The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage: Why same-sex marriage is an American value.

Great article, idiot commenters. As per usual. The Conservative case is that Conservative =/= Fundamentalist, by which one may as well say Conservative =/= Reactionary. Necessarily.

In addition, I've been following the liveblogging of the prop. 8 trial, which is Of Interest.

Lastly, I gotsta reference [ profile] zoethe's post on Pat Robertson's Comments about Haiti, which were both horrific and unintentional comic gold: (emphasis mine)

"They were under the heel of the French, you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.' True story. And so the devil said, 'Ok it’s a deal.'

Yeeeeeeeeah, I got nothin.
caudelac: (Amazing!)
Hey Obama-- no pressure.

Also-- Thank you World Stage, for providing something eyebrow raising and of near-universal interest for me to provide terse commentary upon, in lieu of actually talking about anything of direct personal or broader relevance! I appreciate it much!
caudelac: (standing out in a crowd.)
I realise it is grossly unpopular to be rubbery over this thing, and the prevailing sentiment is one of cynicism and snark (and yes, LA shouldn't have to pay for the whole deal when the man's estate is more than enough to cover the memorial expense), but I am extremely sad that I missed watching Michael Jackson's memorial yesterday. Goddammit.

I did hear the snippets of it on NPR this morning, the Reverend Al Sharpton bellowing to MJ's children, "You daddy won't strange! What you daddy had to deal wit was strange!" And that little girl, voice meek and trembling, saying that hers was the best daddy in the whole world...

Yeah, I lost it. Weeping over the steering wheel on 147 towards 40 East.

This probably makes me completely lame, but I don't give a shit. I'd rather sniffle along with "Will you be there?" in my sentimental lameness, thanks much.

(Though Ke-rist, this whole business in China is pissing me off. When will the Chinese figure out that uber control of the media and of information is a poison? Much better to flood the people with so much information that they're overwhelmed and paralyzed as to what to do with or about it and...

...oh wait.)
caudelac: (Karlbox)
Post by [ profile] one_hoopy_frood, via [ profile] shadesong (keep in mind that this is a re-post, and thus some of the statements herein represent the original poster, more than myself. That said, I think that it is important to get these things out and said, better than via a link):

If you are reading this right now, you have more luxury than someone in Iran could ever hope for right now. If you are watching TV or a video on youtube, updating your status on Facebook, Tweeting, or even texting your friend, you are lucky. If you are safe in your home, and were able to sleep last night without the sounds of screaming from the rooftops, you need to know and understand what is happening to people just like you in Iran right now.

They are not the enemy. They are a people whose election has been stolen. For the first time in a long time, a voice for change struck the youth of Iran, just as it did for many people in the United States only seven months ago. Hossein Mousavi gained the support of millions of people in Iran as a Presidential candidate. He stands for progressiveness. He supports good relations with the West, and the rest of the world. He is supported with fervor as he challenges the oppressive regime of Mahmoud Amedinejad.*

On Friday, millions of people waited for hours in line to vote in Iran's Presidential election. Later that night, as votes came in, Mousavi was alerted that he was winning by a two-thirds margin. Then there was a change. Suddenly, it was Ahmedinejad who had 68% of the vote - in areas which have been firmly against his political party, he overwhelmingly won. Within three hours, millions of votes were supposedly counted - the victor was Ahmedinejad. Immediately fraud was suspected - there was no way he could have won by this great a margin with such oppposition. Since then, reports have been coming in of burned ballots, or in some cases numbers being given without any being counted at all. None of this is confirmed, but what happened next seems to do the trick.

The people of Iran took the streets and rooftops. They shout "Death to the dictator" and "Allah o akbar." They join together to protest. Peacefully. The police attack some, but they stay strong. Riots happen, and the shouting continues all night. Text messaging was disabled, as was satellite; websites which can spread information such as Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, and the BBC are blocked in the country. At five in the morning, Arabic speaking soldiers (the people of Iran speak Farsi) stormed a university in the capital city of Tehran. While sleeping in their dormitories, five students were killed. Others were wounded. These soldiers are thought to have been brought in by Ahmedinejad from Lebanon. Today, 192 of the university's faculty have resigned in protest.

Mousavi requested that they government allow a peaceful rally to occur this morning - the request was denied. Many thought that it would not happen. Nevertheless, first a few thousand people showed up in the streets of Tehran. At this point, it is estimated that 1 to 2 million people were there. (Personal note: I've heard reports that it might have been 3 million-- but nothing is confirmed at this point). Mousavi spoke on the top of a car. The police stood by. For a few hours, everything was peaceful. Right now, the same cannot be said. Reports of injuries, shootings, and killings are flooding the internet. Twitter has been an invaluable source - those in Iran who still know how to access it are updating regularly with picture evidence. Women are being brutally beat.

Tonight will be another night without rest for so many in Iran, no older than I. Tonight there is a Green Revolution.

For more information:

Here - from
Here - on Flickr
Here - _sober's twitpics. There's a lot of good twitpic photostreams of things going on.

Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish - near constant updates
ONTD_political live post - Collated information, pictures & etc in the comments
Revolutionary Road

(I've removed the names of twitterers actually in Iran, but do follow @ProtesterHelp!)

Also, check out the advice Here and here, on how to help out, if you can, and how to stay up to date.

ETA: SIGN THE GLOBAL PETITION! 25,000 signatures and growing!

دنیارابگوییدچطورآنهاانتخاباتمان دزدیده اند
Tell the world how they have stolen our election.

(original post by [info]one_hoopy_frood here - please repost!)
*ETA: I'll comment that, as regards to how Mousavi will get on with the West, nothing is firm or certain. However, in the likelihood that the incumbent cheated, it really doesn't matter what the numbers say-- he ought to be ousted for that criminality. If you would have won, and you cheat anyway, you still ought lose.
caudelac: (save the democracy!)
Lj's fairly quiet today, but I suspect it's coz everyone is glued to twitter, checking out #iranelection.

What amazes me is how People like Warren Ellis and Stephen Fry keep tweeting ip addresses for Iranian bloggers and twitterers to keep sending out reports around the government filters. Dunno the wisdom of making those too public, but wow. I mean... wow.

Also, (tip o' the hat to [ profile] pleroma check out The Diane Rhem show broadcast today dealing with this whole ordeal.

There was a time when the way to get this kind of info out was lj. But the speed of twitter... man, the speed of twitter. Whatever else you want to say about it, it's not just the Johnny-come-lately of social media, it's verily Johnny-on-the-spot.

Far more than NPR, by the by, which told me all of nothing on the way to work. Sheesh.

ETA: Looks like people who are posting proxies are leaving them up about as long as is necessary to get the info to who needs 'em, then taking 'em down. Good goin' folx!
caudelac: (save the democracy!)
Yeah, so, Iranian elections and madness and you know what?

Next time I am due for a nightmare, it will probably resemble this image:

Largely because, though it is hardly the most gripping of the images in that flikr set, it is the one that already looks like the main of the few nightmares I have ever had.

Wearing green today, and yeah. Go check out the #iranelection hashtag on twitter, if you're interested.


4 June 2009 11:41
caudelac: (philosophy!rant)
So you want to know how I feel about abortion-- and ethics in general-- maybe?

This is pretty much it.

I don't necessarily agree with Saletan in other articles, but I agree in this one. Preventing unwanted pregnancy is the best way to prevent abortion. There's a common misconception that people who are pro-choice /want/ people to have abortions. Safe, legal and rare is an important distinction. Women will have abortions, legally or no, as long as unwanted pregnancy happens. Or dangerous and life threatening, but otherwise wanted pregnancy. It is a question of whether it's happening in back alleys or in hospitals.
caudelac: (royal rainbow!)
EATA: Okay, This is apparently a case of majour LA Times fail.

Smooth moves, Exlax.

Still, it is a truly excellent decision, and well worth a read-- the pdf below, that is. Particularly the two argument as to whether domestic partnership and marriage as terms are different enough to create a less respected class for those in a domestic partnership, and the issue of whether or not same-sex marriage is a "new right" as opposed to a change in the understanding of an existing right. I don't know how legal language deals with differences in denotation versus connotation, but the two seem to be muddled here a bit both in the minority and dissenting opinions. Needless to say, I agree with the majority.

"As discussed below, upon review of the numerous California decisions that
have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to
marry (and that illuminate why this right has been recognized as one of the basic,
inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution),
we conclude that, under this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to
marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive
legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral
to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated
or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative
process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the
opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the
individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and
protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage

Now that's what I call a decision!

Story here.

ETA: Oh lame, story is a year old. Odd that it suddenly cropped up again. Sigh.
caudelac: (*facedive*)
I wish I recall where I saw it, but the dumbest statement I've seen in the past week in this whole internet full of dumb:

"I mean, rights which are not reserved to the federal government are reserved to the states-- that is, the people."

UHNO. Not the whole order of reservation, but the 'that is' comment. Else there would not be a provision that rights which are not reserved to the states are /then/ reserved to the people.

Also, the problem of mixing up the states with the people is that a whole bunch of federal regulations are there to limit the power of the states to prevent them from infringing on the rights of the people-- in a properly functioning system, the role of the states are to protect the people from the federal government, and the role of the federal government is to protect people from the states. IMHO.

What brought this up was some NPR in the morning, in which the Arizona School System is in a battle with some folks over a federal law that states that all schools must ensure that the English language is taught to all students. They say that they've done enough, and the people who are suing say they haven't. This matter is going all the way to the US supreme court, as the state court ruled the school system in violation of the law.

I would be more on the side of the school system if they had just said, "look-- we've made broad improvements to the school system to improve the experience of everyone, and while I understand that there's this law, and I understand that there's still a lot of our students that aren't learning enough English, we just don't have the funds. If the federal government wants us to comply, they had better tell us what else we can possibly cut, move around, or fund some other way. Thanks."

But did they say that? No. What the superintendent said was (paraphrased),

"Rulings like this are the result of life-appointed judges who have nothing to lose, and a court system that has too much power. This stuff should be left up to the people of the state, not judges who don't have a stake in it!"

So... the people huh?


Kinda gotta be Team People here.

Yeah, cry moar about activist judges. Is it just me, or does that particular whine sound like sour grapes?

Tl;dr, if you can't afford something, own up to it. Don't try to shift the blame onto something else like a whiny little [insert genitalia reference of your choice here]. BE confrontational, sure, but be confrontational about the right things, don't try to divert the damn issue.
caudelac: (citation needed)
Via [ profile] apocalypsos--

This is mostly hilarious, but ultimately worth it for this commentthread.

(Ron Perlman's tears cure cancer, herpes and AIDS though.)

July 2017

16171819 202122


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 24 September 2017 23:03
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios