Here and Now...

Well, it's about that time again. It gets to where there's so much going on that I don't know where to start, so I don't post, and I just make things worse for myself (I'm a terrible procrastinator, and you'd think I'd learn), and then end up having to condense everything into three paragraph blurbs and combine them into one rather longish post that deals with more than one issue.

So yes. Here we go.


The Oil Spill

Yes, yes. The oil spill that is going to kill lots of little animals out in the ocean and endanger fishing livlihoods all over the US. Well...I never liked fish, so that's no skin off my nose. I haven't been following this story very much, mostly because oil is of absolutely zero interest to me.

But anyway...it looks like the new opening up of offshore drilling places (you see how horribly ignorant I am of this issue?) is going to be postponed because of this spill. However, this spill has also (according to some members of Congress) made it politically unfeasible to try to pass energy and climate legislation- probably because any plan that'll get in good with the Republican minority will have to include something increasing offshore drilling, and the environmentalists aren't going to go for that right now...

And I sort of agree with them. Let's see...we just had a huge oil spill that may or may not have been caused by poor security or safety practices, and we want to add more cooks in the kitchen? o.0 Yeah. That's smart. Not.


Supreme Court Appointments and You

So with Justice Stevens retiring, that leaves another spot open on the Supreme Court. Meaning Obama gets to appoint another Justice. Which obviously means that we'll have to be subjected to a repeat of last year's Sotomayor Fiasco, with accusations whirling, counter-accusations being shot back, and underneath it all, the absolute certainty on the Right that Obama is an evil socialist who wants to enslave us all.

Hence this lovely quote- "Senate Republicans said they would be watchful for a nominee who made decisions based on his or her "own views and political agendas," in the words of Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee..."

Translation: "We're going to absolutely flip over any nominee you send us who isn't Republican and making decisions based on our views. Because anything less is absolutely unamerican."

And of course, being the civil rights geek I am, I was wondering exactly what the potential judges think about said rights...which, of course, means this caught my eye.

What exactly do the potential Justices think about executive power? Their records are vastly dissimilar in many ways, but I must say this woman talks some sense-
"Of the three, Judge Wood, of the appeals court in Chicago, has the clearest record in favor of protecting civil liberties and taking a skeptical stance toward executive power. In a 2003 essay, she spoke out against approaches to counterterrorism that she said posed “a significant threat to the continued observance of the rule of law” — like giving noncitizens fewer due process rights than citizens and sacrificing individual privacy to foster intelligence-gathering.

“In a democracy, those responsible for national security (principally, of course, the executive branch) must do more than say, ‘trust us, we know best’ when they are proposing significant intrusions on liberties protected by the Constitution,” Judge Wood wrote."

Thank you, Ms. Wood. One of the other prospective nominees (another woman, Ms. Kagan), I feel more iffy about. She has a known record of siding with the White House when it comes to executive power...and that's not a good thing. The other front-runner, one Merrick Garland, also has a mixed record which means he could go either way when it comes down to a decision on the issue.

Now I know very little about all the prospective nominees, but the NYTimes did a piece giving a brief blurb about each. Check it out.


Israel and Nukes, oh me oh my....

So it's happened. Finally, the IAEA is looking into Israel's nuclear capabilities. After ignoring her lapse for years in favor of jumping all over non-nuclear countries that are trying to proceed with their own programs, somebody has finally blown the whistle on Israel and asked for an investigation.

Sort of.

Israel is eighth on the agenda. Tentatively. Of course, if Israel and her allies (us) throw a big enough fit, she'll be struck off the agenda, probably never to return. Which would be wrong.

I thought the UN was about the world working together to reach common goals. I thought the UN was about us all knowing what everybody else was doing, so that nobody gets ahold of something they shouldn't (which kind of makes the whole world sound like a playdate...). So why shouldn't Israel's nuclear arsenal be discussed?

We've consistently yelled at Iran about their nukes (which they don't have). We went to war in Iraq over nukes (which they didn't have). We've consistently lambasted North Korea for their possession (and testing) of nukes. Yet somehow, our allies and ourselves are immune to this wave of criticism against the Big Bad Boy Bomb.

Wha-?

Ah yes. The difference. Iran would use nukes, and we never wou- Uh....wait...

Iran would use nukes, but Israel never would. Ever.

And we know both of these things for certain because we read the minds of their leaders. Uh-huh. Tell me how that works out for ya'.


How Convenient- Pakistan and the 'Square Bomber

So after the bomber-that-wasn't, our Government has decided Pakistan is the new Enemy of the State. Which of course means that the most obvious course of action is to invade their country, or, in the nice language of our President, "put more boots on the ground."

You almost have to wonder how this could happen so conveniently. Obama is looking for a way to invade Pakistan (for purposes of "national security", naturally), and hark! A bomb! Driven by a dummy who was trained in a Pakistani Taliban camp! He's a Pakistani Talib! Help!! Invade Pakistan!!

Of course.

Now naturally, the Pakistanis don't want us invading their nice little country. But that's okay. That's why we've been really nice to Islamabad lately. That way Pakistan will like us. Or maybe not. We'll just have to get hit with another attack, that's- oh wait. Did we say that out loud? ^.^

Nuclear Summit Logo...Muslim?

Apparently, conservatives have gotten up in arms over how the Nuclear Summit logo supposedly looks like a Muslim flag. Which it doesn't. Below is Jon Stewart's segment on the issue- which is, by the way, absolutely hilarious. ^.^

Enjoy!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
A Farewell to Arms
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Recent News

I'm just going to go over a few of the current issues that are making the rounds these days...been super busy, and I don't have enough of an opinion on a lot of it to actually make full blog posts. So, without further ado...

The Healthcare Bill

So I predicted it would pass. I also predicted Scott Brown would vote for it. That one didn't come to pass, unfortunately, because it would have been so much fun to say "I told you so" to all the "glory-be-hallelujah-Scott-Brown-got-elected" people. Ah well. Political face-saving wins again...

Having not actually read the healthcare bill itself, I'm not going to go into detail on what I think is wrong with it. I've heard plenty of alarmism and "this is going to take away all our liberty and institute a mark of the beast and make us all get chips in our foreheads and help, help, help!" But I haven't actually seen citations of that (of course, if somebody wants to provide me with some, feel free. :) )

To me, the primary reason this bill is messed up is 1) it takes way too much power away from the states, and their right to decide how things are run, and 2) it will increase our government's spending, and taxes on the citizen.

So yes. If anyone has any other points of concern you think I should know about, please share (with actual citations, if you would, to the actual bill). ;)

States Stepping up to Bat

This week Nebraska passed a law banning abortions after 20 weeks, based on fetal pain.

Well good for them. Is this unconstitutional as some people are claiming? Well to my mind...no. According to my understanding of Constitutional law, the Supreme Court making laws in the first place is unconstitutional, which would make Roe vs. Wade unconstitutional. Hence, the responsibility for abortion laws falls directly to the states, as this power is not granted the Congress.

I think abortion advocates should just get over it. This measure is constitutional: it keeps power where it should be, in the hands of the state. That isn't wrong, that is a very good thing. Furthermore, I do think we should take into account the baby's pain level, at least to some extent. If you want an abortion, get one early. It isn't rocket science.

Obama's Nuclear Summit

So I admit it, I laughed. Especially since it doesn't appear either North Korea nor Iran has signed this pact-thingymajigger, making it so that two of the "greatest threats to our safety"...still have nukes. Real smart.

Of course, Iran doesn't actually have nukes yet apparently...they're just enriching uranium and using the tough-guy approach to try to keep us from invading. Not that it'll work. Hussein tried it, too (well, he actually tried Pakistan's approach- ingratiate oneself and maybe we'll leave one alone. Nope).

So anyway...I do think Obama has good intentions at heart. Do I think those good intentions will reap much? Eh, probably not, considering how many other measures like this have failed in the past. People still have nukes, people are still developing nukes, and in the end, one can't really stop stupidity and pure cussedness.

Oh, and on the subject of the summit- dont'cha know that free press is just totally eighteenth century.

So yes, just a quick blurb on a few issues I found interesting. :)

Korea, Nukes, & the UN

HELP!! North Korea is going to get us...or maybe not. I mean, considering their nukes aren't even that powerful. At least, not substantially more powerful than they were two years ago.

Besides, who cares if anybody has nukes?

So what if they decide they want to have weapons that could wipe out the entire world?

North Korea is a sovereign nation (my, what a concept), and we have no business telling them what they can and cannot do in their own country.

Am I a bit scared they have nukes? Yes. Do I think nukes are bad? Um...maybe. Do I think America and/or the UN should be forcing them to give their nukes up? No.

I understand that NKorea had a treaty with several other countries to get rid of their nuclear program.

But why do we care? Why should anyone care? So they decided to get rid of the stupid treaty (which was probably a bad idea in the first place), and go their own way. So?

Let me tell all of the wonderful 'peace' people out there- I am not adverse to peace. However, I find it hard to believe that Obama is for peace- despite his pressure to get rid of nukes- when he's pushed yet another war in Afghanistan. Yeah, that's real peace-lovin'!

Let's just let every country have nukes. If one country actually sets one off, that country will be in trouble. If everybody had nukes, we wouldn't have to worry about nukes, because each country would be too afraid to set them off, for fear of the repurcussions.

'Nuff said.