Assorted shit

Sexy brainiac blogger Glenn Greenwald recently noted that that “Two months into Obama’s presidency, one can clearly conclude” that, unlike how the wingnuts marched in lockstep with the unelected members of the Bush regime, liberals have been “critical of and oppositional to a Democratic president when that president [undertakes] actions in tension with progressive views.”

In that spirit, I fucking cringed when I read that President Obama told U.S. troops today in a speech during his unannounced visit to Vietraq, “It is time for us to transition to the Iraqis. They need to take responsibility for their country.”

I got spitting mad when any member of the unelected Bush regime said anything like that, and I’m no happier to hear Obama say it.

The bottom line is that the Iraqi people did NOT ask for the United States to invade (er, “liberate”) their sovereign nation in March 2003 and to continue to occupy it today even when the “mission [was] accomplished” in May 2003.

In fact, the majority of world opinion was against the idea of the Bush regime invading Iraq, and when the United Nations Security Council refused to rubber-stamp the unelected regime’s invasion like a “good” little Security Council “should,” the Bush regime gave the council — and world opinion — the middle finger and invaded Iraq anyway. (And also at about that time, French fries became “freedom fries.” Shudder.)

About 100,000 dead Iraqis later, here is U.S. President Obama lecturing the Iraqis on taking personal responsibility when not only did the Iraqis NOT ask for the invasion and subsequent occupation of their sovereign nation for the war profiteering of Dick Cheney’s Halliburton and the other war-profiteering subsidiaries of BushCheneyCorp, but the United States of America still has not taken responsibility for its illegal, immoral, unprovoked and unjust March 2003 invasion of and subsequent occupation of the once-sovereign nation of Iraq. (Because being an American means never having to say that you’re sorry.)

The United States of America is in no position to lecture any other nation’s people (even indirectly, as Obama did) about responsifuckingbility.

…

I had considered it but I never commented on this Associated Press news story from March 31:

More than 1,000 retired military officers, including several who were top commanders, are urging President Barack Obama and Congress to maintain the law that bars gays from serving openly in the armed forces.

Obama is consulting with the Pentagon on the issue and says he supports eventual repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which prohibits gays in the military from being open about their sexual orientation. A bill that would allow gays to serve openly has been introduced in Congress.

A statement issued by the retired officers … said passage of that bill “would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all levels, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force.”

Among the signatories were Gen. Carl E. Mundy, Jr., a former commandant of the Marine Corps; Adm. Leighton W. Smith, a former commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe; Gen. Charles A. Horner, who commanded U.S. aerial forces during the 1990-91 Gulf War; and Adm. Jerome L. Johnson, a former vice chief of Naval Operations.

The retired officers said they strongly supported the principle that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service” and warned that repeal of current law could jeopardize morale and “unit cohesion.” …

The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was put in place after President Bill Clinton tried to lift the ban on gay service members in 1993. Under the policy, the military does not ask recruits about their sexual orientation, while service members are banned from saying they are gay or bisexual, engaging in homosexual activity or trying to marry a member of the same sex.

Oh, Jesus fuck, where to even begin on this bullshit?

OK, first off, these homophobic military officers are retired. These guys are mostly stupid old white men, mostly Repugnicans, I’m sure. They are relics of the past. They are not the future. They are the past.

Secondly, I’m sure that stupid white men said the same old fucking shit when the armed forces were racially integrated — that allowing blacks (and other non-whites) would jeopardize morale and threaten unit cohesion, blah, blah, blah.

And who would be more likely to do such things as “undermine recruiting and retention,” “have adverse effects on the willingness of parents [to] lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force”: gay men and lesbians who just want to serve in the military — or the stupid white men like those who comprised the unelected Bush regime, who, Vice President Joseph Biden just said today, stretched the U.S. military the thinnest that it ever has been stretched?

I mean, if you were a heterosexual thinking of enlisting or re-enlisting in the U.S. military, would the fact that these days you are sent back to a war zone over and over and over again have less of an impact on your decision than the possibility that — gasp! — one or more of your comrades might not be heterosexual?

If you were a parent, would you be more concerned that your son or daughter might encounter — gasp! — a non-heterosexual in the U.S. military, or that your son or daughter might end up like one of the more than 4,250 of our troops who have come home from the bogus Vietraq War in a box?

No, let’s blame gay men and lesbians who just want equal rights as being the largest threat to the U.S. military. Surely it’s not the stupid white men who ran the U.S. military into the fucking ground the past eight years!

I don’t know why anyone, straight, gay, bisexual or into chickens, would have any interest in joining the U.S. military when the U.S. military has been about war profiteering and keeping military contractors filthy rich more than it has been about actual national defense for many decades now.

Not too horribly dissimilarly, I don’t know whether my boyfriend and I, who have been together for a year and a half now, ever will get married or not (provided, of course, that California gets its fucking act together on same-sex marriage, like Iowa did, and marriage is an option to us). I am not certain that I even believe that marriage is a very good idea.

However, my boyfriend and I should have that option available to us like it is available to heterosexual couples, and anyone wishing to join the U.S. military — regardless of how intelligent I might esteem him or her to be — should be able to do so, regardless of such things as his or her race or sexual orientation.

These bigoted retired military officers need to get themselves some hobbies, because clearly they have too much time on their hands.

…

AFP photo

Today the Iraqi journalist who hurled his shoes at then-U.S. “President” George W. Bush (who, unfortunately, is fairly agile) during a press conference in Baghdad in December (video grab above; I never tire of posting that image…) — in protest of the unelected Bush regime’s illegal, immoral, unprovoked and unjust invasion and subsequent occupation of his nation — had his prison sentence reduced from three years to one year, The Associated Press reports.

One year still is too long for the young man’s “crime” — after all, Bush was a mass-murdering dictator just like Saddam Hussein was, but Bush very most likely won’t spend even an hour behind bars for his war crimes and crimes against humanity — but it’s better than the three three years to which he originally was sentenced last month.

Hopefully, the 30-year-old Iraqi journalist will be released before the one year is up; he already has been incarcerated for too long.

And he should be given a medal for his patriotic action, which has inspired footwear-related anti-imperialist demonstrations around the world, such as this one in Moscow:

Associated Press photo

Vermont legislators override Repugnican obstructionism to make human and civil rights history

Vermont’s legislators today overrode Repugnican Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto of legislation recognizing same-sex couples’ right to marry, making Vermont the fifth state to have achieved legalized same-sex marriage.

While same-sex marriage was a done deal in Vermont’s Senate, a handful of the state’s representatives had to be persuaded to change their votes in order to be able to reach the two-thirds threshold necessary to smack down the obstructionist Repugnican Douglas’ veto of equal human and civil rights for all of the state’s people.

This is more history in the making.

Vermont, which was the early leader in the push for same-sex marriage in the United States of America, is the fifth state to have achieved legalized same-sex marriage and is the fourth state that currently recognizes same-sex marriage, with same-sex marriage rights in California still being up in the air as the California Supreme Court decides whether or not to uphold Proposition 8, the ballot proposition that in November took away the same-sex marriage rights that the state Supreme Court had ruled in May belong to all Californians under the state’s Constitution.

As of today, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and now Vermont recognize legalized same-sex marriage.

Vermont is the first state to have achieved legalized same-sex marriage through its legislature, the Associated Press notes; the other states achieved legalized same-sex marriage via their top courts, which ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage violates their states’ constitutions’ guarantees of equal human and civil rights for all.

New Hampshire might be the next state to adopt legalized same-sex marriage.

The pink dominos are a-topplin’!

Since the California Supreme Court ruled in May that Californians are guaranteed same-sex marriage rights under the California Constitution, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont all adopted legalized same-sex marriage.

I can’t see how this fact won’t have an effect on the California Supreme Court justices’ decision (expected no later than in June) as to whether to uphold or strike down the results of Prop 8. The justices are, after all, human beings (even though six of the seven of them were appointed by Repugnican governors), and they do not exist in a political vacuum.

The toppling pink dominos, state by state, should only further convince the California Supreme Court justices that they made the right decision in May.

And history will show that the Repugnicans were nothing but obstructionist at best when it comes to same-sex marriage and other non-heterosexual rights.

The AP notes that the petulant, anti-democratic Douglas had huffed that there were other more pressing state issues than the rights of Vermont’s non-heterosexuals.

Sure, when your own rights are secure, as are stupid (presumably heterosexual) white man Douglas’, it’s pretty fucking easy to tell others to shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down when it comes to their rights, isn’t it?

The majority of those who oppose same-sex marriage are “Christians,” aren’t they? Did Jesus Christ not teach to do unto others only as you would have others do unto you? How many of these “Christians” who so casually want to deny others their equal human and civil rights would want their rights denied them? 

And isn’t the Repugnican Party the party that can’t shut the fuck up about “freedom”? If they’re so much about freedom, then why is it that it has been a long, hard struggle since the nation’s founding for anyone other than rich (presumably heterosexual) white men to have equal human and civil rights? 

Why has the history of the United States of America been one long struggle to force the powers that be (overwhelmingly rich white men) to actually live up to the wording in the nation’s founding documents, such as the Declaration of Independence’s guarantees of the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — and of equality for all?