Some people have very, very low expectations.  For example, the following is being cheered:

President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.

In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, the president described his thought process as an “evolution” that led him to this place, based on conversations with his own staff members, openly gay and lesbian service members, and conversations with his wife and own daughters.

“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told Roberts, in an interview to appear on ABC’s “Good Morning America” Thursday.

It takes consultation with friends & family, observance of actual gay couples in the wild, and years of soul-searching to reach the conclusion “Y’know, preventing people who love each other from doing something we let everyone else do because they have the same plumbing is kinda sorta unfair”.  The rank and file supporters of his faction of the ruling class, due to this, are squealing with delight like that pig in the stupid car insurance commercial.

My reaction: “…what? You want a cookie?”

As I have made a point of reminding folks on the issue of marriage, the “traditional” definition has been constantly changing since long before any of the ones currently on either side were born.  The very concept of government being a party to it, in the scope of mankind, is relatively new, and the relationship until even more recently than that for those not barred from it was more like master & slave than that of equal partners.  Within the current nature of the arrangement — that being an overlap of the deeply personal/philosophical/spiritual or what have you, & the political — I believe in the rule that the state should be non-discriminatory until it is non-existent.  While the worth of government recognition is in my view zilch, if others disagree then I’m not going to stop them.

So, this flawed, internally contradictory but nonetheless important to many people status exists, and a man has declared that in his view, of the things that the state does to people, denying them access to this should not be one of them (though, if people want to do so on a state level, go ahead, he adds. Because rights have neatly drawn boundaries).  Many people already believe this, & it is not news. They don’t matter.

Who it is finally coming around to this view matters simply because he is The Motherf—ing President.  He who has their finger hovering over The Button is who is relevant.

The real question is why the relationships of consenting adults is anyone else damn business whatsoever.  That Obama’s view of said relationships is of even the most remote concern should stand as a lesson for us all, a lesson about the absolutely suicidal and absurd amount of power a few people hold in this society.  When the views of anyone else on that which does not harm them simply roll off, relevance vanished, that’s when you’ll know true equality — and freedom — has been achieved.

Edit: figures I’d hit Publish right before someone shares w/ Marc Ambinder (and thus, I’m assuming until further notice, the world, since it got retweeted like crazy) this…

Really.

Despite several failed tests, & recent history showing that missiles are really irrelevant as a 1st world security risk compared to, say, the angry relatives & neighbors of people who those countries fire their missiles at, U.S. construction of an attempted missile shield continues.  Extending this nonsensical plan to Europe, one of the stations — 6 years from now — is set to be placed in Poland.  Nearby Russia, realizing that 1) the Cold War is over & 2) this crap isn’t gonna work anyway, is shrugging it off.

I’m kidding. They’re actually threatening — well in advance — to fire on it:

Russia’s top military officer has threatened to carry out a pre-emptive strike on U.S.-led NATO missile defense facilities in Eastern Europe if Washington goes ahead with its controversial plan to build a missile shield.

President Dmitry Medvedev said last year that Russia will retaliate militarily if it does not reach an agreement with the United States and NATO on the missile defense system.

“Just you wait!  Go ahead and build the missile defense system for those several years, and the second it’s done we’ll attack it & trigger WW3!”

Nice use of the “pre-emptive strike” talk, btw.  So, what’s the purpose of this shield, beyond the usual billions for the endless war industry?

Moscow rejects Washington’s claim that the missile defense plan is solely to deal with any Iranian missile threat and has voiced fears it will eventually become powerful enough to undermine Russia’s nuclear deterrent. Moscow has proposed running the missile shield jointly with NATO, but the alliance has rejected that proposal. (emphasis mine)

The stated assumption here by Washington D.C. is that somewhere along the line the Iranian government is going to fire missiles at Europe.  Because…just because they feel like it, I guess?  Meanwhile, the assumption by Russia is that it’s meant instead to stop them from firing on the rest of Europe.  Which they would do because…Boris Badenov takes over in a coup & really wants to get that damn Moose & Squirrel?

During all this, here in the real world, the shield Doesn’t. Frickin. Work.  Also, it is long proven irrelevant even if it did (a thought: if Russia really wanted to hurt the U.S., it would simply disrupt the flow of oil).  Reading mutual mounds of Stupid like this make me wish I had a glue-sniffing habit.

First, let me preface this with the following: Ted Nugent is an absolute fricking idiot and his music is garbage.  Ok? Now, onward…

This guy is in the news lately for pretty much the only reason he gets any attention at all these days: his ultra-right-wing political views and how he expresses them.  Recently, in keeping with the partisan charade that the problem with the State is who happens to hold the nuclear launch codes at this specific moment rather than its very nature, Nugent said, among other things, that if Obama were re-elected, by this time next year he — as in Nugent — would either be dead or in jail.  The Secret Service was not amused.

If you remember, there was an incident while someone more favorable to Ted was at the helm of the empire where a teenage girl got a Secret Service contact because of something she posted on her Myspace.  While there are a lot of threats, most of which the public will never know about, neither whiny kids nor washed up musicians pass a smell test as far as credible ones go.  For one thing, announcing an actual intent to follow through on the kind of national stage Ted crawled onto due to his endorsement of Generic Republican — excuse me, Mitt Romney — would be rather detrimental to any odds of success.  It would be as if a potential plane hijacker happened to get on one of those stupid TV talent shows and said after their performance “I’m going to hijack a plane!”; if we damn near get roto-rootered for trying to board a plane, imagine what that person would encounter.

That said, he didn’t say why he would be locked up or dead.  Considering he made these remarks at an NRA convention, he’s more than likely envisioning seizure of his firearms, which he would resist at all costs.    My view of the right to bear arms being such that I responded to mainstream liberal howls over armed protesters at Tea Party rallies with basically “if anybody should be armed it’s the Left”, I’d completely understand such a reaction were that to occur despite disagreeing with him on just about everything else.  Yet, I would be kidding myself if I didn’t admit that the understanding of personal firearms as a primary hedge against tyranny* seems a bit quaint at a time where we’re discussing missiles routinely being fired by aircraft controlled from thousands of miles away.  While there’s application still when it comes to the local kind of violent oppression (as I previously discussed, & which amounts to admission of failure to check law enforcement as promised), let’s be real here: If Obama really wanted him bad enough, Ted Nugent would be dead already.

I’m reminded of Ioz’ remark concerning the regular threats that come with the territory of political power:

If we are cursed forever to be ruled by such men, let them at least pay for their power by looking over their shoulder from time to time.

Personally, I think it says something profound about that power that “watch what you say” is ever said without irony.

Of course, this wouldn’t be a properly frivolous political story without exchanges of additional nonsense.  Nugent followed up his remarks by comparing himself to a “black Jew at a Klan rally”, and a writer for CNN.com provided…well, just look:

Ted Nugent should be arrested.

Not because he doesn’t like Barack Obama but because he got up in front of a group of people and insinuated he would attempt to assassinate Obama if he’s re-elected. Or let’s put it this way: A man with a truckload of guns has threatened the life of our president while the country’s at war. (emphasis mine)

Because Things Are Different while we’re bombing people…

(* – I stress, again, that to interpret the flawed logic & illegitimacy of the ruling structure as reason to go attack individual members of it is Stupid-with-a-capital-S)

The CIA is seeking authority to expand its covert drone campaign in Yemen by launching strikes against terrorism suspects even when it does not know the identities of those who could be killed, U.S. officials said. [...] If approved, the change would probably accelerate a campaign of U.S. airstrikes in Yemen that is already on a record pace, with at least eight attacks in the past four months.

This request, amounting to a gripe that knowing who you’re shooting at is a hassle, comes up even though it is admitted that much of the activity cited as reason for it is local in nature (read: not concerned with a threat to the U.S.).  Keep it up though and of course that’ll change.

I suspect the biggest reason for the type of militancy the U.S. “defense” apparatus is so worried about overseas is because of the power it claims over the rest of the world & how it leads desperate people in already crappy circumstances to conclude that Washington D.C. has more pull in their lives than they do.  Call it a hunch.

Edit: “Bug splat“? Really??

Had a fairly random, albeit particularly interesting IMO, thought and felt like hoisting its flag out to see if it catches return fire. So here:

Consider the varying definitions used for “capitalism”.  People use it to refer to everything from a system of inherent state-collusion in the favor of connected interests, to the anarcho-capitalist definition of an ideal open market order, to the simple (and simplistic) “anything involving prices”.  These are about the process, but what about the root?  That is, what about Capital?  Economics textbooks routinely say that Capital is not — NOT! — a reference to money, but to basically Stuff that can be used to make other Stuff.  Yet, significant portions of modern economic activity have pretty much jack squat to do with this anymore, to an extent where that textbook definition is alien to most: when you say “capital” to the general public, they generally respond “money”.  The influence of finance looms large here.

This poses a dilemma with regard to that textbook definition: stick to it, and it is arguable that modern economies approach a post-capitalist state.

Ultimately, I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. [...]

I just want to remind conservative commentators that for years what we have heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this has been a good example. I am pretty confident this court will recognize that and not take that step.

Justices of the Supreme Court, upon confirmation, effectively can serve for the rest of their lives.  Judicial Review allows them to declare laws void upon challenge — regardless of how popular those laws are.  According to the foundational fable of the U.S. government, a key portion of which prior to becoming the head of the U.S. government Barack Obama achieved a level of recognized expertise in sufficient to allow him to lecture others about it, restraining what a “strong majority” of a “democratically elected” legislative body can do is the entire damn purpose of the Supreme Court!

If legitimacy begins and ends at “there was a vote, majority rule, bitches!”, then the implications are clear: Any judicial action whatsoever fits the definition of “judicial activism”, and any legislation that can get 50%+1 is automatically a-ok, even if it amounts to saying the other 49.9 are to be fed to lions.  That someone who past majorities wouldn’t have even allowed to learn to read is willing to dismiss this just about sums up how thoroughly power corrupts.

Anyway, Nick Gillespie recently wrote about this, stating his view that the issue is overblown:

Despite the rare and tragic cases that rightly command our attention and outrage, the data show that things are, in fact, getting better for kids. When it comes to school violence, the numbers are particularly encouraging. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, between 1995 and 2009, the percentage of students who reported “being afraid of attack or harm at school” declined to 4% from 12%. Over the same period, the victimization rate per 1,000 students declined fivefold.

Also, he says that to the extent the problem persists, contrary to expectations it is most common where school officials are actually present:

Though it may not be surprising that bullying mostly happens during the school day, it is stunning to learn that the most common locations for bullying are inside classrooms, in hallways and stairwells, and on playgrounds—areas ostensibly patrolled by teachers and administrators.

Of all the topics to come up in the Wall Street Journal, I didn’t expect this to be one of them. Then again, I don’t read it, and got the fact that this article existed 3rd hand.

In one sense, that of the conventional socio-political terrain where “this is a serious problem” translates to “we must throw your money down a rathole and whittle away at your rights”, approaching the issue not with a mind towards actually addressing it but rather offering it sacrifices as if appeasing an angry Aztec god, he’s right.  That so much of this occurs under the noses of government employees voids right off the bat any arguments that this is a matter of lack of authority.  Besides, considering the function of bullies separating and maintaining power over classmates they see as undesirable, calling the formal part of the ruling class to stop them is a bit like calling a pyromaniac when your house is on fire.

Now for the sense in which Nick Gillespie is dead frickin’ wrong…

There is a frequently invoked falsehood that because one does not believe in force via the state to address a problem that is equivalent to saying “what problem?”.  Yet, here it is edged towards for real by not being enough of a skeptic.  The parallels between how wicked children can be towards each other and what adults do to each other under a flag actually show how deep this cultural rot goes, as the root is the same: the simple, terrible, refusal to accept the existence of difference.  The attempts to impose cultural conformity come from somewhere, and their place among children suggests that it is learned early on in life.  A worrying proportion of kids are being taught to “cut down the tall trees”, and placed in a regimented environment with further incentives to discourage questioning of How Things Are.  Many go on to positions in life where such viciousness towards divergence from the status quo is rewarded. 

Nick and his fellow Reasonoids tend to avoid deeper radical implications when it comes to their form of libertarianism, preferring more of a reformist and lifestyle-based focus. DL has criticized this for its demonstrated political ineffectiveness.  It may be even weaker in terms of cultural effectiveness.  Concentration of power marches on, we’re fighting culture war battles that were supposed to have died long ago, and we’re still as a society rewarding being a dick (speaking of which…), meanwhile our scope of what individual liberty means shrinks to choosing what background we want on our smartphone screen.  I don’t lay at the feet of him and his cohorts the entirety of the failure to make a dent in the troubling tendency of people to give a damn what anyone else does provided it is not harming them, but you can’t simultaneously claim counterculture cred and say all is fine.

This isn’t a political issue. It’s more than that.

An interesting new law was passed and signed the other day in Indiana:

Gov. Mitch Daniels has signed a law explicitly authorizing Hoosiers to physically resist police if officers are breaking the law.

Senate Enrolled Act 1, approved by the Republican governor late Tuesday night, permits a person to use reasonable force against a public servant, including police officers, to protect themselves from injury caused by the imminent use of unlawful force, to prevent illegal entry into a home or vehicle, or stop the unlawful taking of a person’s property. (emphasis mine)

On paper, there are multiple barriers intended to discourage police misconduct already. For example, in the U.S. illegally obtained evidence is to be excluded from admission at trial.  Cops who use excessive or unnecessary force are to be disciplined in ways ranging from being fired up to even themselves being charged with a crime, and the city whose force they operate on could be sued.  Here the real world though, this rarely occurs, as police officers automatically get the benefit of the doubt, making Swiss cheese out of the so-called “rules”.  When legal means are closed off, as in a deeply corrupt and self-serving system, people come to resort to Plan B.

Well, what Mitch Daniels just did amounts to saying “Yeah, Plan B is your best bet now. All that stuff that was supposed to restrain the cops before it came to that doesn’t work”.  Police conduct themselves as if merely another gang, and Mitch signs something allowing people to approach them as such.  Curious thing for a Governor to admit, ain’t it?

Not so fast…

“Contrary to some impressions, the bill strengthens the protection of Indiana law enforcement officers by narrowing the situations in which someone would be justified in using force against them,” Daniels said. “Unless a person is convinced an officer is acting unlawfully, he cannot use any force of any kind.

“In the real world, there will almost never be a situation in which these extremely narrow conditions are met.”

• The shooter, George Zimmerman, aspired to be a cop & regularly made calls about “suspicious activity” in the neighborhood (one of those gated communities…), 50 times in the past year alone.  Even if a couple calls resulted in an arrest being made, doesn’t that sound like a LOT of suspicion to have in such an area?  If this rate of suspicion is even remotely warranted, then frankly I’d say that’s one messed-up neighborhood, gate or no gate.  If not, then I suspect something myself: that George was the type who would’ve eventually called the cops about monsters under his bed.
• Zimmerman, as recorded on his police call, claimed that Martin was staring at the houses in the area. Simultaneously, Martin was actually on his cell phone — remarking about the strange man following him in an SUV to his girlfriend.  Hands-free earpieces for cell phones have existed long enough that “he’s crazy” wouldn’t be the guaranteed first assumption these days, especially when seeing a kid appear to be kind of mumbling from a distance.  Yet what did Zimmerman say? “He’s on drugs or something, something’s wrong with him”
• The shooter says he sees something in the victim’s hand.  I’m not sure how far away he was, but I have a hard time imagining a bag of skittles & an iced tea (what Trayvon in fact had on him) at any distance where you could make out them being held looking like any form of weapon.  Even if he’d had one of those big cans of the tea, most someone could rationally suspect would be if they mistook it for a beer can and thought they were drinking in public.  Last I checked, people weren’t executed for open container violations.
• George’s comments before hopping out after Trayvon Martin, in contradiction of what the dispatcher said and of what is standard procedure for Neighborhood Watch (which he was in fact not a member of): “Shit, he’s running! These assholes always get away!”.  Questions: what does he mean by “these assholes”?  Young people?  George is 28 and was in a car.  Alleged criminals in general?  He helped stop one himself before!  Where the hell is this attitude coming from?
• Go back to that recording of Trayvon Martin talking to his girlfriend.  At the moment of confrontation, initiated by Zimmerman, he outright asks why he’s being followed!  That should’ve been a tipoff that he may not be there with shady intentions (think: if you’re there to case the joint, why ask? Shit, why even speak, just run or fight).  Instead, George demands to know why he’s there at all, and it escalates from there.
• George claimed self-defense. Multiple people calling 911 after hearing the shot that killed Trayvon reported seeing him on top. On what planet do you have to defend yourself with a firearm from someone on their back?

What this is all telling me is that George Zimmerman is a quivering ball of irrational fear who killed a kid because he has the critical thinking skills of a gnat.  This is as much “self-defense” as a fucking drone strike.

Now, there are racial implications as far as how quickly the cops bought Zimmerman’s story.  Also, the class question of just WTF is behind the ironic increased fear on the part of gated community residents begs to be considered: after all, what’s the point of the gate and everything if you’re still that scared regardless, and is the crime in those areas even remotely close to worth the hassle? What are they afraid of?  However, to my view of the incident itself, the primary catalyst is paranoia.

Inevitably, here comes the politically motivated ridiculousness…

Mainstream Left: “BlahblahKochBrothersBlah! BTW: people don’t trust gubmint & Officer Friendly enough…”  As if all the people who did nothing wrong who were assaulted by actual police don’t count anymore or something.
Right-wingers: “The kid was the aggressor, dammit! First they’re getting suspended, next thing y’know they make knives with melted plastic! SHAAAAAARPTON!!!”  So we’re whacking non straight-A students in the streets now?

Sixty percent of Americans say the war in Afghanistan has not been not worth fighting and just 30 percent believe the Afghan public supports the U.S. mission there — marking the sour state of attitudes on the war even before the shooting rampage allegedly by a U.S. soldier this weekend.

Indeed a majority in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, 54 percent, say the United States should withdraw its forces from Afghanistan without completing its current effort to train Afghan forces to become self-sufficient.

The survey was completed Saturday. Early Sunday a U.S. service member allegedly left his base in Kandahar and shot and killed more than a dozen civilians in two nearby villages, an incident certain to raise tensions already inflamed by the U.S. military’s inadvertent burning of Muslim holy books at Bagram Air Base last month. That incident sparked violent protests, including a series of incidents in which Afghan soldiers have turned their guns on U.S. forces.

The view that Afghans don’t support the “mission” — whatever the hell it is now that the reason for going in the first place is dispersed and their leader is dead — is so well-founded that I have concern for the mental health of the 30% that said otherwise.

Alas, I speak too soon…

The first comment on the post mentioning this poll result starts off with what seems like a benign co-sign on the lack of worth of the war — and then steers right off a cliff:

The most recent estimate of the population of Afghanistan was about 30 million.  In a comment saying the war wasn’t worth fighting, an “alternative” is floated of firing nuclear weapons of a strength and amount sufficient to kill 24,000,000 people, the obvious overwhelming majority of whom would be CIVILIANS.  Why such a huge response (right next door to a majority-Muslim country that has nuclear weapons of its own, keep in mind)?  Because the people of Afghanistan — not al-qaeda, not the Taliban, but the entirety of the Afghan population — do not satisfy his standard of productivity.

You call it a “deterrent”, I call it nuclear genocide. I cringe to think how many included as finding the war pointless hold this contradictory view…