I Hate Politics Round #257
Feb. 26th, 2008 08:48 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
browngirl(With subrounds 256 and 258 at the end)
So in BostonNOW a couple days ago one of the many bloggers whose opinions bulk up the skinny little newspaper opined that it was about time for some scandal to erupt involving Senator Obama.
As if on cue... there is apparently a Huge Flap about a photo of him dressed in a traditional costume including a turban. On first glance, I rolled my eyes, but in the interests of being an Informed Voter I did a little research when I got to work. Apparently on a trip to Kenya (where his father is from, after all) he was presented by local leaders with the outfit. (Personally, I think he wore it pretty well. ) So now somebody has leaked the photo with implications. Cue another round of "Obama's not a Muslim, not that there would be anything wrong with that if he were." Ai ya. I hate politics.
(Also, the letters page of the Metro has been embroiled in a grand battle on the subject of Jewish People vs Black People: Who Had It Worse? This was started by a columnist who called slavery "the worst holocaust in the history of the human race"; on reading those words I quite literally facepalmed at the spectacularly inflammatory nature of that phrasing (I haven't seen such clear flamebaiting in a LONG time, and any professional columist has to know what he's saying), and considered writing a letter to the effect of "before we all start arguing, could we consider that there are levels of suffering beyond which it really shouldn't be a contest over severity?" OTOH, they probably wouldn't've listened to me anyway. And no, this still isn't equivalent to what O'Reilly said. No one was calling for anyone to be attacked and murdered in the here and now.)
(The last item is both heartening and annoying. A "New bill to guarantee transgender civil rights" is making its way through the legislature. Now, in theory I have come to have some doubts about the method of protecting civil rights by establishing groups of people whom one is legally enjoined from maltreating, rather than establishing certain kinds of maltreatment not to be practiced upon anyone. However, in practice, if I were to pursue that thought I'd find myself allied with a great many people who simply want to dismantle the current protections without establishing any others, because nowadays, when no one is bigoted anymore and it's uneconomic to refuse to do business on a prejudicial basis (*snerk*), no one would ever maltreat anyone based on race, religion, gender, orientation, physical ability and so on. Since I don't find this a perfect society where no one is bigoted anymore, and have seen how economically successful people can be while and even because they implement prejudice in their business practices, I'd rather support an imperfect system of protecting civil rights than have no protections in place at all.
Besides, that's not what's annoying. This is what's annoying: "Mass Resistance, a "pro-family" organization, has put up opposition to the bill and said it will make gender expression "unlimited," said spokeswoman Amy Contrada. She said the room for gender interpretation will have a potentially harmful impact on society." Oh no, not more freedom!)
Ugh, politics. *has pepperoni pizza to wash the taste out of my mouth*
So in BostonNOW a couple days ago one of the many bloggers whose opinions bulk up the skinny little newspaper opined that it was about time for some scandal to erupt involving Senator Obama.
As if on cue... there is apparently a Huge Flap about a photo of him dressed in a traditional costume including a turban. On first glance, I rolled my eyes, but in the interests of being an Informed Voter I did a little research when I got to work. Apparently on a trip to Kenya (where his father is from, after all) he was presented by local leaders with the outfit. (Personally, I think he wore it pretty well. ) So now somebody has leaked the photo with implications. Cue another round of "Obama's not a Muslim, not that there would be anything wrong with that if he were." Ai ya. I hate politics.
(Also, the letters page of the Metro has been embroiled in a grand battle on the subject of Jewish People vs Black People: Who Had It Worse? This was started by a columnist who called slavery "the worst holocaust in the history of the human race"; on reading those words I quite literally facepalmed at the spectacularly inflammatory nature of that phrasing (I haven't seen such clear flamebaiting in a LONG time, and any professional columist has to know what he's saying), and considered writing a letter to the effect of "before we all start arguing, could we consider that there are levels of suffering beyond which it really shouldn't be a contest over severity?" OTOH, they probably wouldn't've listened to me anyway. And no, this still isn't equivalent to what O'Reilly said. No one was calling for anyone to be attacked and murdered in the here and now.)
(The last item is both heartening and annoying. A "New bill to guarantee transgender civil rights" is making its way through the legislature. Now, in theory I have come to have some doubts about the method of protecting civil rights by establishing groups of people whom one is legally enjoined from maltreating, rather than establishing certain kinds of maltreatment not to be practiced upon anyone. However, in practice, if I were to pursue that thought I'd find myself allied with a great many people who simply want to dismantle the current protections without establishing any others, because nowadays, when no one is bigoted anymore and it's uneconomic to refuse to do business on a prejudicial basis (*snerk*), no one would ever maltreat anyone based on race, religion, gender, orientation, physical ability and so on. Since I don't find this a perfect society where no one is bigoted anymore, and have seen how economically successful people can be while and even because they implement prejudice in their business practices, I'd rather support an imperfect system of protecting civil rights than have no protections in place at all.
Besides, that's not what's annoying. This is what's annoying: "Mass Resistance, a "pro-family" organization, has put up opposition to the bill and said it will make gender expression "unlimited," said spokeswoman Amy Contrada. She said the room for gender interpretation will have a potentially harmful impact on society." Oh no, not more freedom!)
Ugh, politics. *has pepperoni pizza to wash the taste out of my mouth*
