Category Archives: Political Rants

Political Rants

The right to be forced into childbirth

Let me put this right on the table. I am a cisgender white male, born into considerable privilege (though not rich) and raised in a rock-rib Republican town that is also home to Congresswoman Claudia Tenney. Unlike Claudia (who is currently warning on Twitter of yet another election-year migrant “caravan” coming north from the brown countries), I am pro-abortion rights, 100%. And if I were against abortion, no one should listen to me …. because I am a cisgender white male who will never need the procedure, and should shut the fuck up.

In light of the leaked Alito draft opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, I feel as though I should map out my reasons for supporting women’s bodily sovereignty. None of my thoughts on this are unique or particularly original, but this is a time when people should voice their opposition to the Taliban-like edicts of our robed overlords on the Supreme Court, in hopes of mobilizing even broader opposition. Aside from organizing, volunteering and donating, it’s all we’ve got left at this point.

Thus far and no farther

First point: I have long felt that our bodies are our own personal nation, and that we are the sovereigns of that nation. Sure, we can’t control everything that happens within our borders, so to speak, but we should have the final word on any interventions from the skin inward. That seems pretty minimal to me in the way of human rights. Men insist on this, and rightly so – no forced vasectomies, thank you very much. And I intend on keeping my gall bladder, so there!

Okay, so when a woman is pregnant – and guys, I hope you’re reading this carefully – the pregnancy happens inside of her. That small province of internal space should be totally within her control. You’ve heard the old saying about politics stopping at the waters’ edge? Well, the law should stop at the skin. If a woman wants to bring the pregnancy to term, that’s her right. If she wants to end it, prevent it, whatever, that’s her fundamental right as well. It’s a question of sovereignty, you see.

Freedom from religion

Last time I looked at the First Amendment, it appeared to say something like this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

This is our guarantee not only of freedom of religion, but freedom from religion. Now, when you hear right-wingnuts and religious zealots talking about when life begins, it’s important to remember that they are expressing a religious belief. The idea that “life” begins at conception has no basis in science. If they are passing laws that force us to comply with this warped take on human biology, by any reasonable standard that amounts to compelling us to live according to the strictures of their religion.

This is indefensible on first amendment grounds. Unless, of course, our hyper partisan Supreme Court decides otherwise.

Card-carrying justices

Let us face it, the Supreme Court is an overtly political institution. Regardless of what they say at their confirmation hearings, conservative justices are only going to vote on way, regardless of the facts or the law. As Elie Mystal has pointed out many times, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett were bred to overturn Roe v. Wade – no amount of argumentation will convince them otherwise.

If the Court decides to overturn Roe, people like me have to stand up. We all know multiple women who have relied on this constitutional right at one point or another. We need to ally with women, support them, and fight for justice. That’s the only way forward.

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.
Political Rants

Shouting down the barrel of a gun

As often happens, I’ve taken at least a week to think about a major event before commenting on it. I resisted writing about this last time around because so many voices were weighing in and I felt I had nothing useful to add. The nation is cycling through the iterative process of absorbing yet another mass shooting and ultimately choosing to do nothing about it. What can I say to make sense of this?

After the Sandy Hook atrocity, when Congress did nothing to restrict the sale and ownership of assault weapons, I felt certain that they never would. Slaughtering young school children with a weapon of war felt like a bridge too far, but it turned out not to be. Now it has happened again, in Uvalde, Texas, right on the heals of a racist massacre in Buffalo, NY, and the Senate has gone on break. Schumer may attempt a demonstration vote in a couple of weeks – that’s their response. What the burning fuck?

Gun-shy good guys

The debate about whether or not we should restrict gun ownership is over, frankly. If this massacre in Texas proves nothing else, it has certainly demonstrated this much. The Uvalde school district had all the resources it was supposed to have to prevent this sort of thing. It did active shooter drills, created its own police force, established a SWAT team that practiced at the school – none of this amounted to shit. The model the right and the NRA has been advancing for the last thirty years is an abject failure.

This is true even at the level of “good guy with a gun” vs. “bad guy with a gun”. In this case, at least nineteen good guys with guns stood in the hallway while the shooter did his work. Hard to criticize their reluctance – who wants to be the first to walk through that door? Let’s face it – consumer fire arms are now so powerful that even the cops are afraid of them to the point of inaction. If you’re a law-and-order Republican, why the hell doesn’t this bother you?

Prohibitive cost as an accessory

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about the Second Amendment and some possible ways around its application. That was in response to Buffalo. Now, with this latest school shooting, I’m convinced that we need to push for positive change wherever and however government will accommodate it. If we don’t have the votes to pass an assault weapons ban / buy-back program at the federal level, we need to do two things: (1) get more votes in Congress, and (2) experiment at the state and local levels, where possible.

One thing that might be worth trying is the application of legal liability. It’s possible that something like this could pass in states like New York or California. Senator Kevin Parker introduced a piece of legislation to this effect in the NY State Senate about five years ago. This law would require any gun owner in New York state to carry $1 million in liability coverage. That sounds like a splendid idea, particularly with respect to AR-15s and other high-powered killer rifles. My vote would be to raise the coverage required in accordance with the deadliness of the weapon.

Texas v. Texas

Then there’s that other kind of legal liability – the kind envisioned by Texas lawmakers when they passed Senate Bill 8 last year restricting abortion. Empowering citizens to sue gun owners sounds like a ripping idea, particularly since the Supreme Court seems unwilling to touch this legal vigilante brand of legislation with a ten foot pole. Can we pass a bill that would empower citizens of New York to sue anyone who owns an AR-15? How about suing the manufacturers of AR-15s?

Hey …. when the right hands you the tools to blow them to hell, you may as well use them.

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.
Political Rants

About casting lead upon the waters

You have heard this from me before, but I’ll say it again – in broad strokes, Biden’s foreign policy is kind of awful. We knew this was coming back during the 2020 presidential campaign, when Biden’s web site had near-zero entries for foreign affairs. What I should have included in my ad-hoc assessment is his tendency to create policy off-the-cuff. This may be the only trait he shares with Trump – leading with his mouth.

Sure, I’m deeply concerned about Biden’s foot-dragging on reestablishing the Iran nuclear deal, his disinclination to revisit Obama’s Cuba policy, and his refusal to bury the hatchet with Afghanistan in some respect. But Biden’s tendency to speak personally about public policy is bringing us close to the brink of global war, and that’s not a good place to be. No, he’s not as nuts as Trump was. I think, though, that the world takes what Biden says a bit more seriously.

Pivot to aggression

You probably heard about Biden’s comments regarding Taiwan. I have to think that he raised this issue intentionally, as many both inside and outside the administration have elevated the China/Taiwan issue since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Roughly speaking, the feeling early on was that Russian success might encourage Beijing to move against the island. Most of what I heard on this score was a lot of hand waving, but the fact that that story has been out there says something about our Asia policy.

The Democratic party foreign policy establishment has been anxious to make their “pivot to Asia” since the mid Obama years. That characterization always struck me as odd and belligerent, summoning the image of a corpsman turning on his heel to point his weapon eastward (once again). I have to think that Asians were about as excited over this as Africans were over Bush’s announcement of the “Africa Command” back in the 2000s (or as Martians were over Trump’s announcement of the “Space Force”). But the focus, as always, is ascending China, and not so much the self-determination of Taiwan.

Countering what, exactly?

There’s plenty that China does that should be criticized, but is it a budding military hegemon? Not likely. The press’s hair was on fire over the story that China has more military vessels than we do. Numerically true, but (a) they are predominately smaller ships than the U.S. has, and (b) the calculation doesn’t take into account forces allied to the U.S. military. (See this article in The Diplomat.) The United States has an enormous presence in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, maintaining hundreds of bases and fleets of vessels many thousands of miles from its national territory. Can China make that claim?

Last year Biden announced a joint plan with the British to sell nuclear submarines to Australia. Again, this is more about China than Australia. The United States is trying to head off regional consolidation in the Asia Pacific region under the leadership of China. Obama tried to pull China’s neighbors into the Trans Pacific Partnership, another neoliberal multilateral investment agreement along the lines of NAFTA, the MAI, and others. Now Biden is trying an opt-in, a la carte type of pact that is explicitly not neoliberal (this is what his administration claims). Their hope is to get more people behind the pact, of course. (TPP went down in flames.)

Block v. block

The core of this dispute is not democracy; it’s economics. Washington’s nightmare scenario has long been the rise of China as an economic power to the point of displacing us as the center of the global economy. That they are willing to flirt with military conflict is obvious, and it speaks volumes about our leaders’ priorities.

World War II rose from a world divided into competing trading blocks – the dollar block, the sterling block, etc. We should learn from that bitter experience.

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.