Religious Reactionaries

The latest radical Islamic brouhaha occurring in Sudan convinces me more than ever that religious conservatives of any stripe are out of their minds. In our country they call themselves things like Moral Majority and Aryan Nations. In Afghanistan they are known as the Taliban, and the only thing preventing our zealots from ruling like the former leaders of that nation is something called the Constitution of the United States.

I remember well when I first learned of the atrocities being committed in Afghanistan in the name of Islam. The law or principles known as Sharia were responsible for the justification of public beheadings and chopping off hands. I first saw a picture of an Afghan man holding up a hand dangling from a string, sporting a very pleased grin. Another picture showed a woman dressed in a burkha on her knees in the street being verbally attacked by men for whatever her perceived immoral behavior was. Judgement was passed summarily in Afghanistan in those bad old days, not much opportunity for legal appeal.

A British teacher is in jail in Sudan presently for allowing her students to name a stuffed bear "Mohammed." This is perceived as an insult to Islam. She was sentenced to fifteen days in jail, which is apparently pretty horrific in Sudan. She could have faced forty lashes, and today protesters filled the streets calling for her execution.

When the American press referred to the young California man captured while fighting for the enemy in Afghanistan as "the American Taliban," my first thought was, "No! Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are the American Taliban!" Truly, if people of their ilk could have their way America would quickly become as medieval as any conservative Islamic Republic. My wife once dated a man who told her that according to the bible all homosexuals should be killed. He is also an American Taliban. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church, who run a website called GodHatesFags.com, among other bigoted activities could also be potential members of our Taliban.

Do you have any nominees for the American Taliban?

Those Rotten Seattle People!

This morning in a local paper a reader whined about the passage of HJR 4204. The whining was aimed at Seattle, the great satan of Washington state. Anytime a statewide office goes to a Democrat, or a ballot issue perceived as "liberal" passes, the shrill complaining begins. "Seattle has too much power!" It's not fair that the Seattle liberals always get what they want!" Cue the tantrum.

The reader in question proposed that a change be made to our state legislative system. Rather than each legislative district electing two representatives and one senator, that senators be elected by county. This certainly would reflect the makeup of the U.S. Congress, but that's not necessarily good. Any time you give a group power disproportionate to its size, you have an unfair situation. I would rather see our legislature go unicameral than switch to the county senator system.

One common argument for the supermajority is that it is needed to "protect property owners." In fact, the only people it protects are people opposed to any issue which requires more than a fifty-percent plus one majority to pass.

What makes me happiest about the victory of 4204 is knowing that school levy opponents may finally have to actively campaign to get what they want. For years school staff have been asked to donate money and time to pass school levies. This change in law eases some of the pressure on them and transfers it to the people who want to eliminate a major source of school funding.

Please, don't suggest that the legislature "fully funding" education is the solution to the levy problem, not getting rid of the supermajority. I would be entirely happy to get rid of levies altogether if the legislature ever comes up with a fair system to fully fund K-12 education in Washington. Until then, the simple majority should rule.

Global Idiocy

Global warming and global economy. Separate concepts, right? But is the global economy driving global warming?

Free trade agreements are the fertilizer for the global economy tree. The idea is that there be no restrictions to trade between nations. Laissez-faire for the world, more or less. Of course, that puts nations where government regulates industry at a disadvantage, like the United States. Mega-nations like China pump out products containing toxic substances, ship them around the world, and the industry regulations that protect American consumers from these products are rendered null and void. At the same time, the EPA regs designed to keep our air clean and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are weakened because so much manufacturing is done where there is no EPA.

All of this could create pressure to rescind many laws designed to improve the quality of life in our nation. That fits my definition of idiocy.