Head-Spinning Political Shit!

[Medusa]

I couldnt remember if there was a single thread for this but I'd like for this to be a dumping ground for the absurd political shit we see on an almost daily basis in the news:

For example: Gays and single pregnant women shouldnt teach school according to this dumbass:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/02/demint-gays-unmarried-pregnant-women-teachers_n_748131.html

[Corkey]

Thank you for somewhere to vent this crap. Again you Rawk!

[Soft*Silver]

now thats some crazy %$)*!!!

I could hear people try to argue that he isnt being homophobic because he didnt attack gays just because we are gay...he attacked us because we werent legally married in a traditional way. He was inclusive to add single women who arent married but are pregnant...

oh but wait Sir...why just the women? What about the male teacher who impregnates someone without benefit of marraige...

no?

so, its not gays and hetero unmarried couples you are after...

its gays and single het women.

hmmm....

[Corkey]

Ran across this little duzy.

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/10/01/conservatives-just-killed-240000-jobs/

[T D]

now thats some crazy %$)*!!!

I could hear people try to argue that he isnt being homophobic because he didnt attack gays just because we are gay...he attacked us because we werent legally married in a traditional way. He was inclusive to add single women who arent married but are pregnant...

oh but wait Sir...why just the women? What about the male teacher who impregnates someone without benefit of marraige...

no?

so, its not gays and hetero unmarried couples you are after...

its gays and single het women.

hmmm....

Hmmmmmm, wonder why more gays aren't married??? Dohhhhhhh.

*shaking my head* at the absurdness of such a statement!

[squeak]

Hmmmmmm, wonder why more gays aren't married??? Dohhhhhhh.

*shaking my head* at the absurdness of such a statement!



Oh, man, you guys. Didn't you know it isn't discrimination because a gay person can still marry someone of the opposite sex and get the same rights as a heterosexual (http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2010/07/01/discrimination-isnt-it-google-plans-to-pay-gay-employees-more-heterosexual-ones/)? Ugh. :rolleyes:

xosqueak, disenchanted x1,000,000

[Corkey]

A really good reason to get out and vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/opinion/03rich.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general

[Medusa]

A really good reason to get out and vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/opinion/03rich.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general

I am hesitant to chuckle while I suggest that Christine O'Donnel and Sara Palin should run on the same ticket because the very thought of that isn't all that far-fetched in this political climate (and its enough to make me break out in hives!!)

[Melissa]

I couldnt remember if there was a single thread for this but I'd like for this to be a dumping ground for the absurd political shit we see on an almost daily basis in the news:

For example: Gays and single pregnant women shouldnt teach school according to this dumbass:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/02/demint-gays-unmarried-pregnant-women-teachers_n_748131.html

I always want to write to these people and say, since heterosexual men statistically rape women and molest children in higher numbers than any other group we should just ban all heterosexual men from the classroom.

Melissa

[Corkey]

Simply lovely, yes I'm being sarcastic.


YouTube - Republicans Kill Anti-Outsourcing Bill

[SassyLeo]

Ann Coulter was here on Friday night doing a talk...at a fairly decent sized venue. I wondered if they were actually selling any tickets ($50-110?!) :annoyed: because Portland is one of the most liberal cities in the country!

Apparently people traveled from Eastern Oregon to see her :|

Portland and our local entertainment guide do not care for Ann Coulter:

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/ann-coulter/Event?oid=2881373

[BullDog]

Ann Coulter was here on Friday night doing a talk...at a fairly decent sized venue. I wondered if they were actually selling any tickets ($50-110?!) :annoyed: because Portland is one of the most liberal cities in the country!

Apparently people traveled from Eastern Oregon to see her :|

Portland(and our local entertainment guide does not care for Ann Coulter:

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/ann-coulter/Event?oid=2881373

She should have just taken her BS on the road to Eastern Oregon and left Portland out of it!

[AtLast]

I couldnt remember if there was a single thread for this but I'd like for this to be a dumping ground for the absurd political shit we see on an almost daily basis in the news:

For example: Gays and single pregnant women shouldnt teach school according to this dumbass:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/02/demint-gays-unmarried-pregnant-women-teachers_n_748131.html

OMG!

Yup... we need this thread! Of course this is from Demint.. or Dim-wit! Then there is the guy running in NY for govenor that wants to put people on welfare in an institutional-like setting like prison for socialization.. yanno, so they can be just like him...

[MsDemeanor]

Paladino's a fucking nut job. His platform seems to be "I'm angry and I have stupid ideas". That's it.
And let's not forget that the repugs killed TANF, effectively firing 240,000 Americans. They want to find jobs for Americans, my ass!
linkyloo (http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/10/01/conservatives-just-killed-240000-jobs/)

[Nat]

Top 14 Anti-Gay Activists Caught Being Gay (http://www.ranker.com/list/top-10-anti-gay-activists-caught-being-gay/joanne)

This is more of a recap really

(Many of these people listed were not merely in same-sex interactions but were violative in some way - either taping their sex lives, violating people in their sleep, or going for the under-aged. The other major behavior was paying for sex. I do appreciate the existence of the article but many of these people weren't just "caught being gay" - they were caught being heinous and criminal. I do wish the article differentiated more between the two).

[Mitmo01]

I am hesitant to chuckle while I suggest that Christine O'Donnel and Sara Palin should run on the same ticket because the very thought of that isn't all that far-fetched in this political climate (and its enough to make me break out in hives!!)

The thought of that is really more than enough for me to start packing my bags, my Loves bags. my kitties belongings and getting the hell outta dodge....

Thats the stuff nightmares are made of....

[Diva]

That big island out in the middle of nowhere is lookin' mighty good to me right now.......

When I taught in Richardson (a Dallas suburb) ~ which is a very fine school district, I might add ~ we always laughed when the idea of firing all the gay teachers came up.....they would have lost about 1/3 of their teachers....their BEST teachers at that.

[rlin]

ExzINsaq4LI

[Artdecogoddess]

Alternet ran a really fine story about a small town in Tennessee I believe (please don't quote me) that allowed a man's house to burn down because he had not paid the $75.00 fee for services.


The fire department shows up and checks a list. When they realize that the homeowner whose house is BURNING DOWN did not pay his fee, they allowed his house to burn down. They only got involved in putting out the fire when it began to spread to a neighbor who had paid the fee.

The homeowner was offering the fee on-the-spot but the firefighters were not moved.

Isn't this extortion? Or some other thuggery? Why didn't they put the fire out and then bill the man? Was this a warning to other rural neighbors to pay up or they will get no help or services either?

Literally my head was spinning around backwards reading this.

ADG

[Medusa]

More GOP support having a strip-club at Ground Zero than a Mosque:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/08/poll-republicans-strip-club-mosque_n_756259.html

[Ebon]

Oh, man, you guys. Didn't you know it isn't discrimination because a gay person can still marry someone of the opposite sex and get the same rights as a heterosexual (http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2010/07/01/discrimination-isnt-it-google-plans-to-pay-gay-employees-more-heterosexual-ones/)? Ugh. :rolleyes:

xosqueak, disenchanted x1,000,000


That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[MsDemeanor]

More GOP support having a strip-club at Ground Zero than a Mosque:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/08/poll-republicans-strip-club-mosque_n_756259.html

I'm not surprised. This is just the sort of thing that sexual repression does to folks.

Remember, the GOP is lead by people who keep getting caught in (same and opposite) sex scandals, practice serial marriage ("honey, I know you're kinda busy here in this hospital bed, but I want a divorce"), use taxpayer dollars to visit girlfriends in other countries, hold fundraisers at lesbian bondage clubs, and held a convention in Tampa, aka the Strip Club Capital of America.

linkyloo (http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-q/2010/05/strip-club-capital-welcomes-gop.html)

The GOP is PINO - Puritanical in Name Only.

[LeftWriteFemme]

saw this and had to post it. Dan Savage answered this woman way better than I ever could have!



October 14, 2010

Dear Dan: I was listening to the radio yesterday morning, and I heard an interview with you about your It Gets Better campaign. I was saddened and frustrated with your comments regarding people of faith and their perpetuation of bullying. As someone who loves the Lord and does not support gay marriage, I can honestly say I was heartbroken to hear about the young man who took his own life.
If your message is that we should not judge people based on their sexual preference, how do you justify judging entire groups of people for any other reason (including their faith)? There is no part of me that took any pleasure in what happened to that young man, and I know for a fact that is true of many other people who disagree with your viewpoint.
To that end, to imply that I would somehow encourage my children to mock, hurt, or intimidate another person for any reason is completely unfounded and offensive. Being a follower of Christ is, above all things, a recognition that we are all imperfect, fallible, and in desperate need of a savior. We cannot believe that we are better or more worthy than other people.
Please consider your viewpoint, and please be more careful with your words in the future.
—L.R.

Savage:
I'm sorry your feelings were hurt by my comments.
No, wait. I'm not. Gay kids are dying. So let's try to keep things in perspective: Fuck your feelings.
A question: Do you "support" atheist marriage? Interfaith marriage? Divorce and remarriage? All are legal, all go against Christian and/or traditional ideas about marriage, and yet there's no "Christian" movement to deny marriage rights to atheists or people marrying outside their respective faiths or people divorcing and remarrying.
Why the hell not?
Sorry, L.R., but so long as you support the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples, it's clear that you do believe that some people—straight people—are "better or more worthy" than others.
And—sorry—but you are partly responsible for the bullying and physical violence being visited on vulnerable LGBT children. The kids of people who see gay people as sinful or damaged or disordered and unworthy of full civil equality—even if those people strive to express their bigotry in the politest possible way (at least when they happen to be addressing a gay person)—learn to see gay people as sinful, damaged, disordered, and unworthy. And while there may not be any gay adults or couples where you live, or at your church, or in your workplace, I promise you that there are gay and lesbian children in your schools. And while you can only attack gays and lesbians at the ballot box, nice and impersonally, your children have the option of attacking actual gays and lesbians, in person, in real time.
Real gay and lesbian children. Not political abstractions, not "sinners." Gay and lesbian children.
Try to keep up: The dehumanizing bigotries that fall from the lips of "faithful Christians," and the lies about us that vomit out from the pulpits of churches that "faithful Christians" drag their kids to on Sundays, give your children license to verbally abuse, humiliate, and condemn the gay children they encounter at school. And many of your children—having listened to Mom and Dad talk about how gay marriage is a threat to family and how gay sex makes their magic sky friend Jesus cry—feel justified in physically abusing the LGBT children they encounter in their schools. You don't have to explicitly "encourage [your] children to mock, hurt, or intimidate" queer kids. Your encouragement—along with your hatred and fear—is implicit. It's here, it's clear, and we're seeing the fruits of it: dead children.
Oh, and those same dehumanizing bigotries that fill your straight children with hate? They fill your gay children with suicidal despair. And you have the nerve to ask me to be more careful with my words?
Did that hurt to hear? Good. But it couldn't have hurt nearly as much as what was said and done to Asher Brown and Justin Aaberg and Billy Lucas and Cody Barker and Seth Walsh—day-in, day-out for years—at schools filled with bigoted little monsters created not in the image of a loving God, but in the image of the hateful and false "followers of Christ" they call Mom and Dad.

[AtLast]

More GOP support having a strip-club at Ground Zero than a Mosque:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/08/poll-republicans-strip-club-mosque_n_756259.html

Yanno..... this just about says it all! Msdemeanor puts the icing on the cake for the rest!

Sometimes, I really do wonder is something is in the water where these people reside. But right now, these nut cases are actually going to get elected to office! I am truly fearful at the moment with what is going on. Ya' think they all might drink some Kool-Aid?

[MsDemeanor]

Do you have a link for the Dan Savage piece? I'd like to share it :-)

[Galahad]

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/10/01/sl-letter-of-the-day-sorry-nothing-fun


I found the article and letter here.

[MsDemeanor]

Thank you!!!!

[Nat]

Woman stomped outside Kentucky debate (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/26/kentucky.debate.scuffle/)

(CNN) -- An employee with the liberal group Moveon.org was stomped on by a man wearing a "Rand Paul for Senate" T-shirt outside a televised debate in Lexington, Kentucky, Monday night, police said.

The incident took place before the debate between Republican Paul and Democrat Jack Conway.

In the video from CNN affiliate WDRB, several men wearing Rand Paul shirts or stickers are seen ripping a blonde wig off the head of Lauren Valle and pushing her to the ground. One of the men stomps on her shoulder with his foot, which then lands on the side of her head.

People were shouting "Get the cops. Get the police out here," during the incident.

Valle told WDRB that she was there to present Paul with an award from RepubliCorp. The MoveOn.org-created group focuses on what it calls the merger between corporate America and the Republican Party

"We're here to present Rand Paul with the 'Employee of the Month' award. However, his supporters were not very nice to me and my message which is the same as everyone else -- just wanted to get out here with a sign," Valle of East Falmouth, Massachusetts, told WDRB. "I got my head stepped on, so I have a bit of a headache."

Lexington police are investigating.

"We don't know the suspect. We're in the process of trying to review the video tapes," said Lt. Edward Hart. "Where this took place, there were no police officers."

All of the people who accosted Valle in the video are subject to charges, Hart said.

Valle, who complained of soreness to her temple, told police she would seek medical attention herself.

"Her purpose was to try to get a picture with Rand Paul with this [RepubliCorp] sign so it could be used to embarrass Rand Paul in commercials," Hart said, recounting what Valle told officers. She described herself as a contract employee with MoveOn.org.

Valle was wearing a "I'm a Rand Fan" sticker on her red hooded sweatshirt, the video showed.

The Paul campaign issued a statement, calling the altercation "incredibly unfortunate."

"Violence of any kind has no place in our civil discourse and we urge supporters on all sides to be civil to one another as tensions rise heading toward this very important election," the statement said.

The election is scheduled for Tuesday, November 2.

The incident in Lexington may not have been Valle's first venture into activism.

A Lauren Valle from Falmouth, Massachusetts, was arrested in May with six other Greenpeace activists in Port Fourchon, Louisiana, after painting anti-Arctic drilling signs on a ship Interior Secretary Ken Salazar was going to board in response to the BP oil disaster, CNN affiliate WWL reported.

In August 2008, a Lauren Valle was one of five members of Students for a Free Tibet detained in Beijing, China, for unfurling a "Free Tibet" banner in Olympic Park, the organization reported.

jK7b7i-cMRs

This is what got Lauren Valle arrested in 2008:

fyX0XxR4pKc

[Nat]

Saw this footage of Rick Scott (Republican Gubernatorial candidate - who is winning at the polls)

LIYad3TvY6Q

It's pretty edited, so please keep that in mind.

So then I googled him.

Whistleblowers Say Rick Scott Knew About Medicare Fraud (http://www.wusf.usf.edu/news/2010/06/18/whistleblowers_say_rick_scott_knew_about_medicare_ fraud)

FORT MYERS (2010-6-18) - Two whistleblowers say the new front-runner in the Republican race for governor is lying when he says he did not know about fraud in his former company, the Columbia/HCA hospital chain.

In July 1997, FBI agents raided Columbia/HCA accounting offices in seven states, including Florida. Within days, Columbia’s board of directors ousted Scott, but gave him a nearly $10 million severance package, including stock shares worth $300 million and a $1 million a year consulting contract.

The company wound up paying more than $1.7 billion for defrauding the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Scott says he didn’t know about his company’s fraudulent billing practices and if he had, he’d have fired those responsible.

But company whistleblower John Schilling of Naples says Scott must be lying.

“He’s pulling the wool over your eyes if he says that he wasn’t aware of this and he would have fired anybody if he would have been aware of it. I think it’s a bunch of malarkey,” Schilling said.

Schilling worked for Columbia as a Medicare reimbursement supervisor in Fort Myers. His whistleblower case, along with others, helped put an end to the fraud and hold the company accountable.

Schilling first discovered the company’s fraudulent billing practices in 1993 after a call from a Medicare auditor about a cost reporting issue with Fawcett Memorial Hospital in Port Charlotte.

Schilling describes a meeting he had with Columbia administrators, during which he was instructed to “throw federal auditors off the track.” That included offering one of the auditors a job.

“They didn’t use the word conspire, but it was basically a conspiracy of, let’s think of some ideas and have John do this,” he said.

“Well, at the end of that to-do list, Jay Jarrell, the CFO said, ‘Well, if all else fails, let’s just offer the Medicare auditor a job with the company.’ And it was at that point, that I really started to feel sick to my stomach that, this is not right.

“You don’t want to offer a Medicare auditor a job. If this was a mistake, why are we trying to hide this?” he said.

Schilling left the company and filed a lawsuit on behalf of the federal government. Then Columbia began courting Schilling to come back. At this time, the FBI was already on the case – and Schilling says his life began to resemble a John Grisham novel.

“The FBI saw that it was a good opportunity for me to get back into the organization and kind of be their eyes and ears,” Schilling said.

He said the FBI wanted help with their search warrants and “just to kind of be that fly on the wall or spy within the organization,” he said.

“I worked my way back into the company. They had no idea I was a government informant,” he said.

Schilling’s case was merged with that of another whistleblower in Montana: former HCA hospital CFO Jim Alderson.

Alderson says he believes he was fired because of his refusal to abide by accounting practices that maintained two separate sets of books: one showing reimbursements submitted to Medicare, and another secret book documenting fraudulent claims that would be rejected if found by Medicare auditors.

The company maintained large reserve funds in case auditors ever discovered the false claims and had to pay up. Alderson says the practice was so widespread, that Scott had to know about it.

“These reserves represented anywhere from 25 to 35 percent of the bottom line of the company in its heyday,” Alderson said.

“It’s just totally unfeasible that a CEO making the kind of money he was making, that you wouldn’t know where 30 percent of your bottom line came from. How could you sit in a board room and say, ‘Gee, I wonder; we had record profits this year. I wonder where they came from?’”

Alderson says fraud also helped Scott grow the company at such a rapid rate.

“It’s a house of cards. From what we found in our case was Medicare defrauding paid for the acquisitions,” he said.

“They charged the Medicare program interest when they’d buy these other hospitals and that, in many cases, was not legal and that was a major part of our case,” Alderson said.

One of four Columbia/HCA executives convicted in the case was Bob Whiteside. He was later acquitted on appeal and says he still stands by Scott, his former boss.

Whiteside wouldn’t consent to a recorded interview. He says the billing practices didn’t start with Scott, but were adopted from one of the other companies acquired by Columbia.

Whiteside says the illegal activity was widespread within the healthcare industry, but since Columbia/HCA was the largest, the government made an example of it.

Schilling agrees that the fraud didn’t start with Columbia, but says Scott’s profit driven and cut-throat corporate culture encouraged the practice to grow. Schilling says administrators who met profit goals were rewarded with bonuses of 50 percent or more of their base salary.

“They took shortcuts, they did whatever it took to get to it because they were motivated by the money,” Schilling said.

“They had to meet certain profit margins and if they didn’t meet them, I tell you what, I saw several CEOs of hospitals or CFOs that got fired because they didn’t cut it,” he said.

Scott was never charged and says he was never questioned in the case. After leaving Columbia, he invested in a television network which became Discovery Health. He also co-founded Solantic Corporation; a chain of urgent care centers in Northeast Florida.

At an event in Tampa Friday, Scott characterized his former company's actions as a mistake.

"Sometimes, people make mistakes. And when you're CEO, you take responsibility - which I do - but you talk about the things you do well, which I do, and the things you've got to work on," Scott said.

"We drove down the cost of health care, we improved outcomes, we improved patient satisfaction. Could we have hired more internal auditors? You'd better believe it.

"But that's the difference. In business, if something goes wrong, you're held accountable. In government - think about all the things that've gone wrong. Have you seen politicians take responsibility? They don't. So what you want in a leader is you want someone who learns, and take those learnings, and applies it to any issue and takes responsibility," Scott said.

[Medusa]

Tea Party-backed Candidate says that "Black men prefer dealing drugs to education"


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/26/al-reynolds-tea-party-can_n_774432.html


I am kinda itching to gather up all of the articles where Tea Party-backed candidates say hideously racist and ignorant shit but Im afraid I might stroke out.

[Medusa]

:|:|:|:|:|

Rand Paul Supporter wants an apology from the woman whose head he stomped on:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/27/rand-paul-supporter-tim-profitt_n_774614.html

[The_Lady_Snow]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/#39859649

Rand Paul is GROSS

[Nat]

:|:|:|:|:|

Rand Paul Supporter wants an apology from the woman whose head he stomped on:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/27/rand-paul-supporter-tim-profitt_n_774614.html

That truly is headspinning

[katsarecool]

I just read that on FB! What a jerk and I hope she presses charges!

[The_Lady_Snow]

I just read that on FB! What a jerk and I hope she presses charges!


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/

[Diva]

I'm having this horrible, horrible visual of the Tea Partiers and Republicans winning all over the place....and then rounding all of us up and putting us on trains and shipping us to concentration camps......

GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!!

[Linus]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/#39859649

Rand Paul is GROSS



His supporters seem worse. I have to say this has to be the most bizarre election cycle ever. I think Dr. Maddow was correct when she said that this particular election has the highest number of "extreme" candidates.

[Linus]

:|:|:|:|:|

Rand Paul Supporter wants an apology from the woman whose head he stomped on:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/27/rand-paul-supporter-tim-profitt_n_774614.html

I commented on HP about that. I suspect that if he ended up on a jury where the crime was rape, he'd blame the victim too. He doesn't get that whether she was a paid instigator or not, she has the right to voice her opinion and not be silenced by others. If she did wrong, then the police could have easily arrested her. It wasn't his place to "stomp" on her like that.

[Medusa]

Im thinking there is a parallel between all of the extremists and the recent rash of LGBT suicides. More visible hate and all.

[MsDemeanor]

Even scarier than what these extremists are saying and doing is that there are a shit load of folks who will vote for them.

[Gemme]

Im thinking there is a parallel between all of the extremists and the recent rash of LGBT suicides. More visible hate and all.

I'm thinking you're right. Folks keep telling themselves to hold on and then they see all that hate spewed everywhere and they think there's no place to turn now.

[betenoire]

This is actually funnier than head-spinning political shit - but I guess there's nowhere else to put it.

Aliens, dirty bombs, conspiracy, OH MY!

vJB2Woe5zeQ

[amiyesiam]

in reference to the video

the difference between sane and insane?

insane people and say it out loud

the sane people know it is a fantasy!

[Corkey]

Beam me up Scotty!

[dixie]

I want my $5.3million... :|

[amiyesiam]

Beam me up Scotty!

how dare you be disrespectful to the Pladians

and scotty will never beam you up cause you are not a true believer

[Corkey]

how dare you be disrespectful to the Pladians

and scotty will never beam you up cause you are not a true believer


I am a Draconian honey :|

[dixie]

Shhhh! We don't want to piss off her twin flame. He's close enough to know what's going on...

[amiyesiam]

I am a Draconian honey :|

so that means you are part of the reptilian population
no wonder you are so cold all the time
and bask in the sun

[betenoire]

I want my $5.3million... :|

ONLY if they let you live! Only if they let you live!

Hey, tomorrow when all electronics get destroyed - does that include my coffee maker? Cuz I need that.

So, is she saying that Obama is a Reptilian and eats people? I think she said that.

[betenoire]

It's all SS. Okay? Secret Service. The Nazi SS. It's always SS with these guys - they're Sons of Satan. That's why the Pope wears red shoes and sits on a throne that has an upsidedown cross.

[Corkey]

It's all SS. Okay? Secret Service. The Nazi SS. It's always SS with these guys - they're Sons of Satan. That's why the Pope wears red shoes and sits on a throne that has an upsidedown cross.

Her membership at Nut jobs R US is overdue.

[dixie]

ONLY if they let you live! Only if they let you live!

Hey, tomorrow when all electronics get destroyed - does that include my coffee maker? Cuz I need that.

So, is she saying that Obama is a Reptilian and eats people? I think she said that.

The fine print on the video said we should unplug all electronics and cover them with metal blankets. Maybe that will save your coffee maker...

[betenoire]

The fine print on the video said we should unplug all electronics and cover them with metal blankets. Maybe that will save your coffee maker...

oh FUCK I am fresh out of metal blankets. :whoop:

It's already the 6th where I live. I am waiting for my computer to get all kaputt at any moment.

[betenoire]

Video in which she explains to us that she's attractive. Oh, and also how to survive the invasion.

5hvtOEHKJsI

[amiyesiam]

Video in which she explains to us that she's attractive. Oh, and also how to survive the invasion.

5hvtOEHKJsI

Apparently
when this woman was watching V last year
she thought it was a documentary
not a sci fi show

[The_Lady_Snow]

Fuckery.....................


http://a.onionstatic.com/images/media/movie/206/Monsters-v-Aliens_jpg_595x325_crop_upscale_q85.jpg

[Nat]

Video in which she explains to us that she's attractive. Oh, and also how to survive the invasion.

5hvtOEHKJsI

I think I slept with her once. Except she had a black mohawk and facial piercings. :)

[betenoire]

Fuckery.....................


http://a.onionstatic.com/images/media/movie/206/Monsters-v-Aliens_jpg_595x325_crop_upscale_q85.jpg

Which one of those is Obama?

[The_Lady_Snow]

Which one of those is Obama?



Duh


The car....

He's in disguise....

http://www.hollywood-blog.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/transformers.gif

[socialjustice_fsu]

Video in which she explains to us that she's attractive. Oh, and also how to survive the invasion.

5hvtOEHKJsI

I imagine she has a number of diagnoses in her medical record.

[katsarecool]

I imagine she has a number of diagnoses in her medical record.A shrink and a make over is in order! STAT! :seeingstars:

[Miss Scarlett]

A shrink and a make over is in order! STAT! :seeingstars:

I was waiting for her to tell us to make and wear foil hats.

[Diva]

Are the Pliadians in The Event?

I can't wait for Nov. 8th......should we have a party or something? Do I need my floaties? Is anyone gonna call her on the 9th? <raises hand>

[Diva]

Please forgive me. I spelled Plaieaiedians incorrectly.

I'm safe. I'm not pretty. :eyebat:
Come to my house and I'll cover Y'all with a blanket and protect You from the rat bastids.

[betenoire]

Oh, no bitches! It is on!

Another whackadoodle "calls out" the whackadoodle from the youtube I posted on the 5th. The summery is this:

Dear Whackadoodle One;

It's not Aliens! It's DEMONS! You need to ask for forgiveness!

Love,

Whackadoodle Two.

H_Wxaog8fd4

[Nat]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/05/gay-voters-republicans-doubled-2008_n_779111.html

WASHINGTON -- Republicans made significant inroads among gay and lesbian voters in the midterm elections, with national exit polls for the House races showing that the GOP captured 31 percent of the vote of this group this year, compared to 19 percent in 2008.

[KatieStar]

More GOP support having a strip-club at Ground Zero than a Mosque:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/08/poll-republicans-strip-club-mosque_n_756259.html

This makes me physically ill.

[AtLast]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/05/gay-voters-republicans-doubled-2008_n_779111.html

WASHINGTON -- Republicans made significant inroads among gay and lesbian voters in the midterm elections, with national exit polls for the House races showing that the GOP captured 31 percent of the vote of this group this year, compared to 19 percent in 2008.

My guess is this is simply about JOBS, JOBS, JOBS. Many of us have lost employment, are out of college and can't gain employment as well as running out of unemployment compensation benefits and seeing savings dwindle.

It sux in terms of the mid-terms and feels odd to me, too, yet, there is a lot of fear in the US right now about the economy and employment. We gotta eat, too.

The other thing I believe is happening is a total discust for Congress. Gay and lesbian voters feel as taken as anyone with what goes on in Congress. And perhaps the slap in the face with DADT and Obama has just stuck in many voters craw.

I don't want gays, lesbians and the whole of all of what makes up queerdom to vote Republican, but I see where the discontent could come from. I wonder, too, how the actual numbers of registered voters in this group fall in terms of race and class. This could be part of why this happened.

What I do know is that employment and the economy is going to be the main issue in 2012, again. My hope is that it gets better, but projections are not looking that way even over 2 years. Which is really scary.

[MsDemeanor]

My guess is this is simply about JOBS, JOBS, JOBS. Many of us have lost employment, are out of college and can't gain employment as well as running out of unemployment compensation benefits and seeing savings dwindle.
......
The other thing I believe is happening is a total discust for Congress. Gay and lesbian voters feel as taken as anyone with what goes on in Congress.
This is what I don't understand.

People are running out of unemployment, so they vote for the party that keeps voting against extending unemployment.

People need jobs, so they vote for the party that has blocked jobs bills, has blocked small bank funds that would be used for jobs, and has declared that they will extend tax cuts to millionaires and take away health insurance, but has not mentioned one single thing that they would do to create one single job.

People are disgusted with Congress' inability to accomplish anything, so they vote for the party that filibusters everything, stalls judicial nominations (to the point of near-crisis in some places), and refuses, in the Senate, to act on hundreds of pieces of legislation sent over from the House.

And, as for DADT, is there anyone with two functioning brain cells in their entire head that thinks a Republican majority will lift even one little pinkie finger's worth of effort to repeal DADT?

I understand being frustrated, desperate, angry. But for fucks sake, you don't respond by giving more power to the people that are screwing you sideways.

[Diva]

Latest rumor here in Texas.....

Republican ticket for 2012: Rick Perry & Sarah Palin

Belize, here I come if THEY win. We are in for a BIG PILE of You know WHAT!

[Diva]

This is what I don't understand.

People are running out of unemployment, so they vote for the party that keeps voting against extending unemployment.

People need jobs, so they vote for the party that has blocked jobs bills, has blocked small bank funds that would be used for jobs, and has declared that they will extend tax cuts to millionaires and take away health insurance, but has not mentioned one single thing that they would do to create one single job.

People are disgusted with Congress' inability to accomplish anything, so they vote for the party that filibusters everything, stalls judicial nominations (to the point of near-crisis in some places), and refuses, in the Senate, to act on hundreds of pieces of legislation sent over from the House.

And, as for DADT, is there anyone with two functioning brain cells in their entire head that thinks a Republican majority will lift even one little pinkie finger's worth of effort to repeal DADT?

I understand being frustrated, desperate, angry. But for fucks sake, you don't respond by giving more power to the people that are screwing you sideways.

I'm starting to think that some folks vote for the candidates who scrare them the most.............. :confused:

[amiyesiam]

Oh, no bitches! It is on!

Another whackadoodle "calls out" the whackadoodle from the youtube I posted on the 5th. The summery is this:

Dear Whackadoodle One;

It's not Aliens! It's DEMONS! You need to ask for forgiveness!

Love,

Whackadoodle Two.

H_Wxaog8fd4

thank you for the morning whackadoodle report
:cracked::cracked::rofl::rofl:

[amiyesiam]

This is what I don't understand.

People are running out of unemployment, so they vote for the party that keeps voting against extending unemployment.

People need jobs, so they vote for the party that has blocked jobs bills, has blocked small bank funds that would be used for jobs, and has declared that they will extend tax cuts to millionaires and take away health insurance, but has not mentioned one single thing that they would do to create one single job.

People are disgusted with Congress' inability to accomplish anything, so they vote for the party that filibusters everything, stalls judicial nominations (to the point of near-crisis in some places), and refuses, in the Senate, to act on hundreds of pieces of legislation sent over from the House.

And, as for DADT, is there anyone with two functioning brain cells in their entire head that thinks a Republican majority will lift even one little pinkie finger's worth of effort to repeal DADT?

I understand being frustrated, desperate, angry. But for fucks sake, you don't respond by giving more power to the people that are screwing you sideways.


well I have 2 coworkers
who only voted republican because they are prolife
no other reason
neither can articulate a political stance on any other subject
neither can list any other issues
it gets worse
but I will spare you

[Nat]

Perry totally sets off my 'dar.

[Diva]

I'm starting to think that some folks vote for the candidates who scrare them the most.............. :confused:



I was told to come back and fix "scrare".....


....so.....

scare. :eyebat:

I do what I'm told.....on occasion.

[Nat]

EuRFuNe-KpY

This is from a few years back. That anti-immigrant racist guy (Le Pen) ran for president 5 times in France. He's no longer running, but his daughter has taken the reins of his far-right-wing party:

What a Tea Party Looks Like in Europe (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/05/how-marine-le-pen-is-changing-french-politics.html)

I find the tone of this newsweek article pretty unsettlingly complimentary of Le Pen even though it references him as "the man who for decades has played on the inchoate fears, xenophobia, knee-jerk racism, and ill-disguised anti-Semitism of many of his supporters."

[betenoire]

Sweet Jesus, Nat. I admit that I don't pay much attention to politics outside of North America...so I really had no idea.

How fucked up is it to hear someone ranting about "anchor babies" in that beautiful language? I hope this clown's daughter does not get a foothold.

:(

[theoddz]

I'm starting to think that some folks vote for the candidates who scrare them the most.............. :confused:

Fear is the tool, I think.

Of course, the folks most susceptible to fear are the ignorant and uneducated. Fear is such an effective weapon and it's worked extremely well for the Republican party in the past years. It lied us into a war and just about brought down the entire world economy.

I'm going to post something here from the script of Michael Moore's movie, Sicko, because I think it what it says applies to everything here about how people vote.

(Moore) It seems it benefits the system if the average person is shackled with debt.

People in debt become hopeless,
and hopeless people don't vote.

They always say
everyone should vote,
but I think if the poor in Britain
or the United States voted for people
who represented their interests,it would be a real democratic revolution.

So they don't want it to happen. So keeping
people hopeless and pessimistic...

See, I think there are two ways
in which people are controlled.

First of all, frighten people,
and secondly, demoralize them.

An educated, healthy and confident
nation is harder to govern.

And I think there's an element
in the thinking of some people:

"We don't want people to be
educated, healthy and confident,
because they would get out of control."

The top 1 % of the world's population
own 80% of the world's wealth.

It's incredible that people put up with it,
but they're poor,they're demoralized, they're frightened.

And therefore, they think
perhaps the safest thing to do
is to take orders and hope for the best."

-------------------------------------------------------------
....and that's all I'm going to say about that. :|

~Theo~ :bouquet:

[citybutch]

Thanks for posting Nat... gonna re-post elsewhere.... This is an important read!

EuRFuNe-KpY

This is from a few years back. That anti-immigrant racist guy (Le Pen) ran for president 5 times in France. He's no longer running, but his daughter has taken the reins of his far-right-wing party:

What a Tea Party Looks Like in Europe (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/05/how-marine-le-pen-is-changing-french-politics.html)

I find the tone of this newsweek article pretty unsettlingly complimentary of Le Pen even though it references him as "the man who for decades has played on the inchoate fears, xenophobia, knee-jerk racism, and ill-disguised anti-Semitism of many of his supporters."

[JustJo]

Hey...I was traveling and in and out of airports all night Friday and early Saturday, and kept hearing snippets of some crazy stuff about a push to prevent illegal immigrants from having "anchor babies" in the U.S. Since this would require a constitutional amendment, and is also just basically ridiculous, I'm alarmed....but I didn't hear enough to have the whole story.

Was anyone following this? Have more info? Know who's behind this insanity?

[rlin]

ExzINsaq4LI


here is the direct link... just in case....
(:hangloose: tommi!!!)

[MsDemeanor]

Hey...I was traveling and in and out of airports all night Friday and early Saturday, and kept hearing snippets of some crazy stuff about a push to prevent illegal immigrants from having "anchor babies" in the U.S. Since this would require a constitutional amendment, and is also just basically ridiculous, I'm alarmed....but I didn't hear enough to have the whole story.

Was anyone following this? Have more info? Know who's behind this insanity?
Oh yeah, I know about this. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1, first sentence, states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Conservatives love the Constitution, except for the parts that they want to change (and they want to change a lot). In this case, they want to repeal this part of the Constitution so that being born on American soil does not grant citizenship.

[AtLast]

Oh yeah, I know about this. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1, first sentence, states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Conservatives love the Constitution, except for the parts that they want to change (and they want to change a lot). In this case, they want to repeal this part of the Constitution so that being born on American soil does not grant citizenship.

Oh yeah, conservatives want to change a lot in the Constitution! A lot of them think it just fine to interject the 2nd Amendment as a means to eliminate politicians they don't like either.

And we now have Rand Paul really wanting to go at the Constitution.

[Nat]

Oh yeah, I know about this. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1, first sentence, states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Conservatives love the Constitution, except for the parts that they want to change (and they want to change a lot). In this case, they want to repeal this part of the Constitution so that being born on American soil does not grant citizenship.

It would also be a handy blow against the gays if they repealed the 14th amendment. The equal protection clause and the due process clause were both cited in the Loving vs Virginia decision (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html)which ended laws against interracial marriage.

A bit from the court's decision back then:

The Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination. The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.

...

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.


These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.

[JustJo]

Oh yeah, I know about this. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1, first sentence, states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Conservatives love the Constitution, except for the parts that they want to change (and they want to change a lot). In this case, they want to repeal this part of the Constitution so that being born on American soil does not grant citizenship.

Ugh....thanks....makes me wonder what they think the "effective date" should be. After all, an awful lot of us could trace our families back to somebody who hid on the ship or didn't quite have their papers in order. Does that mean we're all getting booted out too? And, if so, where exactly do we belong? Craziness. If you're born here, you're an American in my book....I don't care if your mother was 2 feet on the other side of the line for a minute and a half before you arrived.

[MsDemeanor]

It's actually kind of interesting. There are two widely recognized methods of determining citizenship - jus soli (right of the soil) and jus sanquinis (right of the blood). In the Americas, jus soli seems to be prevalent, which makes sense in a large land mass surrounded by oceans that contains folks who predominantly came from somewhere else. European countries tend to use jus sanquinis, which, to me, makes more sense the goal of preserving national heritage in a region with a lot of little countries with free movement between them. If your parents are Spanish, you're Spanish, even if you're born in France. There's also lex sanquinis, which allows citizenship based on other blood ties. For example, if my great grandparents had my grandmother before they left Ireland, rather than after they arrived in the States, I could get an Irish passport (stomps foot), and the Israeli Law of Return grants the right to citizenship to all Jews.

[JustJo]

It's actually kind of interesting. There are two widely recognized methods of determining citizenship - jus soli (right of the soil) and jus sanquinis (right of the blood). In the Americas, jus soli seems to be prevalent. European countries tend to use jus sanquinis, which, to me, makes more sense the goal of preserving national heritage in a region with a lot of little countries with free movement between them. If your parents are Spanish, you're Spanish, even if you're born in France. There's also lex sanquinis, which allows citizenship based on other blood ties. For example, if my great grandparents had my grandmother before they left Ireland, rather than after they arrived in the States, I could get an Irish passport (stomps foot), and the Israeli Law of Return grants the right to citizenship to all Jews.

Right...and those make sense to me too. I guess I like taking the broadest possible definition. If your parents are Irish citizens, and you're born here...then I guess I'd like the choice to be yours, and I have no issue with granting dual citizenship or whatever until that choice is made by the people involved.

The interesting part, to me, of the 14th amendment is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." My understanding is that was included because diplomats (for example) might have a child while residing in the US, but that child was not technically born American, because they (the diplomats and their offspring) were not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Take that argument to the children of illegal immigrants (which is what these wingnuts are trying to prevent)...are they actually going to argue that the children of illegal immigrants aren't subject to U.S. jurisdiction in the way that diplomats aren't? It's hogwash.

[Glenn]

WTH are all these folks going to do? AFLCIO.org2010/11/18

[MsDemeanor]

WTH are all these folks going to do? AFLCIO.org2010/11/18
The repugs are gonna give all their rich buddies a tax break and the rich buddies will use the tax break to create jobs for all these folks.

[Bacardi]

I'm a Libertarian....

...not a liberal or a conservative, as I carry both views in different ways on different issues.

This will be interesting. Anyone else not liberal?

[Nat]

I'm a Libertarian....

...not a liberal or a conservative, as I carry both views in different ways on different issues.

This will be interesting. Anyone else not liberal?

I considered myself a libertarian for years, but I'm pretty far to the left now. My only hold-over is that I do believe in the right to keep and bear arms. I do consider myself independent, and it's possible I'd vote for somebody like Meghan McCain one day.

PS. Bacardi - do you feel like Tea Partiers have subverted the libertarian message at all? The Libertarianism I identified with was the "pro-choice on everything" type. But it seems like there is some cross-over in rhetoric between the Tea Party and Libertarianism / Objectivism and I do not see the Tea Party as pro-choice on most things.

PPS. The point at which I came to a dead stop with Libertarianism was the moment I began considering shared resources such as air and water. I have diverged further and further from Libertarianism since then. But, as a Libertarian, how do you think shared resources should be managed/treated by the government?

And another question: What should happen with those who are incapable of taking care of themselves - and who are far too unlikable to ingratiate themselves well with charities?

And what are your feelings on public education? on public libraries? on discrimination and hate crimes?

These are the questions that I couldn't answer to my own satisfaction through the Libertarian lens.

[Passionaria]

I'm a Libertarian....

...not a liberal or a conservative, as I carry both views in different ways on different issues.

This will be interesting. Anyone else not liberal?

Everytime my eyes read Libertarian my mind say's Libertine. Sorry, my minds in the gutter, carry on...... :tea:

[Bacardi]

I considered myself a libertarian for years, but I'm pretty far to the left now. My only hold-over is that I do believe in the right to keep and bear arms. I do consider myself independent, and it's possible I'd vote for somebody like Meghan McCain one day.

PS. Bacardi - do you feel like Tea Partiers have subverted the libertarian message at all? The Libertarianism I identified with was the "pro-choice on everything" type. But it seems like there is some cross-over in rhetoric between the Tea Party and Libertarianism / Objectivism and I do not see the Tea Party as pro-choice on most things.

PPS. The point at which I came to a dead stop with Libertarianism was the moment I began considering shared resources such as air and water. I have diverged further and further from Libertarianism since then. But, as a Libertarian, how do you think shared resources should be managed/treated by the government?

And another question: What should happen with those who are incapable of taking care of themselves - and who are far too unlikable to ingratiate themselves well with charities?

And what are your feelings on public education? on public libraries? on discrimination and hate crimes?

These are the questions that I couldn't answer to my own satisfaction through the Libertarian lens.

Wow, that is a lot of loaded questions. All right, I'll answer them to the best of MY opinion. Bare with me, as I have a feeling this will get long...

Here is what I believe about Tea Parties:

I don't believe Tea Parties are solely Libertarian venues. Due to this, there is a conflict of interest. I am finding that, more often than not, there are more right wing conservatives at these Tea Parties (the big ones that Sean hosts and the smaller local ones) than any other representatives. I believe the purpose of Tea Parties NOW is to promote conservative agenda, especially since we have a Democrat for President. The feeling among many conservatives that I know is the belief that through these meetings, they will increase the voter outcome and give themselves and others something to "believe in". I have issues with Tea Parties because I absolutely feel that the original, true purposes have been forgotten and now they are more like propaganda.

Shared Resources:

My belief, if you mean shared resources being water, air, land, minerals, etc, on shared resources is that we all, as human beings, have a right to them - as they are NOT created by humans. However, I do believe that we must protect these shared resources so that we do not lose them due to human mistakes - pollution, etc. I do believe the free market is the answer for this. While we all benefit from these natural shared resources, we all must pay for them as well. And, we already do. The problem is, our government seems to be held accountable by many for environmental problems that should be put into the hands of corporations, etc that cause them (ex: BP oil spill), and we all know it's not wise for them to have control of it, anyway. I can discuss this in depth, if you'd like, but I'm expounding at the moment on what I believe you meant.

Taking Care of Self:

This is where most people get pissed off. So, if you cannot respect my opinion, I'd suggest you not read the following.

I one hundred percent believe in personal responsibility. I do not believe our government owes a citizen, anything. The government itself was not established to help it's people in a monetary manner, but to strengthen the country with honest law and keep the citizens safe.

Who exactly is "incapable" of caring for themselves? Are we speaking of the eldery? This is another debate in itself.

I believe that most people are able to take care of themselves. And, quite frankly, I do believe that because our government has been helping the individual out financially, for so long, that some do not mentally understand how to take care of themselves, or family.

I know there are many men and women unemployed. I know there are many families out there struggling just to keep the roof over their head and clothes on their body. But, when does the government aiding people that are doing nothing to aid themselves, stop?

If you are actively looking for work and have done everything within your own power to make your situation better, then the government has programs (and these programs need to be worked on, heavily) to assist you.

But, I am done being "okay" with the people who no longer try to better themselves because they know our government will take care of them. Better yet, WE - the ones working every day, are taking care of THEM. So tell me, if you made no attempt at finding work and making ends meet on your own, why should anyone help YOU? If you don't care, why should we?

My father busts his tail six days a week to make ends meet for him and my mother. My mother is extremely ill and neither of them have health insurance. She can not possibly work and he's getting older. So, they did what they had to do and applied her for Medicare, which she receives.

And let me tell you, do you know how many people who DO want to work and are trying their hardest to make it in this world, get turned away from the very systems they have been paying into since they were old enough to be taxed?

This subject gets me riled up. I believe the government programs need to be revamped, reevaulated, and changed. If your son/daughter, niece/nephew, knew that you would give them a $10 allowance each week, for doing nothing, and then one day you sat them down and said, "Here is a list of chores. Complete them each day and for each chore completed you will receive a certain amount of allowance on Friday, which will be greater than the $10 allowance you get for doing nothing", what do you believe would come of it?

Public Education and Public Libraries:

I believe WE have the right to decide how OUR money is used in public education, without a doubt. I do not believe the government should have a hand in education, at all. I believe this should be done on a local level and that government interference is not acceptable when it comes to a parent having the right to decide what their children should be learning. If you think about it, I believe giving public schools the same capabilities as private schools would actually reduce the discrimination in zoning laws. If public education were more like a free market, giving parents the right to options for their OWN children, I believe we would see an increase in appreciation for the teachers, as well as fiscal appreciation (because teachers are the absolute most under appreciated group of people in this country, by far).


Anything else, ask. Oh, and if I need to further explain, let me know. Sometimes I ramble and make sense to only myself.

Chas

[Nat]

Chas - thanks very much for your response. :)

as far as people being unable to take care of themselves - I meant the mentally and physically impaired, including some elderly people and children.

[Nat]

This spun my head a bit:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4152/5196365295_9d2a6b77aa.jpg

[theoddz]

I found this today where Michael Moore talked to the State of California Legislature about health care reform and his movie, "Sicko". I wish that everyone who votes Republican and all the naysayers could hear this.

Even if I have to play it on my Blackberry to my coworker (who ALWAYS votes Republican and NEVER really understands what she is voting for), I'm going to try to change the mind of just ONE of "them". If we all would do that......just ONE at a time.....

2VMKFjk_mio

~Theo~ :bouquet:

[Medusa]

:|:|:|:|


So Niceguy and I were sitting around flipping channels while we waited on Jackhammer to get home and we came across that show on TLC "Sarah Palin's Alaska".

:|

Couple of things:

* She seems incredibly upset that the "mean guy who bought the house next door and who is writing a mean book about her" exists, yet she mentioned him and they panned to his house and blurred image no less than 5 times in 30 minutes.

* She said that she "does her research and reading" out on her patio. :|

* The show is so packed full of cheesy Palin-isms that it's unbearably ridiculous.


I didn't mean to watch as much of it as I watched, it's just that it was such a friggin' train wreck and circus of freakery that it was hard to turn away.

I hope she does run for President because I cant WAIT to see President Obama take her down in a debate.

[MsDemeanor]

I hope she does run for President because I cant WAIT to see President Obama take her down in a debate.
Yeah, but there are a few problems. Problem #1 is that the debate questions will be drawn up in advance so that the answers are scripted for Palin to recite. Of course, they won't be actual "answers", just the sound bite empty dribble that marks Palin's entire history of public discourse.

Problem #2 is that ignorance is king in this country and educated people are scorned for being "elitist". Faux Newz and the conservative MSM will spin a debate in to her being picked on by the misogynistic "liberal media".

Problem #3 is that the same ignorant masses who put Shrub in to office twice because he seemed like someone they'd like to have a beer with will continue to be smitten by the meaningless sound bites that gush from Palin's scripted speeches. As with problem #2, the underlying issue is that intelligence and reasoning skills are undesirable traits in conservative elected officials in this country.

Problem #4 is two aspects of -isms, racism and sexism. Part A is the swarms of "I want a woman president" folks who will not look beyond the existence of Palin's ovaries mixed with 24/7 accusations of sexism whenever someone points out that she is wrong about something. Part B is the rampant racism in this country that has become vocal and grown more violent since a black man was put in the White House.

The conservative media and the financial elite behind it in this country will continue to prey upon the ignorant masses in this country, convincing the poor fools that they should vote against their best interests.

[girl_dee]

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will announce a two-year pay freeze for federal employees Monday, a move White House officials say is the first of many difficult decisions that must be made to reduce the nation’s mounting deficit.


The White House said Monday that the freeze would apply to all civilian federal employees, including those working at the Department of Defense, but would not affect military personnel. The freeze is expected to result in more than $5 billion in savings over two years, according to Jeffrey Zients, a deputy director at the Office of Management and Budget.

That would make only a small dent in the $1 trillion-plus budget deficit. But with voters voicing their anger over Washington’s spending during the midterm elections, even a symbolic gesture would show the White House got the message.

Zients said that while the freeze is necessary in order to put the country on sound fiscal footing, the president recognizes the impact it will have on federal employees.

"The president is clearly asking them to make a sacrifice," he said. "We believe it is the first of many difficult steps ahead."

Obama is expected to announce the pay freeze at the White House later Monday.

The chairman of Obama’s bipartisan deficit commission has proposed a three-year freeze in pay for most federal employees as part of its plan to reduce the nation’s growing deficit. The commission’s final report is due to be released later this week.

[Corkey]

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will announce a two-year pay freeze for federal employees Monday, a move White House officials say is the first of many difficult decisions that must be made to reduce the nation’s mounting deficit.


The White House said Monday that the freeze would apply to all civilian federal employees, including those working at the Department of Defense, but would not affect military personnel. The freeze is expected to result in more than $5 billion in savings over two years, according to Jeffrey Zients, a deputy director at the Office of Management and Budget.

That would make only a small dent in the $1 trillion-plus budget deficit. But with voters voicing their anger over Washington’s spending during the midterm elections, even a symbolic gesture would show the White House got the message.

Zients said that while the freeze is necessary in order to put the country on sound fiscal footing, the president recognizes the impact it will have on federal employees.

"The president is clearly asking them to make a sacrifice," he said. "We believe it is the first of many difficult steps ahead."

Obama is expected to announce the pay freeze at the White House later Monday.

The chairman of Obama’s bipartisan deficit commission has proposed a three-year freeze in pay for most federal employees as part of its plan to reduce the nation’s growing deficit. The commission’s final report is due to be released later this week.


Its only fair, if people on Social Security don't get a COLA, then fed employees shouldn't get a pay raise. They had one last year, and I didn't.

[girl_dee]

Its only fair, if people on Social Security don't get a COLA, then fed employees shouldn't get a pay raise. They had one last year, and I didn't.

I completely agree! According to this its a pay freeze ... Its gonna shake things up

[katsarecool]

I am also collecting Social Security benefits and wonder if there is going to be a raise in 2011. Has anyone heard anything yet? A friend in Spokane, Wa said he received a letter on Sat. stating he would receive a $28 increase effective Jan. 2011.

[Corkey]

No COLA in 2011 for anyone on SS, SSI or SSDI. The increase your friend is getting is probably due to an error in what they were paying him to begin with.

[katsarecool]

Thank you Corkey! I am not happy about this as are many...

[Medusa]

A clip of Sarah Palin defending her daughter, Willow's, use of the word "fagg*t" by flat out lying about someone calling "her little brother Trig" mean names on Facebook:

http://www.shewired.com/Article.cfm?ID=26205&Title=+Sarah+Palin+on+the+Media+Victimizing+Poor+W illow+for+Making+Antigay+Slurs

[Corkey]

A clip of Sarah Palin defending her daughter, Willow's, use of the word "fagg*t" by flat out lying about someone calling "her little brother Trig" mean names on Facebook:

http://www.shewired.com/Article.cfm?ID=26205&Title=+Sarah+Palin+on+the+Media+Victimizing+Poor+W illow+for+Making+Antigay+Slurs

That woman doesn't know truth from a zit.

[MsDemeanor]

If the repugs don't play idiot by voting down H.R. 5987, everyone will get a one-time check for $250, just like last year.

Perhaps we can all hope for runaway inflation and skyrocketing prices in the coming year so that there can be a hefty COLA increase in 2012.

[Corkey]

Prices are already up and I'm still paying more for supplemental insurance, gas is up utilities are up, so maybe ssoc shouldn't be tied to inflation in the first place.

[MsDemeanor]

What would you tie it to?

[Corkey]

What would you tie it to?

Health care costs. If it goes up again in 2012 I won't be able to afford to have supplemental insurance, which is required for anyone who has medicare.
My premiums have increased 130% in 3 years. My pay has not increased one damn dime. So while those of you who still have jobs are complaining about your pay, at least you can work over time and earn more, or get another job. Those who are on a fixed income cannot earn more that what the government tells us is our maximum, that being the poverty line.

[MsDemeanor]

I would create a 'necessities' index. That index wouldn't have things like new or used car prices or clothing. People on a fixed income aren't buying cars every year, and certainly not new ones, and there are any number of alternatives to purchasing new clothing at retail price. The index would be comprised of only those items that impact the majority of people on a fixed income - health care, transportation (gas and public transit), utilities, and food. Pretty much everything else folks can figure out a way around or do without, but health care, food on the table, heat coming out of the furnace, and being able to get around seem like the necessary basics.

Since health care costs are critical to you, I assume that you vote a democratic ticket and are lobbying your representatives for universal health care.

[Corkey]

I would create a 'necessities' index. That index wouldn't have things like new or used car prices or clothing. People on a fixed income aren't buying cars every year, and certainly not new ones, and there are any number of alternatives to purchasing new clothing at retail price. The index would be comprised of only those items that impact the majority of people on a fixed income - health care, transportation (gas and public transit), utilities, and food. Pretty much everything else folks can figure out a way around or do without, but health care, food on the table, heat coming out of the furnace, and being able to get around seem like the necessary basics.

Since health care costs are critical to you, I assume that you vote a democratic ticket and are lobbying your representatives for universal health care.

You assume correctly.

[MsDemeanor]

You assume correctly.
*high fives Corkey*

[girl_dee]

I am migrating to Canada! Seriously! It's even LEGAL to be gay here!

[Gemme]

Organic and I talked about the way things are, the way they are going and the likelihood that we'll be able to claim refugee status and move to Canada.

[Gayla]

Di and I have been talking about it for awhile now, too. It just kinda makes sense.

[MsDemeanor]

The problem is that if all of the reasonable people head north, the nut jobs who are left behind will have control of all the nuclear weapons.

[Gayla]

Well, if they let me have control of the nukes, then I'll stay. I think that's a fair trade.

[Corkey]

http://teapartynationalism.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=135%3Atea-party-leaders-attack-constitution&Itemid=104

In case there was any doubt

[Kobi]

http://teapartynationalism.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=135%3Atea-party-leaders-attack-constitution&Itemid=104

In case there was any doubt

Ok I must be behind, again. Is this Sarah Palin's tea party or another tea party?

These people are, pardon my language, majorly f*&^ed.

[Corkey]

Ok I must be behind, again. Is this Sarah Palin's tea party or another tea party?

These people are, pardon my language, majorly f*&^ed.

Oh these are the people who run the people who just got elected.
Fun stuff huh?

[Kobi]

Oh these are the people who run the people who just got elected.
Fun stuff huh?


I havent been able to read all of the propaganda yet.
But why are there so many factions? Factions usually
indicate dissention in the ranks over specifics.

Ok I need to read this when I am awake. Thanks for the link.

[Corkey]

I havent been able to read all of the propaganda yet.
But why are there so many factions? Factions usually
indicate dissention in the ranks over specifics.

Ok I need to read this when I am awake. Thanks for the link.


All the nuts have fallen from the same tree, they just haven't figured out which nut is in charge.

[MsDemeanor]

Well, if they let me have control of the nukes, then I'll stay. I think that's a fair trade.
Yeah, that makes me feel better :giggle:

[MsDemeanor]

I havent been able to read all of the propaganda yet.
But why are there so many factions? Factions usually
indicate dissention in the ranks over specifics.


The different factions are each backed by a different wealthy person, corporation, or career politician. Rove is behind some of it, the brothers at Koch Industries (a couple of boys who inherited daddy's fortune and now share the #9 spot of the richest people) are behind a group, etc. Some are also pushing an extreme concoction of the god/guns/gays conservative social agenda, while others want to confine their pile of lies to monetary issues. All of the :slapfight: would be amusing if it were not destroying millions of lives and shredding the very fabric of our country.

[betenoire]

I havent been able to read all of the propaganda yet.
But why are there so many factions? Factions usually
indicate dissention in the ranks over specifics.

Ok I need to read this when I am awake. Thanks for the link.


Pretending like there are a zillion factions rather than one central Tea Party is part of the illusion they use to pretend that they are legitimately grass roots.

[theoddz]

Well, it looks like President Obama has proposed to freeze the pay of Federal Employees (and retired annuitants like my Pop)for both 2011 and 2012. The national office of my Union, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) sent me an email this morning notifying me of such. Here's a little video on the story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/40424140#40424140

Please note:
I realize that these are fiscally hard times and believe me, I am totally in touch with the fact that I am so very, very lucky to have the federal job I have with all its benefits, stability and such. I am especially thankful that this job I have is so tolerant of my personal medical problems that are directly related to my military service. I shit you not, friends....I get up every morning, put my feet on the floor and thank the Universe for all of my blessings, as they are many!! I also am very sensitive to the fact that there are so many of us, here in our community, who are struggling so hard to even find a job, keep a home, or even a simple roof over their heads.

Now, with that in mind:
I, personally, have no problem making the sacrifice of a pay raise for the next year or two, but damn it, our President better damned well make these uber rich Wall St. execs and these billionaires and multibillionaires shoulder some of this sacrifice, too!!! If he's going to ask common everyday middle class Americans to "suck it up" and then allow these fucking money barons to sop up more bucks at the expense of the rest of us.........I will damned sure vote his ass out in 2012!! You can bet on it. :rant:

~Theo~ :bouquet:

[katsarecool]

The first place is to get angry at Congress; that is where the majority of the blame is to go; the big bucks who have a great deal of power and influence. I do not trust politicians that sit in Congress as far as I can toss their sorry asses. And the lobbyists and earmark bills as well.

I read a bio of Lyndon Johnson several years ago that describes all the manipulation, butt kissing, asking favors he had to do to get the three or four pieces of Civil Rights laws passed during his time in office. What a bunch of creepy game players they are while laws that need to be passed and the ones they are designed to protect are held hostage.

I totally agree that the money and power hungry bastards (I was going to spell it out with a few astericks but hell no!) need to be curtailed and put out of a job or curbed at the least. I think that is what the new law is supposed to do about Wall Street, Banks, mortgage companies; put them under tight scrutiny. But the Republicans will do all they can to get that law overturned.

In the meantime, we can let our elected Congressmen and women know what we think about them and their behaviors!!!

[Medusa]

Mike Huckabee, the oaf from Arkansas who wants to run for Prez again in 2012, is calling for the execution of the Wikileaks source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/30/mike-huckabee-wikileaks-execution_n_789964.html

[Corkey]

Holy shit and this from a "pastor". I truly fear for our country.

[Medusa]

Holy shit and this from a "pastor". I truly fear for our country.

Yeah, this dude is the epitome of fat old White guy who claims to be a "humane Christian" but advocates DEATH for someone who leaked the truth. He's also a GIANT Homophobe, sexist pig, and pompous overgroan knuckle-dragging idiot. (was that my outl loud voice?)

[Corkey]

Yeah, this dude is the epitome of fat old White guy who claims to be a "humane Christian" but advocates DEATH for someone who leaked the truth. He's also a GIANT Homophobe, sexist pig, and pompous overgroan knuckle-dragging idiot. (was that my outl loud voice?)

Yes, and I couldn't agree more.

[Corkey]

And the Senate failed to pass unemployment extension. Way to go cowards!

[Medusa]

And the Senate failed to pass unemployment extension. Way to go cowards!

Oh but they will try to convince "the American people" that it's all Obama's fault because he "doesnt care about the working man" and "wants to kill Gramma" and "btw, did you know he wasnt born in this country!" and I heard that he eats live kittens for breakfast every morning AND he's the ANTICHRIST!

[JustJo]

Oh but they will try to convince "the American people" that it's all Obama's fault because he "doesnt care about the working man" and "wants to kill Gramma" and "btw, did you know he wasnt born in this country!" and I heard that he eats live kittens for breakfast every morning AND he's the ANTICHRIST!

Oh Medusa, don't exaggerate...he only eats one kitten for breakfast :doh:

[MsTinkerbelly]

BREAKING: Senate Republicans refuse to vote on DADT repeal before tax cuts
by Andy Kelley

Senate Republicans have delivered a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid stating that they will not allow a vote on any piece of legislation coming before the Senate, without an extension of the Bush tax cuts. This news comes as the Senate prepares further hearings on the National Defense Authorization Act, which contains language to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

As Metro Weekly reports, the letter from Senate Republicans states:

[W]e write to inform you that we will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers…

With little time left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities. While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate’s attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike.

Efforts to link the Bush tax cuts to the NDAA are the latest in a thinly veiled series of efforts by GOP Republicans to bring the lame-duck Senate to a halt.

But this time, this obstructionism could spell disastrous results for the repeal of DADT. As the Washington Blade notes:

The letter is signed by all 42 members of the Republican caucus, including those who are seen as swing votes on moving forward with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” such as Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Scott Brown (R-Mass.). Newly seated Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) is also among the signers.

Aubrey Sarvis, Executive Director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network responded to this news directly stating:

The Republican caucus that has expressed strong support for a vote on extending the Bush era tax cuts should be as equally unified in support of a vote in the lame-duck session on the nation’s defense bill, the very bill which provides for our security and the well being of service members who defend us every day,” he said in the statement. “It’s past time for those Republican senators who say they support a vote on the defense bill and repeal to show it with a vote, and not by words alone…

After twenty-three months of excuses and delays in this Congress, it’s time to vote. If Republicans or Democrats use ‘procedure’ and the tax bill as excuses for not voting that is the very same as voting no. A no vote when Reid calls the repeal vote will not only put senators on the wrong side of history, it will also put them in opposition to the overwhelming majority of those who serve in our armed forces and the most senior members of our military.

I for one, agree with Aubrey. The time for the Senate to act has come, and we cannot afford their newest distraction.

We will continue to bring you updates here as this story develops

[dreadgeek]

1) This item from Talking Points Mem (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/right-wing-groups-pull-out-of-cpac-because-gay-group-will-be-there.php?ref=fpb)o: "We've been very involved in CPAC for over a decade and have managed a couple of popular sessions. However, we will no longer be involved with CPAC because of the organization's financial mismanagement and movement away from conservative principles," said Tom McClusky, senior vice president for FRC Action.

"CWA [Concerned Women for America] has decided not to participate in part because of GOProud," CWA President Penny Nance told WND. [Ed. note: Penny Nance's title is chief executive officer of CWA. Another individual, Wendy Wright, holds the title of president.]

This regarding CWA and FRC as well as WorldNet Daily saying that they are pulling out of CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee) this year because GOProud is being allowed to attend and set up a booth.

2) Having covered "we're conservative and hate gays"* now to the "we're conservative and look, the non-white people are coming right at us!".

The good news is that the right-wing isn't talking about President Obama being a secret Muslim right now. The bad news is that they're now concerned that he's going to use his honorary status as a Crow Tribe Indian to return the United States to Native Americans.

The outrage began after the President announced on December 16 that the U.S. would reverse course and support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. The Declaration was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 2007, but the U.S., under President Bush, opposed it.

"The aspirations it affirms -- including the respect for the institutions and rich cultures of Native peoples -- are ones we must always seek to fulfill," the President said of the Declaration at White House Tribal Nations Conference where he announced the reversal. He went on to describe efforts to improve health care, education, and unemployment rates in tribal areas.

"While the declaration is not legally binding, it carries considerable moral and political force," the State Department wrote of the Declaration, "and complements the President's ongoing efforts to address historical inequities faced by indigenous communities in the United States."

Despite this, the right has seized onto some of the language to attack the President -- including Article 26, which says:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.
2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.
3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.
Obama was adopted as an honorary member of the Crow tribe during the 2008 campaign, and was even given the name "One who helps people throughout the land." Most of the outrage lobbed at the President in the wake of the announcement, naturally, references that fact.

Last week, the "Director of Issues Analysis" for the Christian conservative American Family Association, Brian Fischer, wrote a blog post claiming that "President Obama wants to give the entire land mass of the United States of America back to the Indians. He wants Indian tribes to be our new overlords."

"Perhaps he figures that, as an adopted Crow Indian, he will be the new chief over this revived Indian empire," Fischer wrote. "But for the other 312 million of us, I think we'll settle for our constitutional 'We the people' form of government, thank you very much."

Yesterday, the right-wing blog World Net Daily took it a step further in a post called "Obama to give Manhattan back to Native Americans? President believes nation can spare some sovereignty." The article describes how "President Obama is voicing support for a U.N. resolution that could accomplish something as radical as relinquishing some U.S. sovereignty and opening a path for the return of ancient tribal lands to American Indians, including even parts of Manhattan."

Yes, Virginia, this is REALLY happening in the United States.

*Just because it is, for some reason, necessary to say this (although it shouldn't be): my statement is not meant to imply that all conservatives hate gays or that all liberals are filled with sweetness, light and moral perfection. However, we ARE talking about conservative groups, pulling out of a conservative event because of the presence of queers. Trying to pretend that the same thing happens with liberal groups is just nonsense.

Cheers
Aj

[waxnrope]

That shut makes me fighting mad. Then, I stop. Who believes it and why? Gawd, we need to move the government to urgently revamp the disaster which is public education. To commit to curricula inclusive of critical thinking.

[theoddz]

The following is a very interesting editorial article where the commentator explores what would happen if the State of Texas were to succeed from the United States, as some of its more conservative, radical right wingers have suggested. It's quite the interesting read, really.

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/149332/secession!_what_would_it_look_like_if_red_states_f ormed_their_own_country/?page=entire

Comments??

It makes me really wonder what these so called "Conservatives" who aren't wealthy, but who are actually what might be considered "poor" or socioeconomically below the middle class line would do, if they got what they *think* they want. :|

~Theo~ :bouquet:

[BullDog]

Excellent article Theo. I've been attempting to talk about similar things in a different thread to no avail.

[rlin]

i saw this plan... fact is great... you know he is too dumb to stay in the country forever!

GENEVA -- Activists vowed yesterday that former President George W. Bush (http://www.nypost.com/t/George_W._Bush)would face a torture case against him whenever he travels outside the United States.
Human-rights groups had planned to lodge a Swiss criminal case against Bush yesterday, before his address to a Jewish charity in Geneva on Feb. 12. Organizers canceled his speech last weekend, invoking security concerns.
But the Manhattan-based Center for Constitutional Rights (http://www.nypost.com/t/Center_for_Constitutional_Rights)and the Berlin-based European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights issued what they called a preliminary "indictment" to prosecute Bush abroad for the alleged torture of terrorism suspects in US custody.
http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2011/02/08/news/photos_stories/08.1n027.torture1--300x300.jpg GEORGE W. BUSH
Travel warning.


"This is our way of putting him on notice," said Katherine Gallagher, senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/dubya_indicted_on_torture_bcg91OGvuQkidPCqdlEowM#i xzz1DT2o0Ug5

[betenoire]

Half Of GOP Primary Voters Wrongly Say Obama Non-U.S. Born: Poll (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/02/15/133782676/obama-not-u-s-born-say-51-of-gop-primary-voters-poll?sc=fb&cc=fp)

Yeah, still.

Fifty one percent of Republican primary voters believe President Obama wasn't born in the U.S., according to a new survey by Public Policy Polling.

Palin had a 41 percent approval rating with non-birthers but a whopping 83 percent approval with birthers.

[waxnrope]

The following is a very interesting editorial article where the commentator explores what would happen if the State of Texas were to succeed from the United States, as some of its more conservative, radical right wingers have suggested. It's quite the interesting read, really.

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/149332/secession!_what_would_it_look_like_if_red_states_f ormed_their_own_country/?page=entire

Comments??

It makes me really wonder what these so called "Conservatives" who aren't wealthy, but who are actually what might be considered "poor" or socioeconomically below the middle class line would do, if they got what they *think* they want. :|

~Theo~ :bouquet:

In other areas, they are getting what they want. Think about the watered down health care bill as an example. Talk about shooting yerself in the foot! Again, I think about the lack of critical thinking taught in schools ... :|

[Soon]

i saw this plan... fact is great... you know he is too dumb to stay in the country forever!

GENEVA -- Activists vowed yesterday that former President George W. Bush (http://www.nypost.com/t/George_W._Bush)would face a torture case against him whenever he travels outside the United States.
Human-rights groups had planned to lodge a Swiss criminal case against Bush yesterday, before his address to a Jewish charity in Geneva on Feb. 12. Organizers canceled his speech last weekend, invoking security concerns.
But the Manhattan-based Center for Constitutional Rights (http://www.nypost.com/t/Center_for_Constitutional_Rights)and the Berlin-based European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights issued what they called a preliminary "indictment" to prosecute Bush abroad for the alleged torture of terrorism suspects in US custody.
http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2011/02/08/news/photos_stories/08.1n027.torture1--300x300.jpg GEORGE W. BUSH
Travel warning.


"This is our way of putting him on notice," said Katherine Gallagher, senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/dubya_indicted_on_torture_bcg91OGvuQkidPCqdlEowM#i xzz1DT2o0Ug5


Maybe he'll try to cross the border into Canada and we can nab him!

:D

[Soon]

Question to GOP Rep.: 'Who is going to shoot Obama?' (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41780873/ns/politics-more_politics/)

[BullDog]

I'm not sure if this is the best place to post this, but Bob Hebert's last column for the NY Times pretty much sums up the state of affairs in the U.S. for me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/opinion/26herbert.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&ref=homepage&src=me&adxnnlx=1301143173-LMZd%2F1i+bs2N+ogOC9Y%2FVQ

[betenoire]

Wisconsin GOP Tries to Silence UW Professor for Asking Questions (http://www.politicususa.com/en/wisconsin-gop-tries-to-silence-uw-professor-for-asking-questions)

[betenoire]

Conservative Think Tank Seeks Michigan Profs' Emails About Wisconsin Union Battle ... And Maddow (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/in-michigan-conservative-think-tank-seeks-labor-prof-emails.php?ref=fpa)

Just like in Wisconsin. Crazier and crazier.

[PumaJ]

From Bob Herbert's last post, Losing Our Way (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/opinion/26herbert.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&ref=homepage&src=me&adxnnlx=1301143173-LMZd%2F1i+bs2N+ogOC9Y%2FVQ), in the N.Y. Times (Thanks Bulldog for the heads up), these words in particular caught my attention:

Limitless greed, unrestrained corporate power and a ferocious addiction to foreign oil have led us to an era of perpetual war and economic decline...... When the most powerful country ever to inhabit the earth finds it so easy to plunge into the horror of warfare but almost impossible to find adequate work for its people or to properly educate its young, it has lost its way entirely. It has been my observation that the majority of the wars our nation has engaged in since WWII are in some way tied to corporate greed. I believe that old standby line about helping other nations find freedom & democracy is code for "let's make them safe for our corporations to go into & exploit the people & the land for the sake of profit & more profit".

Call me cynical if you like, but it is from my years of being an observer of national & international politics over a long period of time that I've come to that conclusion. Over that same period of time, I've been busy in my professional life working in non-profit agencies to deliver healthcare & mental health services to youngsters & their families, whose lives have been stuck in generational poverty, mental illness, various addictions, domestic violence and child abuse. All problems that increase during times of economic recession.

[BullDog]

From Bob Herbert's last post, Losing Our Way (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/opinion/26herbert.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&ref=homepage&src=me&adxnnlx=1301143173-LMZd%2F1i+bs2N+ogOC9Y%2FVQ), in the N.Y. Times (Thanks Bulldog for the heads up), these words in particular caught my attention:

It has been my observation that the majority of the wars our nation has engaged in since WWII are in some way tied to corporate greed. I believe that old standby line about helping other nations find freedom & democracy is code for "let's make them safe for our corporations to go into & exploit the people & the land for the sake of profit & more profit".

Call me cynical if you like, but it is from my years of being an observer of national & international politics over a long period of time that I've come to that conclusion. Over that same period of time, I've been busy in my professional life working in non-profit agencies to deliver healthcare & mental health services to youngsters & their families, whose lives have been stuck in generational poverty, mental illness, various addictions, domestic violence and child abuse. All problems that increase during times of economic recession.

I absolutely agree PumaJ. Just think what the position our country and citizens could be in if we spent only a fraction of what we have spent on war on education and social services instead. Also, a well-educated and healthy citizenry makes for a better workforce and consumers with money to spend.

[Greyson]

Conservative Think Tank Seeks Michigan Profs' Emails About Wisconsin Union Battle ... And Maddow (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/in-michigan-conservative-think-tank-seeks-labor-prof-emails.php?ref=fpa)

Just like in Wisconsin. Crazier and crazier.



I read this article earlier this morning and was disturbed by what I read. My thought was "If you are not scared, you should be." Now if we could only FOIA for corporate, private sector emails from the banks, Wall Street, and others.

[Kobi]

I just finished watching "Casino Jack and the United States of Money".... a documentary on Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, Bill Nye, and various other examples of corruption in human form.

I am amazed at the way they followed Abranoff's beginning in college as part of the new republicans seeking to unseat the rule making, regulation making, liberal democrat rule at the time.

Then to follow his career as both an influence and influencer who often played both sides of the street. And those policiticans, charged and uncharged who were cozy with his ruthless pursuit of money tactics.

It was sobering.

[betenoire]

One for you, Seven for me.

Bristol Palin’s Nonprofit Paid Her Seven Times What It Spent On Actual Teen Pregnancy Prevention (http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/05/bristol-palin-profiteer-teen-pregnancy/)

In 2009, Sarah Palin’s daughter Bristol joined a teen pregnancy prevention nonprofit called the Candie’s Foundation. Today, the Associated Press reported that the Candie’s Foundation released its 2009 tax information, revealing that Bristol was paid a salary of $262,500.

But a closer examination of the tax form by ThinkProgress shows that the group disbursed only $35,000 in grants to actual teen pregnancy health and counseling clinics: $25,000 to the Mt. Sinai Adolescent Health Center and $10,000 to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.

Her mommy learned her up real good!

[Soon]

Americans nationwide are evenly divided over the issue of same sex marriage.

But Republicans in Mississippi are divided over a wholly different wedlock issue: interracial marriage.

In a PPP poll released Thursday, a 46% plurality of registered Republican voters said they thought interracial marriage was not just wrong, but that it should be illegal. 40% said interracial marriage should be legal.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/nearly-of-mississippi-republicans-think-interracial-marriage-should-be-illegal.php?ref=fpb

[Corkey]

This country is going to hell in a hand basket on steroids.

[iamkeri1]

LOL Corkey, that is what the anti-gay rights, anti civil right folks are saying about the progress us queers are making!!!

This is my first visit to this thread. There is SO MUCH head spinning political shit going on right now that I feel like I have whip lash EVERY day! I am pretty old and have been interested in politics my whole life and can remember nothing like the shit that is going on now. Amazing! Horrifying! Head Spinning!
Smooches,
Keri

[Soon]

Mike Huckabee Says He Wants Americans To Be Indoctrinated At Gunpoi (http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2011/03/30/mike-huckabee-says-he-wants-americans-to-be-indoctrinated-at-gunpoint/)nt

[MsDemeanor]

Mike Huckabee Says He Wants Americans To Be Indoctrinated At Gunpoi (http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2011/03/30/mike-huckabee-says-he-wants-americans-to-be-indoctrinated-at-gunpoint/)nt
I dunno, guns and America as a christian nation sounds to me like a recipe for sweeping the republican primaries - those folks love their guns and their god. The vision of liberals being forced to watch Barton at gunpoint is probably better than porn for some of them.

[AtLast]

I dunno, guns and America as a christian nation sounds to me like a recipe for sweeping the republican primaries - those folks love their guns and their god. The vision of liberals being forced to watch Barton at gunpoint is probably better than porn for some of them.

And there is the Donald giving rise to a new definition of Birtherism. Seems like he always does a pre- primary look at me stint. The guy just loves the camera.

It will interesting to see who the GOP actually nominates to run against Obama from their field of idiots. There have got to be more moderate Republicans that are plain embarrassed by this group.

And there is always Newt to justify his passion for America by cheating on his wife!! Do people really buy what he says??? His ex-wife's book is a good, honest read.

[Greyson]

April 18, 2011

Vatican: Gay Rights Opponents are Real Victims Catholic bishop says the real victims are those who oppose the rights of LGBT people.

Archbishop Silvano Tomasi reveals his subtle theological mind.

Joseph M. Palacios


Dr. Joseph M. Palacios is an Adjunct Professor of Liberal and Latin American Studies at Georgetown University and is the director of Catholics for Equality Foundation.

Last month the Catholic Church voiced strong opposition to a UN Human Rights Council resolution naming the protection of LGBT persons against discrimination and violence an official human right. The reason, according to Vatican representative Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, is that ending discrimination against gays, lesbians, and transgender persons would make those who oppose such human rights the real victims.

During a debate on the resolution (officially called the “Joint Statement on Ending Violence and Related Human Rights Violations Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity”) Tomasi unequivocally stated that the Council, the UN, and other state bodies cannot base law on sexual orientation since “the ordinary meaning of ‘sexual orientation’ refers to feeling and thoughts, not to behavior.”

In clarifying this, he stressed that if sexual orientation were to carry a behavioral component it would be a false premise, because such a definition would be contrary to natural law morality. According to this logic the recognition of LGBT identity would “undermine his/her ontological dignity” — meaning that since gays, lesbians, and transgender persons are by their nature “intrinsically morally disordered” claiming sexual orientation identity is, by nature, false.

Tomasi then likened homosexual behavior to pedophilia and incest: “But states can, and must, regulate behaviors, including various sexual behaviors. Throughout the world, there is a consensus between societies that certain kinds of sexual behaviors must be forbidden by law. Pedophilia and incest are two examples.”

To add fuel to the fire, he turned the debate away from violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity to “a disturbing trend in some of these social debates: People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behavior between people of the same sex… they are stigmatized, and worse—they are vilified, and prosecuted.” He never addressed the reality of actual violence (killings, torture, rape, criminal sanctions, violence, bullying) against gays, lesbians, and transgender persons taking place around the world.

Natural Law vs. Social Justice

Given that Tomasi is the leading spokesperson for the Catholic Church in international bodies, his words take on significant weight regarding the Church’s refusal to accept sexual orientation and gender identity as human rights categories. Since the early 1980s and the ascendency of Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), the moral theology of the Church has become increasingly locked into a framework of natural law anthropology, which is a logic based on male and female roles as pro-creators in the natural order of a biologistic social order emphasizing the nuclear family as the first cell of society.

This logic also simplistically views a natural order to the human body, meaning that each part of the body has a function that is connected to the whole person and humans cannot change these natural functions—particularly sexual functions. Natural law anthropology does not take into account anomalies in nature that might account for homosexuality and a variety of functional variations that can occur in different humans.

More problematic in Tomasi’s understanding of sexual orientation is the non-recognition of LGBT persons resulting in the Church’s negation of the social, psychological, cultural, and political realities in which they live. The fact is the perpetrators of violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity do recognize this identity and base their anger, rage, hate, and revenge on people’s external identity and not on the “feelings and thoughts” of the victims. For the Vatican to not acknowledge this is a denial of social reality and the behaviors and attitudes reflective of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Prior to Ratzinger’s emphasis on natural law anthropology as foundational to contemporary moral and social issues, the Church’s social justice doctrine might have had tremendous influence in the creation of a positive Catholic LGBT human rights agenda. Such an agenda might emphasize the following dimensions of human life and pertinent social justice doctrine that have been developed since the first social encyclical, Rerum Novarum, of 1891:

• Social-Psychological: Dignity of the human person; Human development of the whole person
• Social Rights: Option for the poor and marginalized in society
• Basic Human Needs: Right to employment, housing, health care
• Cultural: Freedom of participation and association in civil society
• Political: Human rights protections; Right to migrate
• Religious: Religious freedom; Separation of church and state
Because the Vatican denies sexual orientation and gender identity recognition the above tenets of Catholic social justice doctrine cannot be legitimately actualized by priests, religious, lay leaders, teachers, catechists, and others within the Church itself. The natural law arguments of sexual morality and ethics have long been discounted by clergy and laity—especially natural law deductive arguments against birth control, in vitro fertilization, masturbation, male sterilization, stem cell research, same-sex civil marriage and adoption. Yet the longer Catholic tradition of connecting faith with reason and the doctrine of primacy of conscience has empowered many Catholics to look at the social reality of gays, lesbians, and transgender persons and connect the more compassionate aspects of the biblical tradition and Catholic social justice teaching.

Through a more comprehensive inductive logic Catholics use reason to see and analyze empirical injustice and then apply biblical principles and social justice teaching to the social context of injustice—a bottom-up approach to justice in the world. Not surprisingly, the international scope of the clergy abuse scandal has diminished the teaching authority of the hierarchy on sexuality. Catholics recognize that they do have gay, lesbian, and transgender brothers and sisters in their families, among their friends, in their communities and workplaces. Many recognize their difference and accept it in the same positive way they accept ethnic, gender, cultural, and age difference—as part of one’s external identity that should be respected and accorded full human dignity, even if one doesn’t fully understand the difference in one’s life.

Faith that Does Justice

Social justice-oriented Catholics have been able to utilize the positive aspects of social justice doctrine as a “faith that does justice” in civil society and politics, particularly through organizations like Catholics for Equality, Catholics United, Dignity, and Call to Action—as well as in their local parish and diocesan social justice ministries and in faith-based community organizing. Recent polling by Public Religion Research Institute shows that U.S. Catholics are the most progressive Christian body with 63% supporting civil marriage for same-sex couples and 69% believing that homosexuality is not a moral issue. The Human Rights Council’s recent statement was signed by all of the Catholic countries of Europe and Latin America. Civil marriage for same-sex couples has been ratified in the Catholic countries of Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Argentina, and Mexico. Acceptance of LGBT persons is not just an American phenomenon, it’s a broadly international one with a strong Catholic character.

Of course, is precisely these trends that are most disturbing to the Vatican, especially as younger Catholics around the world are even more accepting of homosexuality and the legitimacy of sexual orientation and gender identity than their parents and grandparents. Sadly, in the fight against LGBT rights the Vatican and the U.S. hierarchy is throwing its hat in the ring with some of the most powerful and well-funded voices of religious fundamentalism in the U.S., Africa, and Latin America.

There is an easy solution to the hierarchy’s increasing distance from the laity and ordinary clergy: just as the Church finally acknowledged slavery and racial segregation to be wrong and finally recognized full equality for black people, it can acknowledge that homophobia and sexual orientation discrimination and violence are wrong and recognize that sexual orientation and gender identity are social realities in our complex world. Otherwise, the Church lends legitimacy to violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The Church is not the victim.

[iamkeri1]

Politics have always been intrinsic to the Catholic religion, but is no means exclusive to them. The truly dangerous part of any religious involvement is the ability of that institution to "evil-ize" that of which they do not approve.

Of the prohibitions in Leviticus (Old Testament of the Christian Bible) in which the prohibitions against homosexuality are included, many are no longer considered necessary or important. Pork is not prohibited to Christians, nor are shellfish. We are not restricted to a small number of steps to be taken on the sabbath, and no one has been stoned lately for adultery (well at least not in Christian oriented nations.)

Yet, selectively, for reasons more political than religious, the horror over the "abomination" of homosexuality is still in fashion. Persecution of homosexuals (and other sexual variants) is still justified by various religious institutions. "God hates homosexuality" is a phrase you will find written on protestors signs at any gay function. Many other groups; disables folks, welfare recipients, unemployed people, homeless people, and poor people in general face religious predjudice which seeks to marginalize them.

Religion as politics is dangerous, damaging, and destructive.

Smooches,
Keri

[iamkeri1]

My head has been spinning again over this Congressman Weiner sex scandal (if you can dignify it with that name.) I have always liked the congressman. He is pretty liberal, and her doesn't mind getting into it with conservatives. When the story first broke I was pissed at his stupidity. And of course I figured his first version was a lie, so I was waiting for the other shoe to drop. So far the only thing to drop has been more like a fuzzy sock. The worst they have on him so far is the belief that he sent a picture of his pee pee out on the internet to adult women with whom he was already being overly friendly. He will neither confirm or deny, because it is rumored to be the picture of a rather large (and attractive?) peepee, and he doesn't want to give up the "rep". The Democrats are calling loud and long for his resignation (Of course the Republicans are doing the same, but they are the opposition, that makes sense.)

What the man did was stupid, but certainly not unusual. (nor illegal per se) Almost all of my straight women friends have received an unsolicited pee pee picture from some man they are communicating with online.

Personally I think he should not resign. We need the liberal vote in congress, and I don't want to lose this representative who can push the Republicans around (a little anyway.)

Anyone else have a take on this subject?
Smooches,
Keri

[MsDemeanor]

I'm pissed at the democrats and their race to see who can throw him farthest under the bus. It's between him and the people who voted for him. The only appropriate response for a democratic representative to "do you think he should resign" is "when Vitter goes then I might consider it". As for the new republican scum tactic of demanding that democrats give back/away money that Weiner donated to them, the only appropriate response to the republicans is "let's take a look at your donations first".

IMHO, of course.

[dreadgeek]

I'm pissed at the democrats and their race to see who can throw him farthest under the bus. It's between him and the people who voted for him. The only appropriate response for a democratic representative to "do you think he should resign" is "when Vitter goes then I might consider it". As for the new republican scum tactic of demanding that democrats give back/away money that Weiner donated to them, the only appropriate response to the republicans is "let's take a look at your donations first".

IMHO, of course.

The next time someone looks at you askance when excoriating the Democratic party for cowardice remind them of this--this isn't about principle. If it were about the principle of not cheating on spouses then the congress would be so completely denuded of men that both houses would put and observer in mind of the Michigan Women's Music Festival. This isn't even about political exposure because if the Republicans bring up Weiner's stupidity (and what he did was stupid, not the cheating but the thinking that he could get away with lying about the Twitter pics) the Democrats have six simple words they can use. They are: John Ensign, David Vitter and Larry Craig. No one called on them to resign and Vitter is still serving. No, this is simple cowardice. It's the only reason. What Weiner did is between him and his wife and has no bearing, what-so-ever, on his ability to conduct the Peoples' business.

Cheers
Aj

[iamkeri1]

I will go even further to say that I think the democratic response should be, "I (we) support Weiner. He is a Democrat. He is one of us. We all make mistakes. He has been legally elected by the people of New York. That's good enough for me (us). I (we) believe the situation will quickly be resolved in his favor. Now lets get back to solving important problems like balancing the budget without detroying medicare"

That's my 2 cents worth.
Smooches,
Keri

[BullDog]

Interesting perspective from a long time Republican politician in Florida:

http://www.chronicleonline.com/content/things-are-worse-you-may-think

[AtLast]

Interesting perspective from a long time Republican politician in Florida:

http://www.chronicleonline.com/content/things-are-worse-you-may-think


She is a Republican of the type and kind I remember prior to the religious right buying off the GOP.

[AtLast]

The next time someone looks at you askance when excoriating the Democratic party for cowardice remind them of this--this isn't about principle. If it were about the principle of not cheating on spouses then the congress would be so completely denuded of men that both houses would put and observer in mind of the Michigan Women's Music Festival. This isn't even about political exposure because if the Republicans bring up Weiner's stupidity (and what he did was stupid, not the cheating but the thinking that he could get away with lying about the Twitter pics) the Democrats have six simple words they can use. They are: John Ensign, David Vitter and Larry Craig. No one called on them to resign and Vitter is still serving. No, this is simple cowardice. It's the only reason. What Weiner did is between him and his wife and has no bearing, what-so-ever, on his ability to conduct the Peoples' business.

Cheers
Aj


I agree unless there was contact with a minor and an exchange of sexual banter, etc. A story is floating around that one of the women he engaged in this behavior with is 17. If true, it really could blow up on a whole new dimension. Hopefully, not any criminal charges. From what I could discern from Wasserman-Schultz's appearance on Meet the Press yesterday, this new bit of information about a minor sent her to the side of asking him to resign.

Yes, like MsDemeanor, I am outraged at any GOP member even saying one damn thing about Weiner while Craig & Vitter remain in Congress. And it does look like his actual district constituents remain behind him to represent them. They are the ones to decide if they want to re-elect him. He does their district business- if they are happy with his work, he will remain in office. Sounds like he wants to run for NY CMayor- have no idea if this would really hurt his chances. NYC is a liberal city- who knows.

I do think that there is a possibility of Weiner having a form of a sex addiction- and I get really tired of people not recognizing that this can really mess up someone's life- no matter what they do for a living. His entering a treatment program might be a political ply, but maybe not. And if he is dealing with a sex addiction and wants to work through it, I say good for him.

I don't have any problems with sexting, phone sex, sexy or suggestive pics, etc. as many, many couples engage in this behavior. Consequently, doing so outside of marriage or a relationship could be a form of infidelity. Depends on the couple and how they set-up their relationship boundaries. On the other hand, it can be a very sexy way to interact with the one you love- especially when you have long absences. I am also tired of the right-wing “moral police” making this kind of sexual expression sound creepy and "abnormal." It isn't- but doing it as a high risk behavior that might ruin your marriage or get you fired, is the same as an alcoholic losing everything due to alcohol addiction. Again, I have no idea if Weiner is dealing with addiction. However, just his not thinking about the possibility that engaging with women online in social network sites COULD lead to interacting with someone under 18- IS risky behavior and not what I would expect of a someone with Weiner’s intelligence. Does not compute to me.

I think the Dems could have dealt with this differently and just stuck with "no comment." I didn't like that some were pouncing on Weiner before facts were uncovered. I keep reading tid-bits that some of this is due to Weiner not being all that well liked by his colleagues. He isn't much of a "team player". Actually, that is one reason I have always liked him- he would shake things up from a more progressive viewpoint.

I don't want to see the more progressive thinking House (or Senate) members leaving- Kucinich may be forced out due to re-districting and he is another very out spoken progressive member that we need in the House.

If there is no truth to the interaction with a minor, I think this will blow over and Weiner will remain in his seat. 2012 is far enough away that this won't have some of the effects that the whole Mark Foley thing did on the GOP during a general election.

Yes, whatever he and his wife have determined within their marriage to be OK, is their business. But he is a public figure and they ought to know that there are right-wing zealots all over the internet just waiting to catch a liberal or progressive member of Congress in some kind of scandalous behavior. This is where I see a lapse in judgment.

[dreadgeek]

Interesting perspective from a long time Republican politician in Florida:

http://www.chronicleonline.com/content/things-are-worse-you-may-think

This was a fantastic article! It doesn't articulate why I left the Republican party--to understand that one need do no more than look at how the GOP has increasingly used racist language and imagery to win election and how they have used anti-gay rhetoric and imagery to consolidate their political gains--but it does articulate why there is nothing that the Republican party, as currently constituted, could do to regain my vote.

As long as their electoral coalition is based upon nativism, xenophobia, coded appeals to racism, overt appeals to anti-gay bigotry, and theocratic leanings that give aid and comfort to the partisans of anti-science and anti-reason in society, the Republicans can't win my vote. The problem, of course, is that the very people who could get the GOP to rethink their current doom-ridden course have been expelled from the party.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

I agree unless there was contact with a minor and an exchange of sexual banter, etc. A story is floating around that one of the women he engaged in this behavior with is 17. If true, it really could blow up on a whole new dimension. Hopefully, not any criminal charges. From what I could discern from Wasserman-Schultz's appearance on Meet the Press yesterday, this new bit of information about a minor sent her to the side of asking him to resign.

If Weiner sent a text to a minor then he's committed a crime and should, of course, resign and then be sent to trial. However, provided that he sent pictures to women who were of the age of majority in their location then what he did was his own private concern and the less I know about it the happier I'll be.


Yes, like MsDemeanor, I am outraged at any GOP member even saying one damn thing about Weiner while Craig & Vitter remain in Congress. And it does look like his actual district constituents remain behind him to represent them. They are the ones to decide if they want to re-elect him. He does their district business- if they are happy with his work, he will remain in office. Sounds like he wants to run for NY CMayor- have no idea if this would really hurt his chances. NYC is a liberal city- who knows.

Two words, Rudy Giuliani---if Weiner runs for mayor, he'll be fine.


I do think that there is a possibility of Weiner having a form of a sex addiction- and I get really tired of people not recognizing that this can really mess up someone's life- no matter what they do for a living. His entering a treatment program might be a political ply, but maybe not. And if he is dealing with a sex addiction and wants to work through it, I say good for him.

Certainly, bully for him if he is sex-addicted. I am, however, a little less sanguine about the claims of sex addiction for every third pol who gets caught with his pants down. Just once, to break up the monotony, I'd like to see a politician admit the mistake and move on. No invocation of sex addiction, no talking about how he needs to get right with this or that god, just "I messed up. I let down my wife, I'm sorry. I let down my kids, my apologies. I let down my constituents who trusted me to keep my nose to the grindstone and not make stupid mistakes like this--and this was a stupid mistake" and then move on with their lives. It probably won't happen in my lifetime but it would be nice, just to break things up a bit mind you.



I think the Dems could have dealt with this differently and just stuck with "no comment." I didn't like that some were pouncing on Weiner before facts were uncovered. I keep reading tid-bits that some of this is due to Weiner not being all that well liked by his colleagues. He isn't much of a "team player". Actually, that is one reason I have always liked him- he would shake things up from a more progressive viewpoint.

Weiner is definitely the kind of liberal I think we need more of in elected office in that he is not afraid to actually stand up for something. It helps that he and I are on the same page on a number of issues.


I don't want to see the more progressive thinking House (or Senate) members leaving- Kucinich may be forced out due to re-districting and he is another very out spoken progressive member that we need in the House.

While I have no desire for the Democratic congressional delegation to get smaller, Kucinich is not my favorite liberal. I find him unrealistic on foreign policy--not just that I disagree with him, I can disagree with someone on foreign policy but still think they are realistic--in that he seems to be dealing with a completely different species of humans on a completely different planet.

Cheers
Adrienne

[AtLast]

This was a fantastic article! It doesn't articulate why I left the Republican party--to understand that one need do no more than look at how the GOP has increasingly used racist language and imagery to win election and how they have used anti-gay rhetoric and imagery to consolidate their political gains--but it does articulate why there is nothing that the Republican party, as currently constituted, could do to regain my vote.

As long as their electoral coalition is based upon nativism, xenophobia, coded appeals to racism, overt appeals to anti-gay bigotry, and theocratic leanings that give aid and comfort to the partisans of anti-science and anti-reason in society, the Republicans can't win my vote. The problem, of course, is that the very people who could get the GOP to rethink their current doom-ridden course have been expelled from the party. Cheers
Aj


They sure have been!

And all of the areas you speak of in terms of the overt appeals to anti-science and anti-reason rings so true for me. When Limbaugh went after Romney the other day because he believes that the state of our eco-system is in such a mess due to human beings and science indeed, demonstrates this, I just wanted to scream. I support Obama's re-election, so Mitt's conversion won't move my vote, but Liombaugh's power over the GOP is amazing.

Although, lately, Limbaugh's popularity seems to be decreasing in terms of his radio audience. Who knows, maybe some people in the GOP are getting their heads out of their butts.

[AtLast]

If Weiner sent a text to a minor then he's committed a crime and should, of course, resign and then be sent to trial. However, provided that he sent pictures to women who were of the age of majority in their location then what he did was his own private concern and the less I know about it the happier I'll be.



Two words, Rudy Giuliani---if Weiner runs for mayor, he'll be fine.



Certainly, bully for him if he is sex-addicted. I am, however, a little less sanguine about the claims of sex addiction for every third pol who gets caught with his pants down. Just once, to break up the monotony, I'd like to see a politician admit the mistake and move on. No invocation of sex addiction, no talking about how he needs to get right with this or that god, just "I messed up. I let down my wife, I'm sorry. I let down my kids, my apologies. I let down my constituents who trusted me to keep my nose to the grindstone and not make stupid mistakes like this--and this was a stupid mistake" and then move on with their lives. It probably won't happen in my lifetime but it would be nice, just to break things up a bit mind you.



Weiner is definitely the kind of liberal I think we need more of in elected office in that he is not afraid to actually stand up for something. It helps that he and I are on the same page on a number of issues.



While I have no desire for the Democratic congressional delegation to get smaller, Kucinich is not my favorite liberal. I find him unrealistic on foreign policy--not just that I disagree with him, I can disagree with someone on foreign policy but still think they are realistic--in that he seems to be dealing with a completely different species of humans on a completely different planet.

Cheers
Adrienne


Yes, sometimes Kucinich can be out there.

Yes, I think Weiner sticks to his guns and like that about him. And YES, to a point I agree with what you say about him just saying "I did it, I apologize"- which I wish he had just done at the start of the whole matter. But, I guess the behavioral scientist in me wants understanding of sexual addiction and its negative effects in our society. It seems that most people just pass it off as psycho-babble when it is a real addiction and can really ruin someone’s life. There is some good neuro-physiological work in human behavior concerning propensity for in risk taking that might shed a lot of light on sex addiction behaviors.

But, I do understand how annoying it can get that so many politicians and celebrities get caught in some scandal, then say "I'm sorry, I have an addiction and I'm going into treatment for it." It has become standard operating procedure for damage control- which contributes to the proliferation of the general population simply hearing "I'm going into treatment" as "the big gun consultants tell me this will work in getting the public to forgive me."

Thus far, the claims of his involvement with any minor seem to be false and quite possibly a product of the very same right-wingers that police social network sites in hopes of catching liberals and progressives at something they can project as immoral in some fashion. I’m sure liberal/progressive folks do the same thing to uncover any conservative/far-right folks, too. The internet has changed the campaigning in may ways- some good, some ugly. I would exercise the utmost caution as a politician online.

[iamkeri1]

Dennis Kucinich is a personal hero of mine and has been since he was the mayor of Cleveland, Ohio where my parents lived at that time. I do not find him unrealistic. To me he is a perfect example of a good old fashioned knee-jerk liberal. Also He is fiscally responsible.

I do think redistricting is a tool the Republicans willl use to their advantage (as do Dems when they are in control) Liberals will be targets whenever possible. Weiner is a target for being redistricted out of office. As he has plans to run for Mayor, I will not be too bothered by it. Things wax and wane. If Kucinich is districted out of office, it will feel to me like losing a good friend. During the Iraq war he used his one minute speech EVERY DAY to speak out against the war, to talk about the financial cost, and to call out the names of the service members who were killed. His voice is needed in Washington.
Smooches,
Keri

[dreadgeek]

They sure have been!

And all of the areas you speak of in terms of the overt appeals to anti-science and anti-reason rings so true for me. When Limbaugh went after Romney the other day because he believes that the state of our eco-system is in such a mess due to human beings and science indeed, demonstrates this, I just wanted to scream. I support Obama's re-election, so Mitt's conversion won't move my vote, but Liombaugh's power over the GOP is amazing.

Although, lately, Limbaugh's popularity seems to be decreasing in terms of his radio audience. Who knows, maybe some people in the GOP are getting their heads out of their butts.

I keep hoping that at some point some political consultant will realize that there is a large group of Americans who want what I will call, for lack of any better term, reality-based politics. By that I mean simply this, your ideology follows the dictates of reality and not the other way around. To take just one example, global climate change is an empirical question amenable to observation. Our policy should follow the dictates of the empirical questions.
To see how this works (and why I find the idea that we're still treating the propositions advanced by either side as if they are equally true maddening and baffling) let's deconstruct this a bit.

So, according to the theories advanced in climatology IF the Earth's climate is heating up THEN we should be able to make certain kinds of observations. Those observations include--but are not limited to: melting of polar ice caps at one or both poles, rise in average temperatures with more record highs being set, increased precipitation in certain places, more intense storms for those storms driven by either heat or water vapor or both (here think hurricanes and tornadoes). These are just a partial list. Now, do we have any observations that match the predictions (each of the items above is based upon actual predictions)? If so how're the predictions holding up?

Melting of polar ice caps? Check. In fact, the Arctic is set to be ice free during the summers within five years. Has this happened before? Yes. The last time we know, with any degree of confidence, that this happened was ~125,000 years ago. Prior to that you have to go back to a time when dinosaurs still walked the planet--dinosaurs. Rise in average temperatures with more record highs being set? In the United States, the 10 hottest summer periods on record have all been in the last 10 years. So we'll add that to the 'yes' column. More intense storms driven? Yes for *both* hurricanes and tornadoes. Now this should give us a serious moment of pause because hurricanes, particularly, are sensitive to temperatures in the oceans. The frequency of power hurricanes (3+) are increasing and the number of category 4 and 5 storms have increased. I have not taken the time to chart this out (yet, I probably will this summer) but I suspect that if one looks solely at cat 4 or 5 storms starting with the middle of the 20th century (have to see how far records go back) one would see a, more or less, random distribution of storms until the mid-seventies. Then the distribution will become less random. If one looks at the trend of the last 15 years I suspect (I'll let you know either way) that we'll see a clustering of 4s and 5s after 2000 that is far less random than the pattern from, say, 1950. More precipitation? Yes, again, we are observing this. In places like the Pacific Northwest we see a longer rainy season and in places where it gets a lot of precipitation in the form of snow, we are seeing more of that as well.

The snow problem brings up an issue with the cheeky games that pass as critical analysis in modern US politics. Note that I said we should see increased precipitation, not increased rain. That was deliberate. More moisture in the air will come down either as rain or as snow depending upon the season. People use increased snowfall to argue that 'global warming isn't happening because it snowed so much in Buffalo, NY last year'. This is like saying that my house can never get above 90 degrees because it hasn't been above 90 since last August.

I harped on this issue to give an idea of what I think we should be counting as evidence. In science if your theory is not in agreement with observation and there is reason to believe that the observations were accurate then it’s the theory that is wrong. Right now our politics is being driven by exactly the opposite ethic such that if your ideology is not in agreement with observation then it is your observation that is wrong, not your ideology (to be fair, neither liberals or conservatives are particular great on this issue but right now conservatives are worse than liberals on this in more areas--liberals are primarily not reality-driven about foreign policy and certain aspects of criminal justice policy, while conservatives are not reality-driven about a whole raft of policy issues).

It doesn't matter if you *believe* that cutting tax rates actually *increases* the amount of taxes that flow in. The actual revenues taken in by all government levels are an empirical question for which there is plenty of empirical data. If we look at the tax rates over time and compare them with actual revenues over time we should be able to determine if, in fact, cutting tax rates increases revenue (hint: the theory is not in agreement with observation). At the point that your ideology is found wanting by reality, you should modify it or, if necessary, abandon it completely (this is why, for instance, I find Marxists to be a little sad now). Failure to do so in a timely fashion should come with a high political price but, at present, it doesn't.

The party that figures out that reality-based politics are not just viable but a winner both electorally and ideologically will be in a very good position.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

[B][FONT=Comic Sans MS][SIZE=3]Dennis Kucinich is a personal hero of mine and has been since he was the mayor of Cleveland, Ohio where my parents lived at that time. I do not find him unrealistic. To me he is a perfect example of a good old fashioned knee-jerk liberal. Also He is fiscally responsible.

I don't find him generically unrealistic, simply unrealistic on foreign policy (and then only in certain areas, I agree with him, for instance, on Kyoto). He seems, to my mind, to take the opposite position that some prominent conservatives do that also drives me nuts.

Some conservatives treat other international actors as if they are obliged to be insane or stupid or both and thus make of them cartoon villains. Some liberals treat other international actors as if they were nothing more than misunderstood lambs who, if not for either the United States or Western civilization, would be pacifists and only even know of violence because it has been imposed on them by the US and/or the West. Both are wrong and I find Kucinich to be indicative of the latter.

This is not to say he was wrong on Iraq (he obviously wasn't) merely to say that I do not find him credible on foreign policy. Domestically, I rather like Kucinich and I’m sure he was a fine mayor and that he does a good job for the citizens of his district. That doesn't mean I would vote for him for President, I wouldn't. In fact, I would want to make sure he didn't get the nomination just as I'm sure that even now there are people in the GOP who hope that Sarah Palin doesn't get their nomination.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Watching the Republican Presidential Debate on CNN. It's like watching some strange cult in action. The answer to every economic question is "get the government out". Romney, in response to the question of whether the government should be doing catastrophic disaster relief is talking about the private sector doing disaster relief. Imagine that. Disaster relief as a product.

Cheers
Aj

[AtLast]

Watching the Republican Presidential Debate on CNN. It's like watching some strange cult in action. The answer to every economic question is "get the government out". Romney, in response to the question of whether the government should be doing catastrophic disaster relief is talking about the private sector doing disaster relief. Imagine that. Disaster relief as a product.

Cheers
Aj





I like your use of cult here- they all are under a form of hypnosis, I think. Oh yeah, private sector disaster relief, Uh, huh....

The unemployment rate has got to fall during the next year. Just has to- and Obama's re-election people need to find a way to demonstrate how his policies have been responsible for what recovery we have had. I believe in the need for building our infra-structure for long-term economic stability, but see why so many people just can't wrap their heads around this when they have been out of work for months and months. At a certain point with so much distrust of all politicians no matter the party, I think many people will vote more about what they see as not working than future ideological policies that fit for them.

And those young college student voters that helped get him elected are now among the many that have degrees and can't jobs and owe student loans. Hopefully, the younger of this population will support him- I think there could be a high level of dissention among voters 18-22 during his 2008 election and his re-election.

Although, among POC I think he will carry a majority, especially Latino voters. But, I really see that this will be no shoe-in re-election for Obama. Which makes me nuts in some ways as he has gotten some very important policies through Congress that have had little or no movement for decades and decades.

The communication gap has got to change. I am just not as confident about his re-election as I once was. Bring on the "pictures of a thousand words" Re-Elect Obama people- bring it on NOW!!

[iamkeri1]

Dread
I so agree with you regarding reality based politics. This lack of reality at least on the part of the republicans is a direct outgrowth of bible based politics. The world was created in six days by god - four thousand years ago. Nothing happened 125,000 or a million years ago, so we can not use information from that long ago for comparison, BECAUSE THE WORLD DID NOT REALLY EXIST THAT LONG AGO!

There is no reason to conserve our natural resources or keep our air and water clean BECAUSE THE WORLD WILL END SOON IN THE APOCALYPSE!

God put humans in charge of the world. Anyone who wants to protect trees or who respects animals as fairly equal to humans is ridiculous and anti-god.

The poor will always be with us is another fave of the repubs, and they aim to have as many poor people as possible to assure that rich people get more money. As reflected particularly in the old testament, rich people are natural rulers, so it is god's plan that rich people get richer so they can be in charge.

Too bad they are ignoring "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you," and "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."

Get religion out of politics.

Smooches,
Keri

I keep hoping that at some point some political consultant will realize that there is a large group of Americans who want what I will call, for lack of any better term, reality-based politics. By that I mean simply this, your ideology follows the dictates of reality and not the other way around. To take just one example, global climate change is an empirical question amenable to observation. Our policy should follow the dictates of the empirical questions.
To see how this works (and why I find the idea that we're still treating the propositions advanced by either side as if they are equally true maddening and baffling) let's deconstruct this a bit.

So, according to the theories advanced in climatology IF the Earth's climate is heating up THEN we should be able to make certain kinds of observations. Those observations include--but are not limited to: melting of polar ice caps at one or both poles, rise in average temperatures with more record highs being set, increased precipitation in certain places, more intense storms for those storms driven by either heat or water vapor or both (here think hurricanes and tornadoes). These are just a partial list. Now, do we have any observations that match the predictions (each of the items above is based upon actual predictions)? If so how're the predictions holding up?

Melting of polar ice caps? Check. In fact, the Arctic is set to be ice free during the summers within five years. Has this happened before? Yes. The last time we know, with any degree of confidence, that this happened was ~125,000 years ago. Prior to that you have to go back to a time when dinosaurs still walked the planet--dinosaurs. Rise in average temperatures with more record highs being set? In the United States, the 10 hottest summer periods on record have all been in the last 10 years. So we'll add that to the 'yes' column. More intense storms driven? Yes for *both* hurricanes and tornadoes. Now this should give us a serious moment of pause because hurricanes, particularly, are sensitive to temperatures in the oceans. The frequency of power hurricanes (3+) are increasing and the number of category 4 and 5 storms have increased. I have not taken the time to chart this out (yet, I probably will this summer) but I suspect that if one looks solely at cat 4 or 5 storms starting with the middle of the 20th century (have to see how far records go back) one would see a, more or less, random distribution of storms until the mid-seventies. Then the distribution will become less random. If one looks at the trend of the last 15 years I suspect (I'll let you know either way) that we'll see a clustering of 4s and 5s after 2000 that is far less random than the pattern from, say, 1950. More precipitation? Yes, again, we are observing this. In places like the Pacific Northwest we see a longer rainy season and in places where it gets a lot of precipitation in the form of snow, we are seeing more of that as well.

The snow problem brings up an issue with the cheeky games that pass as critical analysis in modern US politics. Note that I said we should see increased precipitation, not increased rain. That was deliberate. More moisture in the air will come down either as rain or as snow depending upon the season. People use increased snowfall to argue that 'global warming isn't happening because it snowed so much in Buffalo, NY last year'. This is like saying that my house can never get above 90 degrees because it hasn't been above 90 since last August.

I harped on this issue to give an idea of what I think we should be counting as evidence. In science if your theory is not in agreement with observation and there is reason to believe that the observations were accurate then it’s the theory that is wrong. Right now our politics is being driven by exactly the opposite ethic such that if your ideology is not in agreement with observation then it is your observation that is wrong, not your ideology (to be fair, neither liberals or conservatives are particular great on this issue but right now conservatives are worse than liberals on this in more areas--liberals are primarily not reality-driven about foreign policy and certain aspects of criminal justice policy, while conservatives are not reality-driven about a whole raft of policy issues).

It doesn't matter if you *believe* that cutting tax rates actually *increases* the amount of taxes that flow in. The actual revenues taken in by all government levels are an empirical question for which there is plenty of empirical data. If we look at the tax rates over time and compare them with actual revenues over time we should be able to determine if, in fact, cutting tax rates increases revenue (hint: the theory is not in agreement with observation). At the point that your ideology is found wanting by reality, you should modify it or, if necessary, abandon it completely (this is why, for instance, I find Marxists to be a little sad now). Failure to do so in a timely fashion should come with a high political price but, at present, it doesn't.

The party that figures out that reality-based politics are not just viable but a winner both electorally and ideologically will be in a very good position.

Cheers
Aj

[AtLast]

Empirical evidence driven political policy would be quite refreshing!

[theoddz]

....and this from this nutjob.

I'm just shaking my head at the mentality here, and John Boehner is Speaker of the House. I can't imagine Nancy Pelosi ever taking such a juvenile pot shot like this.

5jcrXnAdhpw

This guy is obviously college educated, of course, but he's stupid. He must have missed the School of Common Decency. I don't find what he said here to be funny one bit.

One of my old friends, from Coventry, UK, had this expression that is pretty appropriate here. She'd say, "What do you expect from a pig but a grunt??".

~Theo~ :bouquet:

[GoddessJess]

I remember in H.S History something about the seperation of church and state..now I could be wrong because history was after lunch and well I wasn't always 100% after lunch (haha) but as I grew up I kept hearing this phrase...but if America was founded on the seperation of church and state and if America was founded to get the hell away from European dictatorship and religion then why in sam hell are we still pulling laws from the bible?? And wha gets me is the selectivity of it all...we shall pull the Marriage Equlaity from the bible or laws such as te one stated in the previose posts....but when it comes to people that break laws lets just house them and pay their way...screw the fact that the bible says an eye for an eye...
I'm an all or nuthin gal...don't tell me I have to live with Jesus's followers and thei idealistic country based on religiouse beliefes and then tell me I cant shoot someone who killed one of my family members...
On the island where I grew up thats what happens..we don't have jails or overcrowding...if you kill someone we kill you back...if you rob someone you then have to support that family for 10 years.
Polotics is a bunch of shananagans(sp?) and a crap ton of lies...I hate it! and yes I vote!

[dreadgeek]

I remember in H.S History something about the seperation of church and state..now I could be wrong because history was after lunch and well I wasn't always 100% after lunch (haha) but as I grew up I kept hearing this phrase...but if America was founded on the seperation of church and state and if America was founded to get the hell away from European dictatorship and religion then why in sam hell are we still pulling laws from the bible?? And wha gets me is the selectivity of it all...we shall pull the Marriage Equlaity from the bible or laws such as te one stated in the previose posts....but when it comes to people that break laws lets just house them and pay their way...screw the fact that the bible says an eye for an eye...
I'm an all or nuthin gal...don't tell me I have to live with Jesus's followers and thei idealistic country based on religiouse beliefes and then tell me I cant shoot someone who killed one of my family members...
On the island where I grew up thats what happens..we don't have jails or overcrowding...if you kill someone we kill you back...if you rob someone you then have to support that family for 10 years.
Polotics is a bunch of shananagans(sp?) and a crap ton of lies...I hate it! and yes I vote!

Hmmm...I'm not sure that we want to return to a society wherein if you shoot a member of my family, I kill a member of your family. In the Balkans there are interfamilial feuds that have been going on so long that there is no longer a single person alive who has even ever met the originally aggrieved party. Someone's distant ancestor did something to someone back in the early 18th century whose family took their vengeance. The family of the perpetrator, though, felt that their family member was justified so they took their vengeance. This continues on until such time as we get to, say, WW I where atrocities were spread around quite liberally. Two decades later people are still getting their revenge during WW II. Then the Cold War happens and things get squashed until the Soviet Union collapses at which point Bosnians, Serbs and Croats take up their historical feuds again. This latest round of atrocities are just fuel for the next group of feuds. As one British biologist put it "The human mind has two great sicknesses; the tendency to carry vendetta across generations and to view people as groups and not individuals". As convoluted as our system of laws may appear to be I'll take that over the system where feuds and dueling were considered reasonable ways to resolve disputes.

I'm curious, what would you replace politics with? Given that we are very diverse societies where your enlightened self-interest may not be in complete agreement with my enlightened self-interest, what other system other than politics do you suggest?

Dread
I so agree with you regarding reality based politics. This lack of reality at least on the part of the republicans is a direct outgrowth of bible based politics. The world was created in six days by god - four thousand years ago. Nothing happened 125,000 or a million years ago, so we can not use information from that long ago for comparison, BECAUSE THE WORLD DID NOT REALLY EXIST THAT LONG AGO!

I think our problem is as deep if not deeper than you state. We have a stone age brain, using a set of moral precepts created in the early agrarian period, to handle problems of modern societies. I was thinking about your post on my drive to work this morning while listening to a chapter of a book where the author was talking about worldwide demographic changes brought on by technology. What follows is dove-tailing off of both.

Take a look at our sexual mores. There is no more poignant example of the mismatch between our biology, our religiously based moral and ethical systems and modern reality. Our bodies are operating off a program where we enter puberty around 13 or 14 on the expectation that we'll become sexually active and start having babies. For all but the last 100 years that program has worked very well. Our moral systems, conceived when agriculture was relatively new and birth control was, at best, inconsistently effective, assume that people will only be sexual inside of marriage, that women will have lots of children and spend most of their lives taking care of those children, that men will control property and resources and relationships will only end because of death. Yet the lives of most of the people reading this thread have not fit that pattern and for those of us who have kids or grandchildren it is vanishingly improbable that our offspring or descendants will have lives that approximate that pattern. From gay marriage--which makes perfect moral sense in our current moral context where any *necessary* link between sex, marriage and reproduction has been broken--to our laws about abortion or birth control what is taken as the default moral position is horribly out of date. The average age of marriage in the industrialized world is now creeping up toward thirty but people are still entering puberty around 12 - 14. It is simply unrealistic that people are going to spend the next two decades being celibate, it isn't happening for vast majorities of people. Nor does it make sense for two 20 year olds who are both undergraduates to start having children until both of them have *at least* gotten a bachelor's if not an advanced degree. We need to retool our laws and moral expectations to reflect reality. The problem is that we can only do this with a stone-aged brain that will tend to be more in agreement with our Bronze Age religious systems than with our modern lifestyles.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

I like your use of cult here- they all are under a form of hypnosis, I think. Oh yeah, private sector disaster relief, Uh, huh....

It's bizarre. I understand that politicians speak in generalities but this has gotten elevated to something creepy. It's not quite as bad as what's below but I'm not really stretching things too badly:

Moderator: So, Ms GOP candidate, do you think that hospitals should be able to turn away the same-sex partner of a patient because that doctor or nurse doesn't consider them family?

GOP candidate: I believe in strengthening the traditional family which is a man and a woman.

Moderator: What specific proposals do you have for ameliorating the trouble in the housing market?

GOP candidate: We don't need government in the housing business. If we let the free market drive the housing business then it will work out the best solution.

Moderator: Do you support non-discrimination laws in housing or employment?

GOP candidate: I believe that the free market will reward companies that behave well and punish companies that behave badly.

Moderator: Are there any military bases you would close or weapon systems you would like to see the Pentagon not purchase?

GOP candidate: America is free because we have the best and strongest military in the world. I support our troops.

Moderator: Are there any non-military functions you think the government should be involved in?

GOP candidate: Throughout American history we've seen that we do best when we embrace free market principles.

Moderator: What place do you think religion should have on public policy and law?

GOP candidate: America was founded as a Christian nation and our rights come from God.

Now, is there anything above that you think is too over-the-top to come out of the mouth of some GOP pol when asked one of those questions? I took some of those answers, nearly verbatim, from the GOP presidential debate last night. Those answers are empty. They are mantras not responses. One would not be stretching the matter too much if you were to imagine a GOP call and response chorus

"Jobs?" "Free market!" "Pollution?" "Free market!" You get the idea. The GOP has become a party of theology. By that I mean that they have completely divorced their ideology from the real world. It simply does not *matter* what the empirical facts are any longer. All that matters is that they believe it to be true and that is enough for them. Anyone who does not believe is an infidel.

Cheers
Aj

[betenoire]

I'm an all or nuthin gal...don't tell me I have to live with Jesus's followers and thei idealistic country based on religiouse beliefes and then tell me I cant shoot someone who killed one of my family members...
On the island where I grew up thats what happens..we don't have jails or overcrowding...if you kill someone we kill you back...if you rob someone you then have to support that family for 10 years.


Actually, Jesus didn't say "an eye for an eye" that was in the OLD testament. In the New Testament that old law was removed and was replaced with:

""You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also"
Matthew 5:38-29

I have no idea what island you grew up on (I can't tell if that was a metaphor or not?) but it doesn't sound like somewhere that I would want to be, if you really do get to just run around killing people for doing you wrong.

Revenge sucks.

(Also - overcrowding in prisons has NOTHING to do with not getting to just willy-nilly kill all the bad guys. It's got everything to do with a fucked up legal system that locks people up for stupid shit (drugs, really?) and locks some (not white) people up faster and for longer than others.)

[Toughy]

well here's a funny thing........read the whole article just for fun...the article is dated May 23, 2011

http://www.thecalifornian.com/article/20110524/NEWS06/105240310/U-S-Supreme-Court-California-Cut-prison-inmates-by-33-000


The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that California must drastically reduce its prison population to relieve severe overcrowding that has exposed inmates to increased violence, disease and death.

The decision, however, doesn't mean the prison gates will swing open in an uncontrolled release.

The high court's 5-4 decision calls on the state to cut the population to no more than 110,000 inmates. To get there, state officials have two years to either transfer some 33,000 inmates to other jails or release them. California has already been preparing for the ruling, driven as much by persistent multibillion-dollar budget deficits as by fears for the well-being of prison inmates and employees. The state has sent inmates to other states. It plans to transfer jurisdiction over others to counties, though the state doesn't have the money to do it. <snip>

Ike always said beware the military-industrial complex. It has become the prison/military/industrial complex.

[betenoire]

I also wanted to add that the prison system is a HUGE money maker for some people. So long as there are for-profit privately run/owned prisons there will -always- be overcrowding and people locked up for no good reason.

[dreadgeek]

I have no idea what island you grew up on (I can't tell if that was a metaphor or not?) but it doesn't sound like somewhere that I would want to be, if you really do get to just run around killing people for doing you wrong.

Revenge sucks.

Whenever I hear someone talking about how much better it would be if we just shucked the messy legal system (with its rights of the accused, etc.) in favor of a more ad hoc and informal system (read vendetta) I am always brought back to a familial story on my mom's side of the family. One of her brothers had up close and personal experience of this kind of 'justice'. To put it bluntly my uncle was lynched for bumping into a white woman in small town Alabama in the 1920s. From the point of view of the people in the town at the time, my uncle had 'done something' to this white woman and he had to pay for his life. There was no trial, he was not 'charged', he ran home and later on some people came to my grandfather's farm, surrounded it and threatened to put the house to the torch if he did not give up his son. Here was 'justice' as done by people who get to determine when a crime had been committed and what punishment there should be for that crime.

Now, some might argue that this isn't what they mean when they talk about frontier 'justice' but it is rarely said what is actually meant. Since the whole idea behind the ethic of taking an eye for an eye is that there are no *laws* to be obeyed there is nothing to prevent some family from deciding that, for instance, the Hispanic family next door *must* be criminals and therefore burning them out of their home. Another objection might be raised that my family could have taken revenge on the people who lynched my uncle. However, that would only have meant the absolute obliteration of my mother's family. So a world of ad hoc 'justice' is a world that favors the powerful over the powerless and defines powerful as whoever can have the most guns still held by people with breath at the end of the day. Justice, then, becomes 'whoever won the gunfight'. It reminds me, a bit, of the story of Kaiser Soze in 'The Usual Supects'. After his family is murdered, Soze kills the perpetrators and then goes after the families of the perpetrators, people who live in the same neighborhood as the perpetrators, people who owe the perpetrators money, etc. This leaves no one to take revenge against Soze.


(Also - overcrowding in prisons has NOTHING to do with not getting to just willy-nilly kill all the bad guys. It's got everything to do with a fucked up legal system that locks people up for stupid shit (drugs, really?) and locks some (not white) people up faster and for longer than others.)

You make a great point. So why on Earth would I, a black woman, defend the criminal justice system over a system of vendetta-based 'justice'? Because legal systems have rules--I understand that we're supposed to find those rules distasteful because it gets in the way of engaging in emotionally cathartic but cruel behavior--we can't torture people and we can't just shoot people without trial--but *at least* those rules offer up the prospect of fairness and redemption. For all its flaws, if reasonable doubt can be established in my trial then I go free. Even if I was mistakenly convicted, if new evidence comes to light then I will be exonerated. I won't get my years of incarceration back but if I'm dead I can't even be exonerated. It is also demonstrably the case that the *sole* reason for prison overcrowding is the inconsistent application of drug laws in our absolutely insanely stupid 'war on drugs'. When the only other countries that are in the same neighborhood as you when it comes to locking up prisoners (and I don't mean absolute numbers, I'm talking about percentages) are nations that are either totalitarian dictatorships (China) or theocratic dictatorships (Iran) you *know* you are doing something seriously wrong.

Cheers
Aj

[Toughy]

I also wanted to add that the prison system is a HUGE money maker for some people. So long as there are for-profit privately run/owned prisons there will -always- be overcrowding and people locked up for no good reason.

There is some huge ass number of folks in CA prisons and jails who have been convicted on non-violent drug offenses (many of them male POC). How about, they ALL get to go free and we end the stupid fucking 'war on drugs'.

[dreadgeek]

There is some huge ass number of folks in CA prisons and jails who have been convicted on non-violent drug offenses (many of them male POC). How about, they ALL get to go free and we end the stupid fucking 'war on drugs'.

That would be a good start. You know what drives me to distraction about this ill-conceived policy? We've seen this movie. We *know* it doesn't work. It was called Prohibition. There is absolutely no reason to make narcotics illegal. There is no more logic behind it than there was making booze illegal. But it certainly 'feels' good in that it makes us believe we're doing 'something'.

What's even more disturbing is that this undermines our criminal justice system in a very profound manner. Think about the differential fates of the following people:

1) Young middle-class black woman gets caught with a pipe and a quarter ounce of green bud. She is going to go to jail, possibly prison for a few years.

2) Young, upper-middle class white woman gets caught with an eight-ball of coke. She gets community service and maybe rehab.

3) Young, poor black man gets caught with three or four rocks of crack cocaine. He's going to prison for a decade.

4) Young, upper-class white man does a sophisticated three-card monty game on the stock market, brings three or four companies to their knees, causing a couple of thousand people to be thrown out of work, ten percent of those folks lose their homes. He winds up a hero with his face on the cover of Business Week and a billion dollar bonus in his pocket.

Do those fates--and it is very difficult to argue that this sketch isn't realistic--seem reasonable to anyone here given the magnitude of effects these actions have in the real world?

I would argue that, in fact, the severity of punishment should be almost precisely the *opposite* of what you see above. The stock market con artist should be looking at spending most of the rest of his natural days behind bars, the middle two drug offenders should be given the option of rehab if they have a problem and otherwise let go and the first person should never even find her day disturbed by the police at all.

Cheers
Aj

[betenoire]

I wish I could remember who said this, because it was the most sensible one-line argument against the "war on drugs" I've ever read.

Why do they feel they have the moral high ground? All they’ve done is make bad people rich. (Talking about supporters of the war on drugs)

[JustJo]

There is some huge ass number of folks in CA prisons and jails who have been convicted on non-violent drug offenses (many of them male POC). How about, they ALL get to go free and we end the stupid fucking 'war on drugs'.

Thank you. The number of non-violent offenders in prison nationwide who are there purely for drug offenses is insane.

As a society it would be far cheaper (not to mention more humane and sensible) to provide rehab services.

Prisons are big business...big, profitable business. That's scary.

[DapperButch]

Two quick things to clarify...unless there has been an update to this information (which there certainly could have been):

1) Weiner did not say what he was going to treatment for and I don't believe that he has claimed sexual addiction.

2) The 17 year old was from Delaware and supposedly told "authorities" (whatever that means) that she did have contact with Weiner, but that he did not say anything inappropriate (meaning, sexual) to her at any time.

Did anyone hear anything different from the above today (don't want to give misinformation)?

[Toughy]

As a society it would be far cheaper (not to mention more humane and sensible) to provide rehab services.

There is some assumption that if you are in jail for drugs, you are a drug addict. I do not buy it. Not everyone who does legal or illegal drugs is addicted or needs rehab.

I am a believer that ALL drugs be made legal. Yep...legal heroin, coke, crack, other white powder and smoke. Regulated, taxed and safe ways to get safe product. It's a frigging waste of money and time and resources to keep them illegal.

[betenoire]

I am a believer that ALL drugs be made legal. Yep...legal heroin, coke, crack, other white powder and smoke. Regulated, taxed and safe ways to get safe product. It's a frigging waste of money and time and resources to keep them illegal.

It'd be safer for the people who are using the drugs -and- for everybody else if it were legal.

Seriously. Splash out a zillion safe-injection sites and watch the HIV rates drop. And the death rate. And the fucked up forever rate.

[JustJo]

There is some assumption that if you are in jail for drugs, you are a drug addict. I do not buy it. Not everyone who does legal or illegal drugs is addicted or needs rehab.

I am a believer that ALL drugs be made legal. Yep...legal heroin, coke, crack, other white powder and smoke. Regulated, taxed and safe ways to get safe product. It's a frigging waste of money and time and resources to keep them illegal.

I fail to see how saying we should provide rehab services implies in any way that everyone who uses drugs is an addict. Providing does not equal requiring....it simply means making them available to those who need them, yes?

[AtLast]

It's bizarre. I understand that politicians speak in generalities but this has gotten elevated to something creepy. It's not quite as bad as what's below but I'm not really stretching things too badly:

Moderator: So, Ms GOP candidate, do you think that hospitals should be able to turn away the same-sex partner of a patient because that doctor or nurse doesn't consider them family?

GOP candidate: I believe in strengthening the traditional family which is a man and a woman.

Moderator: What specific proposals do you have for ameliorating the trouble in the housing market?

GOP candidate: We don't need government in the housing business. If we let the free market drive the housing business then it will work out the best solution.

Moderator: Do you support non-discrimination laws in housing or employment?

GOP candidate: I believe that the free market will reward companies that behave well and punish companies that behave badly.

Moderator: Are there any military bases you would close or weapon systems you would like to see the Pentagon not purchase?

GOP candidate: America is free because we have the best and strongest military in the world. I support our troops.

Moderator: Are there any non-military functions you think the government should be involved in?

GOP candidate: Throughout American history we've seen that we do best when we embrace free market principles.

Moderator: What place do you think religion should have on public policy and law?

GOP candidate: America was founded as a Christian nation and our rights come from God.

Now, is there anything above that you think is too over-the-top to come out of the mouth of some GOP pol when asked one of those questions? I took some of those answers, nearly verbatim, from the GOP presidential debate last night. Those answers are empty. They are mantras not responses. One would not be stretching the matter too much if you were to imagine a GOP call and response chorus"Jobs?" "Free market!" "Pollution?" "Free market!" You get the idea. The GOP has become a party of theology. By that I mean that they have completely divorced their ideology from the real world. It simply does not *matter* what the empirical facts are any longer. All that matters is that they believe it to be true and that is enough for them. Anyone who does not believe is an infidel.

Cheers
Aj

Yes, infidels, every one!

What you speak to in terms of mantras and empty GOP cheerleading resonates with me. I see it with the Dems at times during elections as well and it just plain angers me. Say something often enough, it gains truth status- even in the face of solid research data that refutes it. This is the dumbing-down of the general voting public rhetoric within politics today that leaves me seething.

Believing that the free market system will self-correct to the benefit of anyone that is not wealthy is just plain false. In fact, this very free market system is at the root of our economic strife right now for the general US population. And the very people that shout out the perils of government regulation and size live totally outside of the same reality of middle, lower-middle and working class people.

I can struggle internally about some of government restrictions on small business- and I am talking about real small businesses- not S status businesses that make tens of millions of dollars in profit each year and enjoy tax exemptions that if applied to median income people would make a very big difference to them. Some regulation does get in the way of small businesses being able to keep their work force employed- but the big, multi-national S corps making record profits in the billions are withholding job creation in the private sector and are the ones that profit by relocation in other countries. Franchisees like, your local Ace hardware, for example, do have a hell of a time staying afloat these days in paying an inordinate amount of taxes as compared to giants of industry like Shell Oil, etc.

The free market system benefits a very small group of elite corporations at the top- not the businesses most of us interact with in our everyday lives.

But, I digress.. yes, the mantras prevail and for the life of me, I did not see one thinking human being on that stage Monday night that had a substantive proposal to actually create more jobs that the US can look foreword to having in the future in a very different time than post-WWII. What worked economically then, will not now and we have to face this truth.

Without keeping talent that gets educated in the US only to return to another country due to our insane immigration/citizenship policies along with accepting that science and technology is the present and future economic road to advancement- we are not going to get out of this economic rut. Our educational system is very broken and we are the laughing stock of the world in terms of this. We can't allow mediocrity to prevail in our schools- we do need the best and the brightest teaching in our schools which means much higher standards and pay for our educators. And this is going to take much more in early childhood education bolstered with quality supports for at risk kids. Trying to change things later in schools is just stupid- start from pre-school ages (the least respected and paid educators in the US). And we need to face the fact that not every kid is “college material” and there is nothing wrong with this- but build trade education and apprenticeship programs up.

When are we going to call out the mantra cult-like state of our politicians and say ENOUGH? I don't believe this will change, however, until or unless we have publically funded election systems and stop all private contributions. Silly me. I can’t help but think about what the billions of dollars spent on elections in the US could mean for building a state of the art educational system that actually is equal in opportunity and addresses the skills and potential contributions of all children. I know, I’m a dreamer.

[iamkeri1]

I can not believe that F++++++ Anthony Weiner resigned!!!

I can not believe that the F++++++ Democrats pushed him to resign!!!

One of the strongest liberals in Congressed has been forced to lay down his cudgel and go home.

Seems I remember when Democrats were liberals. What the f+++ happened?

So now the f++++++ Republicans have yet another weapons to use against the Democrats. Amazing how those family values a+++++++ hold other people to higher moral standard than they hold themselves.

S+++!!!

Can you tell I'm upset?

Smooches,
Keri

[GoddessJess]

I love how I can sit here and read so many different posts written so many different way and a lot of them say the same thing. Politics is a twisted game. I cant remember a single time when I remember hearing the truth...the first time around...It's always Oh I diddnt do it then...oh yea I did! It cracks me up. As far as republicans and democrats and liberals and the tea party (wich just the name cracks me up) they all have one common goal and thats their own agendas! Gay rights, abortion, the markets, the economy these are all touchy subjects, I think they just try to find the touchiest of them all, wich seems to be sexting latly, find the biggest affected crowd and then side with them! It's like a sick cat and mouse game...under what egg will the attention fall today?
Prisions are overcrowded, hell yes they are...rehab services?? I have known a lot of people that went to rehab and well they diddnt turn out so great!
My idea..in all my infinite wisdom...PUT THEM TO WORK!
give them tents and stick them someplace where there is work to be done! build something, clear something hell for once in your life do something that the tax payers are paying for anyways!
I love that guy in AZ that stuck them all in pink and made them work for a living!
I'm just sayin!

[Toughy]

I love how I can sit here and read so many different posts written so many different way and a lot of them say the same thing. Politics is a twisted game. I cant remember a single time when I remember hearing the truth...the first time around...It's always Oh I diddnt do it then...oh yea I did! It cracks me up. As far as republicans and democrats and liberals and the tea party (wich just the name cracks me up) they all have one common goal and thats their own agendas! Gay rights, abortion, the markets, the economy these are all touchy subjects, I think they just try to find the touchiest of them all, wich seems to be sexting latly, find the biggest affected crowd and then side with them! It's like a sick cat and mouse game...under what egg will the attention fall today?
Prisions are overcrowded, hell yes they are...rehab services?? I have known a lot of people that went to rehab and well they diddnt turn out so great!
My idea..in all my infinite wisdom...PUT THEM TO WORK!
give them tents and stick them someplace where there is work to be done! build something, clear something hell for once in your life do something that the tax payers are paying for anyways!
I love that guy in AZ that stuck them all in pink and made them work for a living!
I'm just sayin!

Are you serious or is this a bit of tongue in cheek?

[dreadgeek]

I love how I can sit here and read so many different posts written so many different way and a lot of them say the same thing. Politics is a twisted game. I cant remember a single time when I remember hearing the truth...the first time around...It's always Oh I diddnt do it then...oh yea I did! It cracks me up. As far as republicans and democrats and liberals and the tea party (wich just the name cracks me up) they all have one common goal and thats their own agendas!

Okay so what do you replace politics with? It's all well and good to say "all politicians are after their own agenda" or "politics is a twisted game" but it is quite another thing altogether to suggest something to replace politics. So what's your suggestion or is the point not to think about a better way of doing things but to just blast it all as sucking?


Gay rights, abortion, the markets, the economy these are all touchy subjects


Okay and what are your suggestions?


, I think they just try to find the touchiest of them all, wich seems to be sexting latly, find the biggest affected crowd and then side with them! It's like a sick cat and mouse game...under what egg will the attention fall today?
Prisions are overcrowded, hell yes they are...rehab services?? I have known a lot of people that went to rehab and well they diddnt turn out so great!

I have known people who went to prison and that didn't work out so great either. I can offer you any number of examples where people went to prison and were put to death and then, later on, it was discovered that the person was innocent. How well did THAT work out?


My idea..in all my infinite wisdom...PUT THEM TO WORK!
give them tents and stick them someplace where there is work to be done! build something, clear something hell for once in your life do something that the tax payers are paying for anyways!

Does that include the white collar criminals who, for instance, crash the economy 100 million dollars a year still wasn't enough money?


I love that guy in AZ that stuck them all in pink and made them work for a living!

Well, if you love that sheriff then you would be positively giddy with glee over the conditions in Soviet gulags (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag). Say what you will about the Soviet Union, they knew how to build a prison. Given your two statements on crime and criminals, you would've loved it. A non-trivial portion (up to half by some accounts) of prisoners never even saw a trial, they were arrested, put on a train to Siberia and into the gulag they went. None of that messy mucking about with rights of the accused, trial by jury, evidence, reasonable doubt--the Soviets didn't have any truck with that, no ma'am. If you were going to go to prison, you were going to go to prison and unless you were the child of a Politburo member any trial you got was fair only in the sense that anyone else who *also* wasn't an elite would have much the same fate as you. Once in the gulags the most common causes of death were disease, starvation and being worked, quite literally, to death. That sound about the way you think it should be done.

Put them in tents in Arizona, make them work hard without adequate food, water or sanitation and let nature take its course. Sound about what you're envisioning?

So based upon your love of Mr. Arpaio, I can surmise what kind of state you would like. You do realize, though, that any state that sustains the kind of prison system you describe either isn't a constitutional republic or is in the process of not being one any longer? It is like empire, you can have an empire or you can have a republic but you can't have both. Likewise, you can have an republic or you can have a prison system that Stalin would be proud of but you can't have a gulag system AND remain a republic. The logic here is straightforward. So let's say that we get the kind of prison you and Mr. Arpaio think is appropriate. Let us also say that there are people, yours truly included, who might think that such a legal system was uncomfortably close to the Soviet one and had some strong words for it. Is it beyond imagination that some sheriff might decide to pick up some protestors as they leave? Might it be the case that, since we've thrown out all the legal protections given the accused because they frustrate you, that they lock these people up on trumped-up charges? Might it be possible that others will protest the arrest of these political prisoners? How many times do you think it takes before people get the message "don't speak up about the legal system or else the cops will come get you"?

Starting to sound familiar? I'm not going to pull a Godwin violation and say that what you are describing sounds uncomfortably like Nazism because it doesn't. I AM going to say that what you are describing sounds uncomfortably like the kinds of things that totalitarian states do. Is that what you want, a non-democratic state? Given your statement about politics, perhaps you do. Say what you will about totalitarian states, the politics are fairly straightforward and easy to understand--support the dictates of the Leader or else.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Are you serious or is this a bit of tongue in cheek?

After this long in these communities, do you really need to ask that question, my friend?

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

I wonder how long it will take for Americans to decide that being a constitutional republic is just too demanding and that perhaps, we should have a less open, less republican form of government and go for something with a lot less emphasis on messy legal niceties like the rights of citizens, avoidance of cruel or unusual punishment, or social cohesion. I ponder this because in the last couple of decades I've seen a lot of anti-republican talk and it appears to be increasing.

Consider that non-trivial numbers of citizens now think that trial by jury, the accused having rights, the police having to follow rules, warrants for searches and prisons that are not concentration camps are undesirable things. Consider that non-trivial numbers of citizens believe that the First Amendment, particularly the parts of freedom of conscience (religion), does not apply to Muslims. Consider that non-trivial numbers of citizens believe that Article VI, Section III of the Constitution which states, in part, "..no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" does not apply to Muslims and may not apply to atheists either. Consider that non-trivial numbers of citizens believe that torture is acceptable. Lastly, consider that vast numbers, perhaps even majority given the way we dialog about politics, think that they get to have their own facts and that facts and opinions are synonymous (they aren't).

Now, it may be the case that it all adds up to nothing at all but if *I* were either a Muslim or Hispanic I would probably have one eye on the exits at this point. Any one of those items taken in isolation would be disconcerting, all of them taken together and then considered in the light that one major party espouses ALL of the above and it doesn't look good.

Cheers
Aj

[Toughy]

After this long in these communities, do you really need to ask that question, my friend?

Cheers
Aj


laughin.......I know I know.......but in the spirit of community building I thought I would ask...

it does appear she has been drinking :koolaid:

[Toughy]

SCOTUS is at it again:

Wal-Mart wins Supreme Court sex-bias ruling

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110620/us_nm/us_walmart_lawsuit

[dreadgeek]

laughin.......I know I know.......but in the spirit of community building I thought I would ask...

it does appear she has been drinking :koolaid:

It's funny because every few days I see or read some quote or hear someone on the news espousing this or that position and I think "oh, so THAT is what the death of a republic sounds like". The really sad thing is if we lose our republic, we will have done this to ourselves--slowly, surely, incrementally we have inflicted the many wounds our country is suffering on ourselves. As tempting as it might be to blame the Arabs, or the Muslims, or the Japanese, or the Chinese, or Latinos or the French, this is largely a nightmare of our own making.

No Arab convinced Americans that trial by jury, rights of the accused, right to be informed of your rights, right to face your accusers, or the right of habeus corpus was an inconvenience or stupid or a waste of time and taxpayer money. WE did that. In not remembering WHY the cops have to read you your Miranda rights, we decided that it was just another example of our 'coddling' criminals by telling them that they have the right to remain silent in the face of police questioning.

No Muslim convinced Americans that cruel and inhumane punishment is a sign of barbarism and that torture is both cruel and inhumane.

No Japanese convinced Americans that it would be better to slay a thousand innocents, wrongly accused, than to allow a single guilty man walk free instead of what had traditionally been the idea upheld in this country that better a thousand guilty men walk free than that a single innocent man be killed in the name of justice.

No Chinese convinced Americans that our prisons should be places that would be very recognizable to people in the Soviet Union or should put one in mind of a medieval jail.

No Frenchman convinced Americans that things like public education, prisons or any of a number of other pieces of societal infrastructure would be better provided by corporations.

No, the worst things facing our nation, the things that keep me up at night, are almost all self-inflicted.

Cheers
Aj

[apretty]

I love that guy in AZ that stuck them all in pink and made them work for a living!
I'm just sayin!

GoddessJess:

That "guy" in Arizona makes women give birth shackled to a hospital bed. His prisoners have died of the heat exposure, after requesting shade or water or after collapsing and being ignored. He supports racial profiling and his own people were recently caught smuggling drugs and people for Mexican drug cartel. If you care about women, or people at all--You'll educate yourself and rethink your support of Joe Arpaio.

Much more information found by googling phoenix new times sheriff joe (the new times is the local indie paper).

[Glenn]

[QUOTE=dreadgeek;362280]It's funny because every few days I see or read some quote or hear someone on the news espousing this or that position and I think "oh, so THAT is what the death of a republic sounds like". The really sad thing is if we lose our republic, we will have done this to ourselves--slowly, surely, incrementally we have inflicted the many wounds our country is suffering on ourselves.

+1 Correct.
Seems like we are acting like romans just before the fall. . Sometimes I see the futility of it all and just say f*** it.

[dreadgeek]

GoddessJess:

That "guy" in Arizona makes women give birth shackled to a hospital bed. His prisoners have died of the heat exposure, after requesting shade or water or after collapsing and being ignored. He supports racial profiling and his own people were recently caught smuggling drugs and people for Mexican drug cartel. If you care about women, or people at all--You'll educate yourself and rethink your support of Joe Arpaio.

Much more information found by googling phoenix new times sheriff joe (the new times is the local indie paper).

Having a sheriff like Arpaio seems like a fantastic idea--right up to the point where it actually exists. I understand the emotional catharsis of the sentiment "yeah! screw those criminals! They all deserve it, dying of heat exhaustion is too good for 'em!" Yet, that's all it is good for--emotional catharsis. From the moment I heard of Arpaio I knew he would become a folk hero because, as a nation, we are in love with bully figures. All Arpaio is is a bully with a badge and license to use deadly force. I wonder how many people who look at Arpaio as a hero would like to spend time in a Soviet-era gulag. I ask because what Arpaio is doing is constrained ONLY by the Constitution--imagine, if you will, what this man would do if there weren't that messy, messy, document standing in the way of 'good ol' fashioned brutality'.

I think that these types of characters are appealing if one cannot imagine oneself being on the business end of their nightstick. As a black woman I *can* imagine what would happen to me in Arpaio's district. One of his deputies might decide that I don't 'look' American enough and haul me in. I might be locked up and, if some Americans had their way, that would be all she wrote for me. No trial, if the cops pulled me over then I must've done *something*. No chance to defend myself--that's just a waste of time and money. No evidence need be presented--the cop said I did X so I must have done it. And if it turns out that they got the wrong woman but I've already died while wearing one of Arpaio's pink jumpsuits well, people are just so many eggs that one might have to break in order to make omelets.

Utopians--whether they are of the left or the right--create truly terrifying scenarios whether they realize it or not. The people who admire Arpaio and wish that our criminal justice system were informed by his methods are utopians.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

[QUOTE=dreadgeek;362280]It's funny because every few days I see or read some quote or hear someone on the news espousing this or that position and I think "oh, so THAT is what the death of a republic sounds like". The really sad thing is if we lose our republic, we will have done this to ourselves--slowly, surely, incrementally we have inflicted the many wounds our country is suffering on ourselves.

+1 Correct.
Seems like we are acting like romans just before the fall. . Sometimes I see the futility of it all and just say f*** it.

I understand the sentiment. What pulls me back is I take a look at my granddaughter and realize that she deserves better than a nation that decided that of all the possible models of criminal justice to use, a Soviet-style gulag would be best. My little princess deserves much, much better than that.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

SCOTUS is at it again:

Wal-Mart wins Supreme Court sex-bias ruling

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110620/us_nm/us_walmart_lawsuit

Can we just declare ourselves a corporate theocracy and get it over with? Please? The suspense is killing me!

Cheers
Aj

[AtLast]

Now, here is a blog that represents the worst of the worst in the homophobic poliotical realm- And this article is centered on the B-F dynamic specifically!

http://baptistsforbrown2008.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/when-a-woman-is-a-daddythe-filth-of-butchfemme-sodomites/

[Andrea]

Now, here is a blog that represents the worst of the worst in the homophobic poliotical realm- And this article is centered on the B-F dynamic specifically!

http://baptistsforbrown2008.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/when-a-woman-is-a-daddythe-filth-of-butchfemme-sodomites/

At first I was laughing at the shear stupidity of this and then my stomach started turning and the laughing stopped. :annoyed:

Andrea

[Novelafemme]

Now, here is a blog that represents the worst of the worst in the homophobic poliotical realm- And this article is centered on the B-F dynamic specifically!

http://baptistsforbrown2008.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/when-a-woman-is-a-daddythe-filth-of-butchfemme-sodomites/

Oh dear. I have no words.

[AtLast]

At first I was laughing at the shear stupidity of this and then my stomach started turning and the laughing stopped. :annoyed:

Andrea

Awful, isn't it.

[Linus]

I was tempted to put this in the :| thread cuz it made me go... :blink:


Source: Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201106280010)

We have within our country 12- to 20-million illegal aliens, with Mexico the primary source, and millions of others who may be U.S. citizens but are not truly Americans. As one fan told Plaschke, "I was born in Mexico, and that is where my heart will always be."

Perhaps he should go back there, and let someone take his place who wants to become an American.

Exactly what is an American? I mean, I'm contemplating making the USA my new adoptive home but if I become an American and don't count, why would I?

[Corkey]

Dear lord the lunacy
Bachman said that John Quincy Adams was a founding father. HE was 15 you nimrod! OY!

[T D]

Now, here is a blog that represents the worst of the worst in the homophobic poliotical realm- And this article is centered on the B-F dynamic specifically!

http://baptistsforbrown2008.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/when-a-woman-is-a-daddythe-filth-of-butchfemme-sodomites/

Talk about offensive!!!! *wow*

This is one of those things that's so outrageously offensive it took a minute to really believe it was said. :|

[Liam]

Now, here is a blog that represents the worst of the worst in the homophobic poliotical realm- And this article is centered on the B-F dynamic specifically!

http://baptistsforbrown2008.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/when-a-woman-is-a-daddythe-filth-of-butchfemme-sodomites/

They misquoted their own Bible, poor ignorant Baptists. How convenient that they left out liars and slanderers. How come liars can get married in a church, and queers can't? I don't get it.

[theoddz]

I know this is a few months old, but it's the complete speech by Michael Moore to the worker protesters in Madison, Wisconsin this past March. I'm watching this....ALL nearly 30 minutes of this, and I can't help but think about my history lessons in high school and college and remember what happened that brought about the Russian revolution and the rise of the USSR.

I'm not thinking so much about the actual results of that revolution asmuch as this video/speech makes me think about how the Russian people rose up against much the same political/class structor that brought the royal family and aristocratic society of old Russia down and brought in the USSR.

I'm looking at this in the sense of the energy that starts this kind of revolt. The rhetoric, thoughts and energy here has to be nearly the same as what the socialists ("socialism" isn't necessarily a negative thing to me, btw, so don't think I'm talking about that in a negative sense). Take a look and watch the whole thing. Really. What do you think??? I'm interested in hearing what you good folks think.

Thanks!!! :)

wgNuSEZ8CDw

~Theo~ :bouquet:

[dreadgeek]

A couple of weeks ago, there was a post singing the praises of vigilante justice and bemoaning all of the rights that the accused receive. It was stated that on the island the poster grew up on, there was no law enforcement and no prisons. If someone did something to you, your family did something to their family. This was offered as the more desirable way of handling crime and punishment.

For those with the "shoot 'em all" mentality, I offer you this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/01/cory-maye-to-be-released-_n_888454.html

MONTICELLO, Miss. -- After 10 years of incarceration, and seven years after a jury sentenced him to die, 30-year-old Cory Maye will soon be going home. Mississippi Circuit Court Judge Prentiss Harrell signed a plea agreement Friday morning in which Maye pled guilty to manslaughter for the 2001 death of Prentiss, Mississippi, police officer Ron Jones, Jr.

Per the agreement, Harrell then sentenced Maye to 10 years in prison, time he has now already served. Maye will be taken to Rankin County, Mississippi, for processing and some procedural work. He is expected to be released within days.

Maye's story, a haunting tale about race, the rural south, the excesses of the drug war, the inequities of the criminal justice system and a father's instincts to protect his daughter, caught fire across the Internet and the then-emerging blogging world when I first posted the details on my own blog in late 2006.

Shortly after midnight on December 26, 2001, Maye, then 21, was drifting off to sleep in his Prentiss duplex as the television blared in the background. Hours earlier, he had put his 18-month-old-daughter to sleep. He was soon awoken by the sounds of armed men attempting to break into his home. In the confusion, he fired three bullets from the handgun he kept in his nightstand.

As he'd later testify in court, Maye realized within seconds that he'd just shot a cop. A team of police officers from the area had received a tip from an informant -- later revealed to be a racist drug addict -- that there was a drug dealer living in the small yellow duplex on Mary Street. It now seems clear that the police were after Jamie Smith, who lived on the other side of the duplex, not Maye or his live-in girlfriend Chenteal Longino. Neither Maye nor Longino had a criminal record. Their names weren't on the search warrants.

Maye would later testify that as soon as he realized the armed men in his home were police, he surrendered and put up his hands. There were three bullets still left in his gun. But Maye had just shot a cop. And not just any cop. He shot Officer Ron Jones, Jr., the son of Prentiss Police Chief Ron Jones, Sr. Maye is black; Jones was white. And this was Jefferson Davis County, a part of Mississippi still divided by tense relations between races. Maye was arrested and charged with capital murder, the intentional killing of a police officer.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that America went the vigilante route espoused by this poster. Where would Mr. Maye be? In a coffin. What if we still had the law but the "convict 'em and shoot 'em" ethic that is *also* espoused here? Where would might we find Mr. Maye then? In a coffin.

But *because* Mr. Maye could appeal and *because* more evidence could come to light, Mr. Maye lives, he lost 10 years of his life but he still lives. He can now have the rest of his life. Is that worth the tax dollars? Without doubt.


Cheers
Aj

[Andrea]

A couple of weeks ago, there was a post singing the praises of vigilante justice and bemoaning all of the rights that the accused receive. It was stated that on the island the poster grew up on, there was no law enforcement and no prisons. If someone did something to you, your family did something to their family. This was offered as the more desirable way of handling crime and punishment.

For those with the "shoot 'em all" mentality, I offer you this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/01/cory-maye-to-be-released-_n_888454.html

MONTICELLO, Miss. -- After 10 years of incarceration, and seven years after a jury sentenced him to die, 30-year-old Cory Maye will soon be going home. Mississippi Circuit Court Judge Prentiss Harrell signed a plea agreement Friday morning in which Maye pled guilty to manslaughter for the 2001 death of Prentiss, Mississippi, police officer Ron Jones, Jr.

Per the agreement, Harrell then sentenced Maye to 10 years in prison, time he has now already served. Maye will be taken to Rankin County, Mississippi, for processing and some procedural work. He is expected to be released within days.

Maye's story, a haunting tale about race, the rural south, the excesses of the drug war, the inequities of the criminal justice system and a father's instincts to protect his daughter, caught fire across the Internet and the then-emerging blogging world when I first posted the details on my own blog in late 2006.

Shortly after midnight on December 26, 2001, Maye, then 21, was drifting off to sleep in his Prentiss duplex as the television blared in the background. Hours earlier, he had put his 18-month-old-daughter to sleep. He was soon awoken by the sounds of armed men attempting to break into his home. In the confusion, he fired three bullets from the handgun he kept in his nightstand.

As he'd later testify in court, Maye realized within seconds that he'd just shot a cop. A team of police officers from the area had received a tip from an informant -- later revealed to be a racist drug addict -- that there was a drug dealer living in the small yellow duplex on Mary Street. It now seems clear that the police were after Jamie Smith, who lived on the other side of the duplex, not Maye or his live-in girlfriend Chenteal Longino. Neither Maye nor Longino had a criminal record. Their names weren't on the search warrants.

Maye would later testify that as soon as he realized the armed men in his home were police, he surrendered and put up his hands. There were three bullets still left in his gun. But Maye had just shot a cop. And not just any cop. He shot Officer Ron Jones, Jr., the son of Prentiss Police Chief Ron Jones, Sr. Maye is black; Jones was white. And this was Jefferson Davis County, a part of Mississippi still divided by tense relations between races. Maye was arrested and charged with capital murder, the intentional killing of a police officer.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that America went the vigilante route espoused by this poster. Where would Mr. Maye be? In a coffin. What if we still had the law but the "convict 'em and shoot 'em" ethic that is *also* espoused here? Where would might we find Mr. Maye then? In a coffin.

But *because* Mr. Maye could appeal and *because* more evidence could come to light, Mr. Maye lives, he lost 10 years of his life but he still lives. He can now have the rest of his life. Is that worth the tax dollars? Without doubt.


Cheers
Aj

Although one such story is sufficient reason to eliminate the death penalty, in my opinion, there seems to be a great number of similar situations in the news in recent years.

Yes, some times it feels as if the criminal has more rights than the victim, but some times it is the 'criminal' that is the victim, and I would want all those rights available to me if I found myself in that situation.

Thank you for posting this, Aj.

Andrea

[dreadgeek]

Although one such story is sufficient reason to eliminate the death penalty, in my opinion, there seems to be a great number of similar situations in the news in recent years.

Yes, some times it feels as if the criminal has more rights than the victim, but some times it is the 'criminal' that is the victim, and I would want all those rights available to me if I found myself in that situation.

Thank you for posting this, Aj.

Andrea

Thank you. It always does my heart good when people can put themselves in the situation of someone wrongly accused of a crime and say to themselves, "what rights would I want to have in my favor if I were in that situation". It is even better when folks can then extend that out to encompass actual criminals.

I think that criminals and victims of crimes have the same rights. The difference is that criminals don't *respect* the rights of others.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

[FONT="Book Antiqua"][SIZE="4"][COLOR="Black"]I know this is a few months old, but it's the complete speech by Michael Moore to the worker protesters in Madison, Wisconsin this past March. I'm watching this....ALL nearly 30 minutes of this, and I can't help but think about my history lessons in high school and college and remember what happened that brought about the Russian revolution and the rise of the USSR.

I'm not thinking so much about the actual results of that revolution asmuch as this video/speech makes me think about how the Russian people rose up against much the same political/class structor that brought the royal family and aristocratic society of old Russia down and brought in the USSR.

I'm looking at this in the sense of the energy that starts this kind of revolt. The rhetoric, thoughts and energy here has to be nearly the same as what the socialists ("socialism" isn't necessarily a negative thing to me, btw, so don't think I'm talking about that in a negative sense). Take a look and watch the whole thing. Really. What do you think??? I'm interested in hearing what you good folks think.

Thanks!!! :)


Honestly, one of the things that has driven me crazy the last two decades or so is how astoundingly stupid the wealthy have been. Jobs have been shipped overseas and at the same time the wealthy have bought into this Ayn Rand philosophy that *any* social welfare or business regulation or taxes is nothing more than the 'parasites' (her words, not mine) trying to milk the John Galt's of this world. The complete stupidity of doing the former while enacting policies based on the latter seems to me to be a perfect recipe for a historical disaster.

Something the West hit on during the 20th century was that the middle-class is a stabilizing presence in democracies. Look, let us all admit that we're not going to all have the wealth of Gates or Winfrey or, for that matter, a hedge fund manager or member of the Senate (every one a millionaire). But if you came from humble beginnings, you might be able to get a job and eventually get yourself into the middle-class. If you were middle-class you could pass on something to your kids, who might do a little better than you did. The poor had something to shoot for--something that was attainable if jobs were present and unions kept wages high. Was it perfect? No, but it was workable.

Then this Rand meme grabbed the imagination of American conservatism and off to the races they went. Our current woes are rooted in the short-sightedness of the ruling economic and political classes. They are enabled by the general fecklessness of American liberalism which, at some point, forgot its organized labor roots and lost blue-collar Americans.

The thing that makes me shake my head is that it didn't and doesn't have to be this way. Good schools, a sense of shared sacrifice, a recognition that patriotism is far more than shouting "USA! USA!" and a willingness to actually, I don't know, apply the law to all and we could turn this around. That is why I appreciate what Moore and Van Jones are trying to do. They are trying to get the middle-class and the working-class to join up in a common cause so that those voices will be heard--or if they are summarily ignored, at least we know where we stand.

The political elite of a democratic republic that are not, at least, attuned to the will of the public is no longer either. It is probably safe to say that clear majorities of Americans believe that the oil companies should no longer have their subsidies, that corporations should not be able to hold their profits made offshore beyond the reach of the IRS, and that we should not be maintaining an imperial military abroad. Now, the question becomes will the political elites be responsive to that. If they aren't when the last fires are put out and the last kangaroo court has closed up shop, they will only have themselves to blame for the wreckage of the nation.

Do any of those folks look like people who want revolution for the sake of revolution? No. If those people didn't fear for their jobs, their homes, did not feel that every break went to the people at the top and corporations and thought that their children would do a little better than them that they would even turn out? I don't think they would.

"I am on the social-democratic left with regard to domestic economic policy: “democratic” because I do not see how one can fully nationalize an economy without creating an enormous and repressive state apparatus, “social-democratic” because I believe that without a measure of practical equality with regard to fundamental human needs, freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose." (Michael Berube)

Cheers
Aj

[Ebon]

:|

Original Article (http://jezebel.com/5819322/bachmann-signs-anti+porn-pledge-saying-blacks-were-better-off-during-slavery)

Bachmann Signs Anti-Porn Pledge Saying Blacks Were Better Off During Slavery

Avatar for Irin Carmon Irin Carmon —Bachmann Signs Anti-Porn Pledge Saying Blacks Were Better Off During SlaveryMichele Bachmann, it will not shock you to learn, is the first Republican candidate to sign a pledge to be the most socially conservative candidate to walk the plains of Iowa. The document itself is a thing of beauty.

As an artifact of the current socially conservative philosophy, the tenets are nothing new — anti-gay, anti-choice, obsessed with sexual mores — but it's notable in its pseudo-feminist language and bizarre references to science. A casual observer might accidentally mistake it for something other than bigotry.

Think Progress points out that the pledge includes an anti-pornography call; we'd add that it lumps it in with sex slavery, trafficking, and abortion under "humane protection for women and the innocent fruits of conjugal intimacy." With this, and all the talk of "stolen innocence," and the conflation of women in combat roles with sexual exploitation and sexual harassment with Don't Ask Don't Tell (really), women are given roughly the same amount of agency as embryos.

Speaking of biology, look who's anti-science now! You are, gays who were born this way.

Jack and Jill Politics also points out the creepy and racist language about African American families:

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President.

"Given that families were broken up regularly for sales during slavery and that rape by masters was pretty common, this could not be more offensive," writes Cheryl Contee. Surely we can blame this on the gays.

[AtLast]

The continuing drama "on the Hill" over the debt-ceiling is one BIG piece of political shit going on. Here is an OpEd from the Post that is interesting in terms of Obama invoking the 14th Amendment and ordering the Treasury to lift it by Executive Order. I know very well that this would errupt into calls for impeachment (plus who knows what else- he is taken to task for going to the bathroom as far as I'm concerned) by the GOP, yet, it does call out the ultra-right and the Tea Party congressional members on all their "get back to the Constitution" line of bull. I saw vander Heuvel interviewed about this piece last night and as usual, she has some damn good points!

Invoke-the-14th Katrina vanden Heuvel

Editor and publisher of the Nation magazine, vanden Heuvel writes a weekly column for The Post.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/invoke-the-14th--and-end-the-debt-standoff/2011/07/01/gHQAUif8yH_story.html?wpisrc=emailtoafriend

[Melissa]

Now, here is a blog that represents the worst of the worst in the homophobic poliotical realm- And this article is centered on the B-F dynamic specifically!

http://baptistsforbrown2008.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/when-a-woman-is-a-daddythe-filth-of-butchfemme-sodomites/

This is a satire site. Click on some of the links. The link to the no sin zone is a hoot.

Melissa

[Jess]

from: http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/wildlife/article1180112.ece

fav quotes in red

Everybody knows what the tea party members oppose. High taxes. Big government. Obama's health care plan. High-speed rail.

Now, for at least some local tea party members, there's one more to add: manatee protection.

A Citrus County tea party group has announced that it's fighting new restrictions on boating and other human activities in Kings Bay that have been proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

"We cannot elevate nature above people," explained Edna Mattos, 63, leader of the Citrus County Tea Party Patriots, in an interview. "That's against the Bible and the Bill of Rights."

Federal officials "want to restrict the entire bay," she contended. "They don't want people here."

Last week, Mattos, who says she has 800 members signed up on her group's website, and other tea party members picketed outside a public hearing on the new rules. Because they weren't allowed to bring their signs inside, she said, "my anger took over" and she sent a sharply worded e-mail to thousands of tea party members across Florida, urging them to write to Congress to block the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Then, on Tuesday, Barbara Bartlett, who identified herself as a tea party member, told the Hernando County Commission that the federal wildlife agency had no business sticking its nose into Citrus County. But parts of Kings Bay have been a federal wildlife refuge since 1980.

Tea party members are far from alone in opposing the new rules. The Crystal River City Council and Citrus County Commission contend the new regulations will be bad for the local economy.

Kings Bay, famed as the one place in Florida where humans can swim with and even touch the manatees, is facing a renewed battle over how much protection for manatees is too much. That argument has been going on there since Jacques Cousteau featured Kings Bay's manatees in his 1972 documentary Forgotten Mermaids.

When the first sanctuary rules were put in place in 1980, there were about 100 manatees there. Now federal officials estimate that more than 550 manatees use the bay year-round, and in the winter more than 100,000 people show up in Crystal River to see them.

But of the 16 boat-related deaths that have occurred in Kings Bay, 13 happened in the past decade, and half of those were in the summer.

"I don't know of a more dangerous place for manatees in the summer," said Pat Rose of the Save the Manatee Club.

New rules proposed by the wildlife agency last month would end the controversial summer water sport zone, which allowed fast-moving boats to zoom through Kings Bay.

If approved, all of Kings Bay would become a refuge, and a set of temporary rules posted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service this winter would become permanent. The rules enabled the federal agency to establish closed areas or other rules anywhere in the bay, as situations arise.

For instance, federal officials can establish temporary no-entry areas lasting up to two weeks if a cold front hits before the manatee season begins, or after the manatee season has closed, to prevent manatees from being harassed in Kings Bay. They're accepting public comments on the proposal through Aug. 22.

To Mattos, what the agency has proposed will erode private property rights. She predicted they will prevent people who own waterfront land from tying up boats at their docks "because you can't have anything that interferes with the manatee because they'll get trampled on."

Rose called that argument "dead wrong." People whose property sits on a manatee sanctuary — where boat traffic is not allowed — may have to get stickers on their boats allowing them exclusive access, but that's it, he said.

Current regulations have helped boost the manatee population from 100 to 500, so clearly they're sufficient, Mattos said. In fact, in her view, the manatee rules tie in to global development issues.

"We believe that (federal regulators') aim is to control the fish and wildlife, in addition to the use of the land that surrounds this area, and the people that live here and visit. … As most of us know, this all ties in to the United Nations' Agenda 21 and Sustainability."

Agenda 21 is a program, adopted by the U.N. in 1992, to encourage countries around the world to promote only development that does not harm nature. Pundit Glenn Beck and other conservatives have attacked it as an attempt to impose world government's rules on every aspect of American lives. The Citrus County tea party group's website says Agenda 21 is "designed to make humans into livestock."

Mattos said she enjoys showing off the manatees to her grandchildren, but she had little use for the Save the Manatee Club, explaining, "If some of these environmental movements had been around in the days of the dinosaurs, we'd be living in Jurassic Park now."

Times staff writers Barbara Behrendt and Logan Neill and Times researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.

[tapu]

I always want to write to these people and say, since heterosexual men statistically rape women and molest children in higher numbers than any other group we should just ban all heterosexual men from the classroom.

Melissa

That reminds me of something I ran across in print a while ago: Let's put all men in jail. We'll get rid of nearly all violent crime, and there won't be any spit on the streets.

[dreadgeek]

I remember, when all of this Tea Party stuff started a couple of years back, I recall Tea Party spokespeople, their apologists and fellow travelers all saying that the TP was in no way identical to the Republican party. Can someone explain to me, since the Tea Party seems to match the GOP agenda of the last two decades word-for-word, how they are different?


from:
"We cannot elevate nature above people," explained Edna Mattos, 63, leader of the Citrus County Tea Party Patriots, in an interview. "That's against the Bible and the Bill of Rights."




Against the Bible, I'm willing to believe but against the Bill of Rights? Really? How many times does this or that ultra-conservative have to get a non-trivial point of Constitutional content or American history completely, utterly, totally wrong before people will stop believing the myth that conservatives but not liberals, are the true keepers of the American flame?


The Citrus County tea party group's website says Agenda 21 is "designed to make humans into livestock."

Mattos said she enjoys showing off the manatees to her grandchildren, but she had little use for the Save the Manatee Club, explaining, "If some of these environmental movements had been around in the days of the dinosaurs, we'd be living in Jurassic Park now."



Make humans into livestock? Really? When will the media start calling this kind of stuff out for the absolutely insanity it most manifestly is?

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

now thats some crazy %$)*!!!

I could hear people try to argue that he isnt being homophobic because he didnt attack gays just because we are gay...he attacked us because we werent legally married in a traditional way. He was inclusive to add single women who arent married but are pregnant...

oh but wait Sir...why just the women? What about the male teacher who impregnates someone without benefit of marraige...

no?

so, its not gays and hetero unmarried couples you are after...

its gays and single het women.

hmmm....


And the straight women have to be pregnant to get banned? So it doesn't count if unmarried people are having sex, or if married people are having sex with someone other than their spouse. I'm afraid that, pretty quick here, there will be no one qualified to be a teacher.

[Nat]

BKUkOybtKrA

This racist, sexist viral political ad against Janice Hahn backfired. Some are speculating the ad helped her win due to it's offensiveness. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/did-the-most-offensive-viral-ad-ever-give-janice-hahn-the-election/2011/07/13/gIQABJBbCI_blog.html)

It made my head spin. :/

[*Anya*]

Sometimes I am embarrassed to be an American. My head does spin around when I read and hear shit like this. I have family in the UK that just can't believe some of the for-real things that they hear about us!

Honestly, I can't either. The Tea-baggers, oh excuse me, the "Tea Party" is such a joke. The truly sorry thing is that they have the following that they do and that so many Americans do not have critical-thinking skills and whatever that they hear on Fox news- they take as the truth.

I am fixing my hair right now (as femmes are wont to do) & listening to a new political add on CNN. A big load of BS to me but I know right now someone else listening is saying: "Oh, yes, that is true".

[AtLast]

BKUkOybtKrA

This racist, sexist viral political ad against Janice Hahn backfired. Some are speculating the ad helped her win due to it's offensiveness. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/did-the-most-offensive-viral-ad-ever-give-janice-hahn-the-election/2011/07/13/gIQABJBbCI_blog.html)

It made my head spin. :/

GOOD! Keep the back-firing going! Sometimes I still can get a little hope going in the midst of what is going on in the US political machine.

I fear that the 2012 General is going to be a brutal mess with this kind of garbage. And there are so many people hurting in the US. People that deserve a government that gives a damn about most of us being able to just live and work and take care of our families.

Get ready for more racist ads- these jerks won't stop.

[Corkey]

GOOD! Keep the back-firing going! Sometimes I still can get a little hope going in the midst of what is going on in the US political machine.

I fear that the 2012 General is going to be a brutal mess with this kind of garbage. And there are so many people hurting in the US. People that deserve a government that gives a damn about most of us being able to just live and work and take care of our families.

Get ready for more racist ads- these jerks won't stop.

I love the mute button personally.

[AtLast]

Any one else having a hard time with the debt-ceiling fiasco going on? I have had it with the political posturing (of both major parties, although the GOP wins my assbite award) and lack of regard for the real fear that the common people in the US will face if it is not raised. This is no joke.

Then again, if we default and services cease- it will probably take not being able to buy beer or cigerettes to get people to demand action- just like in Minnisota right now. Can you believe this? Social services that are to protect kids, police protection and fire services, etc. don't matter as much as these 2things do?

Sometimes I just want to scream!!!

[tapu]

Any one else having a hard time with the debt-ceiling fiasco going on? I have had it with the political posturing (of both major parties, although the GOP wins my assbite award) and lack of regard for the real fear that the common people in the US will face if it is not raised. This is no joke.

Then again, if we default and services cease- it will probably take not being able to buy beer or cigerettes to get people to demand action- just like in Minnisota right now. Can you believe this? Social services that are to protect kids, police protection and fire services, etc. don't matter as much as these 2things do?

Sometimes I just want to scream!!!


Yes. I was talking to someone here recently about the reasons behind the lack of activism--or even acknowledgment--that is evident in the people suffering the most from this recession. It took a depression last time before people rebelled. I've been looking for the seeds of uprising on the net but there's not a lot of cohesiveness yet. I want to jump on something when I can find a group that seems capable of organizing something with impact.

[Corkey]

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/14/7084882-muzzle-tov

Can't help it, this cracked me up!

[AtLast]

Yes. I was talking to someone here recently about the reasons behind the lack of activism--or even acknowledgment--that is evident in the people suffering the most from this recession. It took a depression last time before people rebelled. I've been looking for the seeds of uprising on the net but there's not a lot of cohesiveness yet. I want to jump on something when I can find a group that seems capable of organizing something with impact.

yes, there needs to be a rebellion other than the Tea Party crowd. A common sense, reality-based rebellion that believes in compromise and working together without all the damn political posturing. I'm so sick of everything being about the nearest election cycle and who will win. No one is winning.

Congress has actually had 7 months to deal with the areas being discussed during this insane debt-ceiling debate. It should not even be debated!!

[Vanessa Emma Goldman]

I'm not surprised. This is just the sort of thing that sexual repression does to folks.

Remember, the GOP is lead by people who keep getting caught in (same and opposite) sex scandals, practice serial marriage ("honey, I know you're kinda busy here in this hospital bed, but I want a divorce"), use taxpayer dollars to visit girlfriends in other countries, hold fundraisers at lesbian bondage clubs, and held a convention in Tampa, aka the Strip Club Capital of America.

linkyloo (http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-q/2010/05/strip-club-capital-welcomes-gop.html)

The GOP is PINO - Puritanical in Name Only.

yep, the Republicans are the party of "Do as we say, not as we do!"

[Vanessa Emma Goldman]

Paladino's a fucking nut job. His platform seems to be "I'm angry and I have stupid ideas". That's it.
And let's not forget that the repugs killed TANF, effectively firing 240,000 Americans. They want to find jobs for Americans, my ass!
linkyloo (http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/10/01/conservatives-just-killed-240000-jobs/)

"We are angry and we have stoopid ideas" should be the Official Slogan of the Republican Party.

complete with the misspelling of "stupid."

[Nat]

0PAJNntoRgA

[DapperButch]

0PAJNntoRgA

Wow. Jackass.

[AtLast]

I'm not surprised. This is just the sort of thing that sexual repression does to folks.

Remember, the GOP is lead by people who keep getting caught in (same and opposite) sex scandals, practice serial marriage ("honey, I know you're kinda busy here in this hospital bed, but I want a divorce"), use taxpayer dollars to visit girlfriends in other countries, hold fundraisers at lesbian bondage clubs, and held a convention in Tampa, aka the Strip Club Capital of America.

linkyloo (http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-q/2010/05/strip-club-capital-welcomes-gop.html)

The GOP is PINO - Puritanical in Name Only.

Yes, the "family values folks!"

[iamkeri1]

This is so astonishing to me, that I posted it on two different threads. Talk about head-spinning - thought my neck was going to SNAP over this one.
Smooches,
Keri

Please note - this bill was introduced BY A WOMAN!!!!
AZ Introduces Bill Allowing Employers to Fire Women for Using Contraception

Posted by Kevin Farrell (http://unicornbooty.com/blog/author/kfarrell/) on Mar 14, 2012 in Genital Warfare (http://unicornbooty.com/health/genital-warfare/) | 10 comments (http://unicornbooty.com/blog/2012/03/14/az-introduces-bill-allowing-employers-to-fire-women-for-using-contraception/#comments)
Share461 (http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Funicornbooty.com%2Fblog% 2F2012%2F03%2F14%2Faz-introduces-bill-allowing-employers-to-fire-women-for-using-contraception%2F&t=AZ%20Introduces%20Bill%20Allowing%20Employers%20 to%20Fire%20Women%20for%20Using%20Contraception%20 %7C%20Gay%20Blog%20%7C%20Gay%20News&src=sp)







http://cdn.unicornbooty.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/AZ-Introduces-Bill-Allowing-Employers-to-Fire-Women-for-Using-Contraception-300x197.jpg (http://cdn.unicornbooty.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/AZ-Introduces-Bill-Allowing-Employers-to-Fire-Women-for-Using-Contraception.jpeg)The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6-2 Monday to endorse a controversial bill (http://www.statepress.com/2012/03/12/senate-judiciary-committee-endorses-controversial-contraceptive-bill/) that would allow Arizona employers the right to deny health insurance coverage for contraceptives based on religious objections.
Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment.
“I believe we live in America. We don’t live in the Soviet Union,” Lesko said. “So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom and pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs.”



It all sounds rather condescending and Arizonish when you put it like that, but there’s more to this bill than meets the eye.
Arizona is an at-will employment state, which means bosses can fire you just because. The type of employer who wishes to deny women access to contraception unless absolutely medically required to do so (think ovarian cysts) is the type of employer that may give women a pink slip for failing to provide medical records showing a non-birth control necessity for well, birth control.
In short, if your boss objects to you taking the pill, under Arizona House Bill 2625 your boss is protected by the law in terminating your employment.
Jezebel’s Erin Gloria Ryan has a fantastic piece up explaining this all far better than I’m able to. (Because I’m leaving for the airport, not because I lack ovaries.) Go read it. (http://jezebel.com/5893011/law-will-allow-employers-to-fire-women-for-using-whore-pills?tag=pill-baby-pill)
Please, dear readers, make a giant stink about this. Share this. Spread the word. The war on women in our country is bizarre and real and very much happening. Attention gays, stand up for the women standing up for you.
How is this real life?

[AtLast]

I am just plain discusted with the far right's attacks on women via politics. Brings me back to pre Roe v Wade decision as an activist in my 20's and all the struggles. I am hopeful with seeing young women standing up as we did back the- and my grandmother before me for the right for women to vote. This battle is never really won, even with a large cadre of feminist men coming up with us. Letting down our guard always seems to bring these attempts to push women back.

I feel like whe women become complacent, even take things for granted as "always being so," misogyny seeps back into our lives. But, the current right wing legislative ploys are just plain alarming.

[tonaderspeisung]

H.R. 5736: To amend the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 to authorize the domestic dissemination of information and material about the United States intended primarily for foreign audiences, and for other purposes.

or as the article asserts - lifting the propaganda ban

buzzfeed article - http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/congressmen-seek-to-lift-propaganda-ban?utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Buzzfeed&utm_campaign=BuzzFeed%20Daily%20Email

bill text - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr5736/text

i think the us population is already inundated with propaganda and adding this amendment seems almost silly
but it's also given me pause - so what's the purpose - possibly the death knell of critical thinking?

[Licious]

It is surreal to watch all this happening. Throwing in my two cents...

I was a young feminist in junior high and high school, I was so grateful when family planning became readily available.

I remember Roe V. Wade being settled.

Many younger people do not remember:

Women trying to get adequate birth control.

Women trying to save up money to get an abortion and have their friends
drive them to another state.

Poor women going to secret abortion clinics, also called "butcher shops"
and getting infections, or worse.

Desperate young teens trying to abort themselves, getting hurt and often
dying, (hence the old "coat hanger" insignias).

It was great, the issue of abortion was finally settled and family planning clinics opened up, and women could move on to issues of equal pay, education, glass ceilings and working to liberate less fortunate countries.

If you had told me this would ever slide backwards, at that time... I would have not believed it. As I grew older, however, I read many a cautionary tale, some historical, some fictional, all with the same message. History can repeat itself.

The saying "Freedom is not Free" is terribly overused and many equate it with war. I feel it means freedom requires vigilance and ongoing work.

The right wing types are clever; they can't just overturn this at the Federal level, so they are working state by state.

To say I am aghast at the numerous bills going through all over the country - is an understatement.

"Head-spinning" describes it perfectly.

[Cin]

How the Corporate Media Obscure the Truth About Mitt Romney's 'Vulture Capitalism' at Bain

The media's knee-jerk hostility to criticism of Wall Street is muddying the waters.
June 3, 2012 |

Were it not such a sad statement about how superficial our political discourse has become, the indignant defenses of Bain Capital by self-flattering “centrists” in the media would be almost comical.

The simple reality that has been totally obscured in most of the coverage of what has been reduced to a “political flap,” is that finance is what's known as an “intermediary good” – it doesn't produce anything directly. It can -- and does -- stimulate the larger economy. But the financial sector can also extract wealth from the real economy, at a cost.

The lion's share of Mitt Romney's fortune was made doing the latter through leveraged buy-outs (LBOs), a reality that Romney doesn't like to talk about on the campaign trail. Instead, he wants to talk about Staples, or Sports Authority -- two among a small handful of his venture capital deals -- and just about every mainstream media report elides the distinction between those very different things.

Perhaps the media, like much of the American public, doesn’t understand what LBO artists like Romney really do. Here’s a quick refresher.

Venture capital deals represent a very basic free-market transaction. Investors put money into a company at its early stages in exchange for a share of the company. If the start-up doesn't pan out, the investors lose their stake; if it grows and matures, they make a healthy profit. In venture capital deals, investors only make a profit when the company they put their cash into does well.

Leveraged buy-outs are a different creature entirely. LBO firms also deal with risky companies – usually those struggling to stay afloat – but they don't actually take on much risk themselves as they structure the deals so that they profit whether the target company becomes healthy and grows, or collapses, often under the weight of debt piled onto it by the private equity firm itself.

Here's how the deal works. The leveraged buy-out firm will put down a fraction of the cost of buying an ailing company. The balance of the transaction is borrowed, but the debt goes onto the books of the target company, not the private equity firm – the struggling company basically finances the lion's share of its own sale.

The target company's debt payments then increase significantly, and that debt service is written off, reducing its tax burden a great deal. This subsidy increases short-term revenues (at the expense of long-term debt) and that, in turn, is paid out to the firm's investors along with a fat stream of management fees that Romney and his partners skimmed off the top.

(The industry-standard structure of these deals is known as “2 and 20.” Management gets 2 percent of the capital they invest as a fee, and 20 percent of the profits that the fund realizes. That 2 percent represents between two to four times what the average management fees for a mutual fund usually run, and is collected regardless of how the fund does.)

This is a win-win deal for the leveraged buyout firm. A recent study by researchers at the University of Chicago estimated that the average tax benefit of these companies' increased debt-loads in 1980s equaled “10 to 20 percent of firm value,” which, as Mike Konczai noted recently, “is value that comes from taxpayers to private equity as a result of the tax code.

Now look at how this story has been covered. Let's focus on CNN, which is supposedly the most “neutral” of the cable news outlets.

Consider a remarkably obtuse “Letter to the President” penned by CNN political correspondent Tom Foreman – “an Emmy award-winning journalist whose experience spans more than three decades.” The thrust of it was that Newark Mayor Cory Booker “spoke truth to power” when he said he was “nauseated” by Democrats' criticism of Bain. Of course, nobody knows what was in Booker's heart, but we do know that he got $565,000 in campaign funds from Wall Street to get elected, with at least $36,000 coming from Bain and its employees, and in that context one has to be willfully naïve to jump to the conclusion that he was just speaking the truth as he sees it.

Then there was host Christina Romans saying that “what private equity does” is “comes in, cleans up a company, sells it, or moves it forward.” When Bain “cleans up” companies, more often than not it means looting pension funds, laying off workers, and saddling the firms with huge amounts of debt before flipping them.

Another anchor, Ashleigh Banfield, attacked Ben La Bolt, the Obama campaign's press secretary, saying, “Ben, come on, you and I also know that he had plenty of success, as the Washington Post has outlined many successes... that Bain Capital has had in creating jobs, in saving people's companies from going under.”

But Bain Capital was not in the business of creating jobs, or even saving companies over the long-term. Its model had a relatively low rate of success. A study by Deutche Bank found that 33 out of 68 major deals cut on Romney's watch lost money for the firm's investors. Its richest deals made up for the flops, however, and Bain's partners were guaranteed hefty fees regardless of how the businesses they “restructured” ultimately performed.

That gets to a crucial difference between venture capital and leveraged buy-outs. With the former, the private equity firm only makes money if the companies it invests in succeed. By using loopholes in the tax code, LBO firms are essentially guaranteed to make money – for their partners, if not always their investors – regardless of how their investments do. Yet David Gergen suggested on “Out Front with Erin Burnett” that attacks on Bain are attacks on “free enterprise.” “There has been, as you know, an anxiety, a fear and anger on the part of many in the business community by what they regard as a hostility toward private enterprise, toward business,” he said. “And the messages to -- that many are taking away from the president's campaign right now is not just about Bain Capital. It's about people who are in private sector.”

Erin Burnett crowed about a study, which found that “companies bought out by private equity firms lose about one percent of their workforce.” For Burnett, those layoffs “support the more positive view of private equity which is that firms like Bain take over weak or faltering companies where everyone might lose their jobs, build a stronger company where the remaining jobs are more stable.” But as Paul Krugman noted, “The real complaint about Mr. Romney and his colleagues isn’t that they destroyed jobs, but that they destroyed good jobs.”

When the dust settled after the companies that Bain restructured were downsized — or, as happened all too often, went bankrupt — total U.S. employment was probably about the same as it would have been in any case. But the jobs that were lost paid more and had better benefits than the jobs that replaced them. Mr. Romney and those like him didn’t destroy jobs, but they did enrich themselves while helping to destroy the American middle class.

And Burnett was echoing Bain's own talking points. The firm has claimed that only 5 percent of the companies it acquired went bankrupt “while under our control.” As the Washington Post pointed out, those were “the operative words in the Bain statement” That's because, as the Wall Street Journal discovered, once saddled with mountains of debt, more than four times as many companies with which Bain was involved – 22 percent – “either filed for bankruptcy or liquidated by the end of the eighth year after Bain invested.”

We hear a lot about how this is a good debate for the American people to have. And it should be. We should consider how our financial sector has become bloated, swimming in capacity the larger economy doesn’t need. Historically, it’s grown and contracted along with the business cycle. When the economy was going gang-busters and businesses were expanding, it was there to provide capital and insurance and connect investors with entrepreneurs and innovators. Then, when the business cycle took its inevitable turn and the economy slowed down, it would contract. But as the Associated Press noted, "when the Internet bubble burst in 2000, the sector never stopped growing. Instead, it ballooned over the past eight years to around 10 percent of the U.S. economy, puzzling economists."

We should also have a discussion of the influence the financial sector has on the behavior of the rest of the corporate economy. The original function of the financial markets -- to link investors’ capital with innovative firms -- has been turned on its head by Wall Street. Today, corporate behavior is very much dictated by the markets -- quarterly earnings, stock prices and the like -- and not the other way around. That’s not a good thing.

Lawrence Mitchell, a professor of business law at George Washington University, notes in his book, The Speculation Economy, that a survey of CEOs running major American corporations found that almost 80 percent would have "at least moderately mutilated their businesses in order to meet [financial] analysts’ quarterly profit estimates."

Cutting the budgets for research and development, advertising and maintenance and delaying hiring and new projects are some of the long-term harms they would readily inflict on their corporations. Why? Because in modern American corporate capitalism, the failure to meet quarterly numbers almost always guarantees a punishing hit to the corporation’s stock price.

These dynamics are epitomized by leveraged buy-out artists like Mitt Romney. So, yes, this would be a very valuable discussion to have, but the traditional media's mewling about people daring to criticize Bain, and their instinctive deference to Big Finance, are doing more to obscure the issue than illuminate it. And that's preventing us from having a real debate.

[Nat]

This isn't capital-P Political but it still spins my head and ties into my feelings about the current political climate:

Man cited for littering after cash to panhandler hits ground (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/05/man-cited-for-littering-after-cash-to-panhandler-hits-ground/1?csp=obinsite#.T94yI4l5nTo)

John Davis says he was cited for littering, which carries a $344 fine, rather than for giving money to a panhandler, which carries a much smaller penalty.

Davis, who pleaded not guilty on Tuesday in a Cleveland court, tells WJW that he was pulled over by a police officer after handing the money to the panhandler, who was in a wheelchair and holding a religious sign.

"Obviously he's needing some money or he wouldn't be out there," he told Fox 8.

Davis says court costs alone could run as much as $500, not including attorney fees.

"I never thought that a couple dollars could turn into a couple hundred dollars or whatever it may be at this point," Davis tells WJW-TV.