Monday, December 6, 2010

One Thing I Love About Republicans...

One Thing I LOVE About Republicans....

I consider myself a Democrat, even though I would love to have the balls to call myself a true, blue Libertarian/Green Party die hard, (a hippy at heart.) However, I do admire the Republicans. WHY, you say? Well, here it is....not once in the pathetic eight years of the Bush administration, do I remember Republicans outwardly bitching about Bush. Not only that, they wouldn't have been caught dead grabbing pitchforks and declaring "injustice" of their figure head if he had chosen to do something that they even THOUGHT went against their party. I truly believe he could have pissed on the White House lawn, in full view of the media and the party would have found a way to spin it into "giving back" to the Earth. A fiscal conservative Republican who cringed at the idea of racking up a huge deficit by going into what they believed was an unjustified war, wouldn't say a damn word publicly that could damage the beloved leader of their party! Why?...because, apparently, they are having secret meetings and they all understood the power of "party cohesiveness." The power to BE in power lies the groups' unsaid, undying, unyielding power to stick together, through thick and thin....never an ill word muttered.

I love my democratic brothers and sisters...but it feels like we stand on our soapbox and want everything to be perfect..."But he promised"...."But he said he would fix it!" ....we whine with our hippy ideologies of a perfect world.

How bout this....if you're going to be on the team, then play the game. We, the big hearted Liberals, have to give up our self-righteous ideals, put a helmet on, on take one for the team. That means standing up for the best you got...because there is no such thing as a perfect politician, but we can't even stand behind the best starting line we've had in years. I'm not going to be a fair-weather voter anymore. I'm going to cheer for my team to the bloody end and not compromise team spirit by bitching about who's starting, who's coaching, or what the odds are....I will, however, bitch about the fans who won't even cheer at the game because the odds are against us. No longer will I be the parent who parent who consoles her child after the game with emotional hugs and encouragement like, "It's not who wins the game, honey, it's how you PLAY the game." You're damn right, it's how you play the game...and it's time we take a page from the Republican play book and play hard!! You can't always change the rules....and I'm freaking sick of losing!!!!

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Tuesday, September 7, 2010


Does it hold any meaning? Do you feel anything on the days that lead up to 9/11?

I wanted to try something a little different with this post. Let's leave politics alone for a moment and let's get real. What do you feel after 9 years? Are you still angry? Do you feel vulnerable? Do you feel a sense of pride? Are you sad? All of these emotions come in to play with me still to this day.

Let's make this about comments and I want to join the mix. Remember, no politics. This is about you and what you are feeling. Begin your

Sunday, September 5, 2010

Does Your Butt Hurt When Your Pants Are On Fire Like That?

Glenn Beck has stated, and many, including my esteemed co-writer The Average American, have tried to explain that the recent rally in Washington DC was an apolitical event.

As usual, Glenn Beck is a liar-liar-pants-on-fire type.  But what else is new?

The event was held in our nation's capital.  Were all the less political locations booked?

Mr. Beck stated the "Restoring Honor" rally was in part to "reclaim the civil rights movement."  The civil rights movement was a social and political movement.  You don't talk about political movements at your apolitical event.  And don't get me started on how racist that statement sounds, that's a different blog post.

"Today America begins to turn back to God."  Hard to discuss an entire country doing something, which a large part of the population has no desire to do, at an apolitical event.

Mr. Beck bothered to lie about holding George Washington's inaugural address in his hands.  Why talk about the founding fathers and their speeches if you're not trying to fire people up politically?  His reason for lying was as old as lies themselves: "I thought it would be easier."

And, like a lot of people at political events, Mr. Beck felt the need to tell people how many showed up.  He reported 350,000 to 600,000 initially, later settling on 500,000.  Crowd photography later revealed something more like 80,000 - 87,000 attended.

Sarah Palin was there.  I don't think of her as a politician.  But she thinks of herself that way.  She was in Iowa just this week.  And the people who attended the rally think of her as a politician.  I bet Mr. Beck does.  Why are you inviting politicians to an apolitical event?

Why does it matter if Glenn Beck lies?  What is the point?  The Average American says the left misses the boat spending so much time calling his sorry pants-on-fire butt out all the time.  But a couple of comments from his post sum it up pretty well:

"Make no mistake, however. Dr. Laura, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck are socially dangerous. They preach a hateful (yes, I used the word), divisive message meant to incite groups against non-white, non-Christian, non-conservatives. And they influence people to vote for the wrong reasons with misinformation. It's intentional, and the Republican Party doesn't shut it down or disengage from it because they need the votes. Their influence is scary, as seen on the signs and t-shirts of their followers, many of whom wouldn't know the US Constitution if it bit them on their presumptuous, self-righteous hineys."  -- Sky Girl

"Second, it absolutely matters where the information is coming from. Sarah Palin makes things up. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh make things up. Simply accepting what they say as truth is ceding reality to people who have absolutely no interest in whether or not they're correct. Calling them out on the statements they make is absolutely legitimate and not at all attacking people. These are the thought leaders of the right. They should be held accountable for their statements, should they not? "  -- Nate

The source of information matters.  Like it or not, Glenn Beck and others like him, who readily lie to make their points, have an audience.  The misinformation has to be corrected by the more informed.

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

My Gift to the Left

I am going to give out some free advice today. It is my birthday, and I am feeling generous. The left had better wake up and realize that they are fighting a fight that is not winnable. While the right spends all of their time pointing out weak agenda and taking advantage of every misstep made by the current administration, the left thinks that they are taking or making a stand by attacking a private citizen(s) (albeit, high profile citizens). Be it Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin or whomever, the left LOVES to point out flaws, or what they view as flaws, in a message given by PEOPLE not politicians. In fact, Beck's message and those who spoke with him, including Martin Luther King, Jr's. niece, was virtually void of any politics AT ALL.

Here is the stance of the left, in my opinion: We think the messenger is stupid, we think the message is stupid and we think the receivers of the message are stupid for believing said message (500,000 people, btw). And if we keep saying it enough, people will think we are smart.

Am I the only one looking at the polls? Any polls? Anything that the left is in charge of is in jeopardy of being lost over the next two years. And to say anything otherwise is a joke. Are the majority of Americans idiots or has the left just not done a good enough job of showing them that the the country is actually being run the way that it should be? Because if it is, you should get to explaining the positives before November.

This is my gift to you. Now use it.

Friday, August 27, 2010

SHAMELESS!!! (I'm Talking About Glenn Beck)

While I don't agree in full with the Color of Change's Turn Fox Off campaign (after all, even hate-spreading folks like Glenn Beck have 1st Amendment rights), these points they make about Mr. Beck's and Bill O'Reilly's  racist rants deserve some reprint here, given that the nut the psycho Mr. Beck is having a little shindig at the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of one of the greatest civil rights speeches of all time.   From a letter circulating the Internet from the Turn Fox Off campaign:

A year ago, Glenn Beck called the President a racist who had a deep-seeded hatred for White people.1 In just over a week, he says he will "reclaim"2 the legacy of the civil rights movement by holding his "Restoring Honor" rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC — on the same day and place as Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech.3

You can get mad at Beck. You can protest and try to prevent him from stepping on Dr. King's honor for one day. The reality is that the next day — and five days-a-week from there on out — Beck will be back on Fox News, speaking to millions and spreading hate, lies, and fear, as he does every week.

The real problem is Fox News. Fox News gives Beck his platform, and Fox promotes his events — all despite Beck losing virtually all of his major advertisers in the last year.

Fox's rhetoric is not just divisive; it's dangerous. Last month, a heavily armed man got into a gun fight with police after he was pulled over on his way to kill people at the Tides Foundation4 — a non-profit that was little known until Glenn Beck repeatedly demonized it, claiming it to be the center of a great conspiracy.5 Last year, Kansas doctor George Tiller was gunned down while at church6 after Bill O'Reilly called him a Nazi, a "baby killer," and warned of "Judgment Day."7

SHAMELESS!!! (I'm talking about myself)

I wrote an article last week that dealt with what I thought about the mosque being built in N.Y. City. I hope that you will listen and call in to my weekly radio show this week when we get deeper into the subject. You can listen on KWAM 990 in the Memphis area, or you can listen live at Every Saturday and soon to be Sunday at 4 o'clock, p.m. I truly can appreciate all sides of an argument, and I think you will find that to be true the more you get to know me.

We will also have a live report from the Lincoln Memorial about everything that is happening there tomorrow and we will also pay tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream Speech". I know someone is going to comment "That's not the name of the speech!" I know, but everyone knows what you are talking about when you say it that way.

Join my fan page on facebook, The Average American, and remember the Average American is not Democrat or Republican, it is YOU and ME. Never be defined by a title.

Thank you,

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

The Founding Fathers and Christianity (or, stop using just another pathetic excuse to try to make me behave like you do)

Often when debating our rights to freedom of religion, I run into people who identify with conservative Christianity who want to explain to me what the founding fathers intended.  I've heard that the founding fathers never intended this to be anything other than a Christian nation.  I've heard that the founding fathers were all Christians.

Like most things, it's just people repeating what they've been told by their parents, their preachers, or their Fox News talking heads.  When you really start to read what Presidents wrote in letters, autobiographies, and speeches, you get a whole different perspective. Let me introduce you to the tip of the iceberg.

George Washington trusted others of different faiths, so much so that he allowed them to be his employees, and interact at his home, with his family.  This included Muslims.  When hiring workmen for Mount Vernon, he wrote to his agent, "If they be good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa, or Europe; they may be Mohammedans [Muslims], Jews, or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists."

He also wrote in a letter to a Jewish community, "All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."

Thomas Jefferson could not have been more clear when he was writing to establish religious freedom for the state of Virginia:

"that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty"

Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions.  It tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage.  Which at once destroys all religious liberty.  Pretty powerful stuff.

James Madison was also very clear on the issue of civil rights and religion, saying "the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed." This was later incorporated into the 1st Amendment.

Were all of the founding fathers Christians?  Would they pass the test by conservative Christians today?  Did they believe in the Bible as the literal word of God?  Benjamin Franklin, though appreciative of the moral values one can learn from Christian teachings, wasn't even sure that Jesus Christ was Divine:  "As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity:   "

As it turns out, many of the Founding Fathers were Deists.  And Deists aren't even Christians, per se.  Note how this definition even lumps Islam in there with Christianity as a faith-based religion, for those who think Islam is not an actual belief system.

Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion. Many Deists reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs, for example through miracles and revelations. These views contrast with the dependence on revelations, miracles, and faith found in many Jewish, Christian, Islamic and other theistic teachings.

Deism was a religious philosophy in common currency in colonial times, and some Founding Fathers (most notably Thomas Paine, who was an explicit proponent of it, and Benjamin Franklin, who spoke of it in his Autobiography) are identified more or less with this system. Nevertheless, several early presidents are sometimes identified as holding deist tenets, though there is no president who identified himself as a deist. Although George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Tyler, and Abraham Lincoln are often identified as having some degree of deistic beliefs,[6] most of these identifications are controversial; Washington in particular maintained a life-long pattern of church membership and attendance, and there is conflicting testimony from those who knew him.

Another example of a founding father who probably wouldn't pass the litmus test of today's conservative Christians:, John Quincy Adams left detailed statements of his beliefs, showing that he distanced himself from the branch of his church.

You see, radical right-wing conservative Christianity was never a part of the founding father's plan.  They wanted true freedom of religion and expression.  It is a more recent phenomenon that has led to conservative Christians thinking that they are somehow entitled to 1) describe themselves as the "vast majority" of Americans, even when it's clear they are not 2) pass laws regulating the behavior of everyone in the country based on their religious values and 3) use hate-based scare tactics to try to limit the civil liberties of everyone not just like them.

People who belong to this group are as free to hate as the next person.  Just stop blaming it on 9/11, or Barack Obama, or whatever, and start calling a spade a spade:  if I don't worship like you, you don't think I'm a worthy American.

Monday, August 23, 2010

Why Are Americans So Upset About The Mosque?

When I was asked to be a contributor to this blog, I was very excited. On my radio show I try to focus on the things that liberals and conservatives have in common, therefore making it easier to talk about our differences. Now, I am a staunch conservative but I have the ability understand all points of view, whether I agree or not is a different story. That is why I take such issue with the mosque being built NEAR the sight of Ground Zero. Let me make it clear (To steal one of Obama's favorite lines), I know that it is not AT Ground Zero, but it is too close for comfort for an overwhelming majority of Americans.

Let's look at history. The swastika has been around for thousands of years. It has been a sacred symbol to Hinduism, Buddhism and many others. It was used by the Vikings before Hitler's grandfathers grandfather was even thought of. Around 1920 the swastika was adopted by the Nazi party and, therefore, sealed its place in history. Generations later, the symbol is still illegal in Germany even though in its infancy, the Nazi party was only about 3% of the German population. That point is key.

Flash forward to 9/11/2001. We all know what happened and how many thousands were killed. We, as average citizens, also know that the attacks were waged by "Radical" Islam and not the religion/nation as a whole. Recent estimates say that the "Radicals" only make up about 3% of the Islamic faith. Hmmm, interesting.

It has been said over and over again, and I am one of them, that we are a country that tells Wal-Mart where they can and can't build and how they will build if allowed at all. To this day there is not a Wal-Mart in Manhattan, NY but several mosques. But there is an even deeper point. When American forces took Baghdad in, I believe, 2003, they raised an American flag. There was an outcry that started with President Bush and worked its way down. We were not there to conquer, we were not a conquering nation, we were there to help the citizens of Iraq. Now, however you feel about the war, that was our stance. We were not going to fly our flag in the face of the people, but that is exactly what is happening to us now. Muslims and the Nation of Islam are flying their flag, symbolical, in the face of the victims of 9/11 and of the American People.

I feel like I am talking to my kids when I have to say "Why do I have to be the one to tell you that this is a bad idea." Why do we have to be the ones that are understanding and sympathetic. Not one person, with any brains, is saying "You Can't Worship." In fact not one person is TELLING them, Muslims, anything at all. We are asking, pleading, don't do this here. Yes, a lot of people do see Muslims, as a whole, as the ones that attacked us in NY, at the Pentagon and in Shanksville, P.A. I think that it is up to the Muslim community to make us understand that they are not. Show us some compassion and admit that this is probably not the place to plant your $100,000,000 flag. Be understanding that we, and to a greater extent New York, are still raw. We have gotten into the legalities, but there are a lot of things that are legal to do that are not right to do. I think it would go a long way in how Average Americans view Muslims if they just stepped up and said "You know, we have every right, but this is not the place or the time." If they would do this, they would hear a "Thank you" from this American and a million others like me.

Thank you for letting me have my say.

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Why You Can't Build A Church Near Ground Zero

Like D, in the post just beneath this one, I am seriously bothered by the slippery slope so many seem to be willing to slalom down regarding a Mosque in Lower Manhattan.  Please note, I call it the Mosque in Lower Manhattan because it is not actually to be located at Ground Zero.  The media keeps referring to it as a mosque at Ground Zero, leading many to believe that the intent is to build the mosque in the crater where there World Trade Center used to be.  This is not so.

Several folks I love and with whom I usually agree are citing this article, from the Washington Post, by Charles Krauthammer, as their reasons for supporting those who would prevent a Mosque from being built in Lower Manhattan.  While the article is thoughtful and a good read, I still disagree.

Mr. Krauthammer at least expresses his opinion thoughtfully.  However, there are many hateful people out there holding up signs saying "Jesus Hates Muslims." If I truly thought the 68% of people who CNN is quoting as not wanting the lower Manhattan mosque had given this much thought tho their opinion, I don't think it would leave such a bad taste in my mouth.

But I've seen the other stories, like the one about the people who are protesting a mosque and community center being built in Tennessee. A man there actually said on the national news, "They don't believe how I believe, so I don't want it there." I think there are a lot of people in the 68% who are just bigoted against Islam. I think that's how a mosque being built in Lower Manhattan ended up being described as being "built at Ground Zero."  It's not.  It's a couple of blocks away.   How far from Ground Zero is appropriate? Can they build a project like this 10 blocks away? How about in Tennessee? Who decides?

It's definitely a complicated issue. But I worry about the fallout when we start telling any religious group where they can build a place of worship. Especially since it's happening to Muslims in more than one state.

It gives the feel of some people abusing an issue that should be sacrosanct to all Americans, the 9/11 tragedy, to promote the hate of their own agendas. As an American, that offends me to the core.

And by the way, when you limit the religious freedoms of one group, you risk the religious freedoms of all others.

Some are saying that a person associated with the Lower Manhattan community center project made statements indicating that the United States foreign policy may have had something to do with the 9/11 attacks.  Well, this is where Christians are gonna roll and tumble down the slippery slope I mentioned.  Jerry Falwell described the attack "as a judgment on America for "throwing God out of the public square."

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America," he said. "I point the finger in their face and say 'You helped this happen.' "

So any Christian who wants to build a church, chapel, place of prayer to a Christian God near Ground Zero?  Guess what.  By your own flawed logic, you are out of luck.

Those slippery slopes.  They always come back to bite you in the end.

That Whole Ground Zero Mosque Thing

First of all, let me preface this post by saying that I am writing it while I am also doing a fantasy football mock draft, and I think that's fitting, because this bullshit is not real news. It's not even very good fake news. It is, in all seriousness, some of the most retarded horse shit the media has flung against the wall in my entire life.

And just in case you don't believe me, I offer as proof that this is ridiculous bullshit, exhibit A: It is Sarah Palin's new favorite thing to tweet about.

No offense to small children and stupid people who actually look up to/care for Sarah Palin, but this asinine faux politician preening and posturing on twitter shit has got to go. I understand that as a citizen of the United States of America, Sarah Palin has just as much right to go on twitter and question the President as any other ill-informed bigot with a laptop and a nearby Starbucks, but come the fuck on. Am I the only person who realizes that this is a stupid argument? Last I checked, this is still America. And if people want to build a place of worship on private property in America, they are 100% allowed to do so, even if their chosen plot of land might piss some people off.

The idea that the President of the United States should NOT support the freedom of some Muslim people to build a mosque anywhere they damn well please is scary and idiotic. Of course the President should support the freedom of every citizen, as supported by the Constitution. Isn't that what all these tea party assholes have been screaming for more than a year now?

Of course, that line of questioning/reasoning treats the Tea Party like an actual political movement, and not just a collection of ignorant, racist, old white people who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, but that's neither here nor there. It's always fun to shine a light on hypocrisy, even when your opponents are all Forrest Gump slowtards.

So yeah, my opinion on this is as follows - saying that you can't build a mosque around ground zero because of 9/11 is ridiculous. Is it a great idea to build one there? Probably not. It's gonna stir shit and cause problems, and that sucks. But this is still America, and if someone gets a wild hair up their ass and decides they don't give a shit if they cause a few problems, then by God that's their constitutional right, provided they're not breaking any laws or infringing upon any other freedoms. Let them build the damn thing and then deal with the headaches.

But seriously, fuck Sarah Palin and her bullshit opinion that they shouldn't be able to build a place of worship near ground zero because like eight certified psychos flew some airplanes into some buildings. What a fucking asshole thing to say. It is 2010, Sarah Palin. Most of us now realize that not all Muslims are Jihadist freaks. Your shtick is tired. You're not going to be President... not now, not ever. The best you can hope for is a reality TV show, lady.

You're not Barack Obama. You're not Oprah. Hell, you're not even Kate Gosselin. You're an older, not blonde Heidi Montag with a white trash family and smaller tits. Shut the fuck up and please go away, you retarded bag of recycled shit.

Saturday, August 7, 2010

Conservatives and Women, An Odd Combination

I'll admit, I'm baffled by the women of the Tea Party.  Even some women Republicans.  The relationship between women and conservative politics never ceases to amaze me.  And here's why:

The blatant sexist language used by the men of these parties whenever they meet a strong, independent woman with whom they do not agree.  When the best you can do to disagree with Hillary Clinton is call her a bitch (Glenn Beck), you are scraping the bottom of the intellectual barrel.  You are saying there is nothing to really criticize about this person but her femaleness. It's not just Beck who's said it.  And Conservative women, why would you stand for this within your own political parties?  This degrading a woman by calling her a female dog.  Or they go a step further, and start calling women cunts.  You know, the folks who brought us the ridiculous Supreme Court ruling that corporations have freedom of speech?  Citizens United?  That group began as an anti-Hillary group called Citizens United, Not Timid.  CUNT.  Conservatives use a derogatory word for female anatomy to describe the woman herself.  And there are still women out there who choose to align themselves with these men. 

Visit the recent comments by Lindsey Graham and others, referring to how women "drop" babies.  Comparing female immigrants to farm animals, such as how a cow "drops" a calf.  I'm not wanting to start an immigration reform debate here.  I'm not even leveling a comment on whether some people come here to have a baby intentionally.  I'm just talking about the crude, derogatory language used by conservatives, in this case elected officials who represent other conservatives, to describe women who are doing things they don't like or agree with.

Add this on to conservatives, including conservative women, who want to traumatize other women for choosing to legally terminate their pregnancy.  The conservatives of the Missouri Senate want to force women to listen to a fetal heartbeat and view ultrasounds before they make the decision to have an abortion.  In other words, they've presented all of their arguments for why they think it is wrong, and if a woman still doesn't agree with their philosophical position and wants to act of her own accord with relation to her own body and health, they still want to traumatize the woman into doing what they want her to do.  It's intrusive for any woman to have to worry about what the Missouri Senate thinks when she goes to the doctor.  And their are no procedures for males that require this type of government scrutiny or involvement.

For many conservatives, women who speak up are out of place.  Women who do what they want are uppity.  Women who don't just tow the party line and help the party, in this case the Tea Party or the Republican party, get ahead, are bitches. Cunts.  Not as worthy of the same personal dignity and respect as their male counterparts.  And some women still allow themselves to be pulled into these movements.  Sarah Palin, I'm talking to you.  John McCain pulled you in like an anatomically correct doll to combat the Hillary factor, and it was a total disaster.  And when it didn't work, who had all the fingers pointed at her

Women need to think harder.  Process more. Consider the language.  Value yourselves.  Stop hanging out with people who use language like "bitch" and "cunt" every time they have a tantrum or disagreement.  Either abandon the party(ies) that treat you this way, or demand more from your male counterparts.

Monday, August 2, 2010

And Now For Something Completely Different

You can't hope the country won't go to hell in a handbasket if you keep taking a polarized position on everything.  To that end, this blog was supposed to be about furthering the discussion.  It ended up being just another liberal, polarized posting ground.

To that end, I'm inviting some conservative friends to come write.  They can counterpoint my posts, or I can counterpoint theirs.  Or we could, and I know I'm stretching here, agree on some things.

The dialogue in this country has to become civilized again.  And we're going to attempt some civilized dialogue here.

Friday, July 30, 2010

So, I haven't noticed a big change... the world since I stopped the daily blogging thing.  The Republican'ts are still saying "No."  The Dems are still infiltrated by DINOs.

We might get some reform on Wall Street.  At least that's what I'm told.

The Gulf of Mexico may never be the same.

Tom Alday is still a loser who shows up to cuss at me periodically, even when I haven't posted in months.  Visit his comment to the below post.  How pathetic.

I've turned the comments back on, without moderation.  I'm going to try to post something at least once a week. I had debated deleting the whole blog, but sometimes I still need a venue to rant.

Here's a cartoon to start your weekend:

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Thanks for Your Concern

I'm alive and well.  Appreciate the questions as to my well-being in the comments (I chose not to post them).  It still might be awhile before I'm back to full-posting speed.  Peace out.

Saturday, April 3, 2010

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

More From a US Marine on Threats of Violence

I saw this second part of Sgt. C's call for peace over at Annette's piece of the world:

A rewrite of a Marine's call for peace and pause that had been reduced into sheer irrelevance....and an apology.

(I want to apologize to all of you who posted your thoughts and feelings regarding the prior article - I de-published the article to rewrite it to this, and it will not re-publish. I understand many people put a lot of effort into those comments, as I put a lot of effort into my replies. If any of the Newsvine community can tell me how I can get the comments back , I will gladly do so. My biggest apology is for my failure as a moderator. I should have done a better part to keep the conversation to the topic at hand and avoid responding to derailing comments.)

This is intended to be a rewrite of the article that was written - because some people obviously DON'T get it.

The article I wrote yesterday was intended to be a call for peace, and a moment for pause. In all honesty, it was merely my venting after reading dozens of headlines regarding the type of violence in the US that I was more accustomed to seeing on the daily intel briefing sheets while in theater. I never expected the response I got, and I must admit while some of the comments that I received were some of the greatest thoughts and words I've ever seen - some were words I'd hope no human being would never utter to another. My family and myself were threatened, if for no other reason than because my opinions differed from someone else's. Obviously, the intent of my message was convoluted and lost. This is an attempt to correct it.

Every service member has sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. There's no grey area to that. It's as black and white as it gets.

I nor any service member wants to combat civilians in this or any other country. I don't know how many times I can reiterate that - we do not want it to happen. Even as we prepare for war, we pray for peace.

We lace up our boots every morning in an attempt to preserve the freedoms that democracy has awarded us. We all love our country, and we would give our lives to protect it and its way of life.

Military members must have faith in the system of Government, or the whole chain of command and system of military discipline falls apart. We are rarely given all of the details of our entire mission, and instead are expected to complete seemingly ambiguous tasks in support of that mission with the belief that we are doing the right thing . When we find an order illegal , we're obligated not to follow it, and report it.

So call me naive, but yes. I do have faith in the Constitution and the mechanisms inside of it to correct itself and removing people unworthy of holding office. If I didn't , I never would've taken an oath to defend it. You just can't defend part of the Constitution, or the parts you agree with. It's all or nothing. I choose to defend all of it ,even the parts I may disagree with.

Probably the most foolish choice of words I chose to use in that article were the words 'civil war' . I just shouldn't have written them. But I could think of no other way to articulate what I felt it would require for the military to become involved. A civilian uprising wouldn't be sufficient, it would require an all out civil war.

Much of the comments reflected on this poor choice of words - and successfully derailed the conversation from a call for peace and to use the democratic system to resolve our differences, to people arguing over who's side would destroy who. I'll admit, I too was guilty in that regard - and my attempt to compare military and civilian life easily came across as boisterous and hostile, even though its' intent was to be succinct and concise. For that, I apologize.

BUT DON'T YOU @!$%#ING GET IT?!? In a war, no one wins. Even if you're not wounded, it doesn't mean you leave whole. The images, the feelings, the thoughts never leave you, they're forever etched into your mind, and they become a part of who you are. It's been said that "the people who die in war are the lucky ones - they don't have to live with the memories of what transpired." As morbid as it sounds, in many cases its true.

And to what end ? What would be left AFTER this 'war' was concluded ? Would anything really change ? Or would we slowly sink back into the quagmire of the status quo, resort back to what's comfortable, and then future generations will be arguing over the very reasoning behind this conflict , just as we now debate the real reason behind the civil war ? What would our children, and their children say when they look back at this point in our history ? Seriously, what does anyone expect to gain from fighting their friends, family, neighbors over a difference of opinion ? That's what this really boils down to - people are screaming for blood because they feel differently than someone else.

If that's not the definition of madness, I don't know what is. It needs to stop. Now.

The senatorial elections are coming in November 2010. Everyone who feels passionately about this country , one way or the other, should get out and vote for who THEY think will best represent them . The same in November of 2012. This is your Constitutional right - this is your step in democracy. You get to choose who represents you and your views in the Government.

If you choose to vote using force instead, not only will you fail in your attempt, but your cause will suffer on account of your actions. You will hurt not only yourself, but also every individual who ever aligns with that cause in the future. Consider that when you're making your decision - our causes are not typically portrayed by our most noble or thoughtful members, but rather the most crude and thoughtless. They forever taint what might otherwise be a worthwhile message.

So once again, I , an NCO of Marines, call on all people both military and civilian to exercise your Constitutional rights and participate in the democratic process. I urge you to stop reacting, and start instead thinking and considering. I urge you not to immediately dismiss opinions other than your own.

I urge you to open your minds and consider that maybe, just maybe, there's not a single one of us who has all of the answers, and that includes myself.

In short, I urge all of you - to treat everyone else as you would want to be treated, whether you agree with them or not.

Sunday, March 28, 2010

At What Point Do You Cross The Line? Isn't There a Line????

We all know about the recent violence and threats of violence in the name of politics in recent days.  Bee turned me on to this one.  I'm sure there are others.  The climate out there has gotten just plain scary.

What I want to know is, when is using gun-rhetoric and violent language to promote your cause way across the line?  When do you have to stop? 

For example, if an Arabic-American who practices Islam posted a list of Democrat politicans on his/her Facbook page with crosshairs, what would happen to that person?  What if their post contained the language "it's time to take a stand." Would someone use racial profiling to call this person a potential terrorist? 

Can any citizen post this type of statement?  Can that citizen then go into the desert, rally a bunch of folks, and refer to his/her rally as a "Showdown?"  Can the individual tell people, regarding the recent violence, "Don't ever let anybody tell you to sit down and shut up, Americans!"

Can any citizen say, of a legislative decision, in a Tweet to thousands, "Don't retreat, instead -- RELOAD."

I guess the citizen can, if she is Sarah Palin.

Is there not a point at which someone is actually committing a crime here?  Is there not a point at which we arrest people for attempting to incite a riot?  Palin's recent actions might be considered illegal if most Americans attempted any of them.  They might have been interviewed by police to assess the threat.  And yet this irresponsible (illegal?) behavior is being tolerated.  Palin is dangerous, folks.  This is not a main-stream media or a liberal-blogger lie.  The woman has no discretion over her actions and is totally irresponsible.  When you applaud her, you are complicit in whatever damage may result.

U.S. Marine Sgt. Responds to Threats of Violence

I saw this first at MadMikesAmerica:

An arti­cle I wish I would never have to write — To those call­ing for a civil war, this Marine wants you to stop, and think…

By Sgt. C USMC

It’s been said that the mil­i­tary is always prepar­ing for war. That is true. We pre­pare for com­bat every day. We ran 5 miles today to the rifle range and shot nearly 200 rounds a piece at tar­gets and then ran back. How­ever, we also pray for peace. I would love one day to be com­pletely unnec­es­sary. But alas, I am a real­ist, and I know that day will never come.

The head­lines of the last week have reminded me more of glimps­ing at the S2 Daily Brief­ing Sheets while in the­ater or the Al-Jazeera than the NY Times or the Wash­ing­ton Post. Think about that for a moment, let it sink in.

Before I get into the main premise of this arti­cle — I need to make two state­ments here.

First and fore­most , when it comes to the back and forth of who did what to whom and why — I don’t give a @!$%#. It doesn’t change the action. In life we’re judged by our actions, noth­ing more, noth­ing less. One of the great­est things of the mil­i­tary is when it comes to an enemy, the pol­i­tics behind the sit­u­a­tion — don’t mat­ter in accom­plish­ing that mis­sion. For the mil­i­tary , life is sim­ple in that regard.

Sec­ondly, Regard­less of your polit­i­cal ide­ol­ogy, you’ve earned the right as US Cit­i­zens to say your piece — no mat­ter how wrong it may be. That is your right, and I will give my life to pro­tect it.

But this gov­ern­ment of ours is a democ­racy. We vote for our rep­re­sen­ta­tives, and they vote in our inter­ests. Some­times, the votes don’t go our way. That’s life, bet­ter luck next time. Exhaust your leg­isla­tive options, and then focus on gain­ing the required votes and/or seats to achieve your desired leg­isla­tive vote next elec­tion time. That’s the way things work.

But the SECOND you start com­mit­ting acts of vio­lence and van­dal­ism, then you’ve usurped that Con­sti­tu­tion. You in a way have assaulted it. And then you and I (I being every ser­vice­mem­ber who has sworn to defend said Con­sti­tu­tion) will have a MAJOR PROBLEM.

For those of you call­ing for a civil war, I implore you to stop and think about what you’re say­ing. Look around your neigh­bor­hood and your city. Now imag­ine using that ter­rain to sur­vive. Imag­ine dodg­ing semi-automatic rifle fire as you scram­ble from cover to cover, drag­ging your wounded child behind you. Imag­ine the deaf­en­ing report of a mor­tar as it strikes the ground a 150 feet in front of you, the over­pres­sure enough to shat­ter your teeth and per­fo­rate an ear drum. Try and envi­sion a Stryker rolling through neighbor’s front lawn or a F/A-18 mak­ing lazy loops over your head in Close Air Sup­port for the troops in the distance.

Now with that vision in mind, stop by your local Marine Corps base, being they will be the first mil­i­tary units you’d face in an all out ‘civil war’ . Look at them for a moment, exam­ine their ‘work envi­ron­ment’ . They’re run­ning the track, they’re climb­ing ropes, they’re grap­pelling with each other in mock hand-to-hand com­bat, and shoot­ing tar­gets while mov­ing in raid lines on a daily basis. Nearly every­one on that base, down to our ‘sec­re­taries’ has a com­bat award of one type or another, they’ve faced some of the most stress­ful sit­u­a­tions on Earth where suc­cumb­ing to the stress can get you killed, and they flourished.

Now ask your­selves and be hon­est — when is the last time you’ve run any­thing other than late to work, climbed any­thing other than a flight of stairs, grap­pelled with any­thing other than a paper jam, and shot off any­thing other than your mouth? When’s the last time you were in any sit­u­a­tion more stress­ful than a traf­fic jam?

Now I’m not blam­ing you for your career choice, not in the least. I can’t think of a sin­gle job that’s not use­ful in some way or another. I just want you to sim­ply com­pare and con­trast your work envi­ron­ment with ours and ask your­selves “Who is bet­ter suited to win this bat­tle ?” We both know the answer here, and if you doubt that answer, look at the results from Fal­lu­jah in 2004. Over 1200 of them ‘lost’ and we ‘lost only 28. That’s a ‘win-ratio’ of almost 60–1, and they’ve been fight­ing their whole lives.

Put this in another sce­nario. You and your office­mates think your local pro foot­ball team sucks , so you put together your own team of the best your com­pany has and chal­lenge them to a game. Even if your team might be good, they’re pro­fes­sion­als. This is their job. Your job is to answer phones and type on a key­board. In short, they’ve for­got­ten more than you will ever know about foot­ball. The result, will be a slaugh­ter for you, and a prac­tice for them. But at least you’ll get a chance to sit at home, ice your wounds and say ‘whew I never should’ve done that!’

Not so with com­bat. The results of com­bat are far…FAR..more per­ma­nent. There are no sec­ond chances, no time for regrets, and no do-overs. This is not Call of Duty.

Now I ‘d like to dis­perse a myth here — many of you think that US mil­i­tary would not fight civil­ians. I can’t speak for all, but in my case — the moment you declare civil war, you’re no longer civil­ians. The moment you attack the con­sti­tu­tion, you’re now ene­mies of that con­sti­tu­tion. And I swore to defend and sup­port and if nec­es­sary give my life for that Con­sti­tu­tion and uti­lize every tool, tech­nique, and weapon at my dis­posal to do so. And trust me, I’m not alone.

I hope some of you heed my words and cool the rhetoric and focus on achiev­ing your goals diplo­mat­i­cally instead of phys­i­cally. It would never want to receive a frag order to Mary­land, or North Dakota, or Texas, but it is an order I will fol­low no mat­ter how much it pains me to do so.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Using Healthcare Reform as an Excuse to Behave Badly: The Violence Has Got To Stop

3/20/10  Members of the Tea Party call House Representatives derrogatory slurs and spit on Representative Emanuel Clever (D).  A brick was thrown through the window of the office of Representative Louise Slaughter (D).

3/21/10  The House of Representatives pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 219-212 and the Healthcare and Education Affordability Reform Reform Reconciliation Act 220-211.  Representative Russ Carnahan (D) had a coffin placed on his lawn.

3/23/10  President Obama signs Healthcare Reform into law.  Sarah Palin posts targets of Democrats she wants to replace in Congress with gunsights on Facebook.

3/24/10 Someone vandalizes a propane tank at the home of Representative Tom Perriello's (D) brother after a Tea Party activist posted his address online.

3/25/10 Representative Eric Cantor (R) confirms that someone fired a bullet through the window of his Virginia campaign office.  Representative Anthony Weiner (D) confirms that someone sent him a threatening letter in an envelop that also contained white powder. Representative Ginny  Brown-Waite (R) received a death threat by voice mail. Majority Whip James Cyburn (D) received a faxed picture of a noose at his home.   The Senate passes the reconciliation bill 56-43 and sends it back to the House.

LATE ADDITION:  Apparently, nobody actually fired a bullet directly at Eric Cantor's anything.

Senate Passes Bill 56 -43

The Senate voted today on the "fix-it" bill (also called the reconciliation bill, the add-on bill, or the corrections bill) 56-43.

The bill now goes back the the House for another vote before returning to the President for his signature.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

It's Not A Moose Hunt!

Is there anyone that thinks that in this volatile climate this is even remotely appropriate?

Just Sarah Palin. Here is her “hit list” of politicians who need to be voted out of office.

First it's Emerson out encouraging the over-zealous protestors who spit on Congresspersons, and now it's Sarah Palin, with her violent gun-rhetoric.  But then, what do we expect from the party who still thinks it's ok to burn women at the stake?

hahaha George W. Bush is an asshole

Between the 0:10 and 0:14 mark, the magic happens...

Oh man, what a guy. Dubbaya (G-dub to his token black friends) will go down to Haiti for a photo op, but don't ask him to NOT notice how dirty and disgusting Haitian hands are! Come on, everyone! He is the son of a former President and rich oil tycoon! And Haitians are so gross, you don't even know! It's like they don't even shower or something, like they don't have an abundance of clean running water!

George W. Bush has the tact and class of a three year old.

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Yes We Did! History Made As Healthcare Reform Passes

It's been a long road, and many of us weren't always sure of where we were along it.

Both the Senate version of the Healthcare Reform Bill and the Reconciliation Bill have passed tonight.

Healthcare Reform, flawed as many have acknowledged that this bill may be, is a reality.  This is a major step in the right direction for the American people.

So Are You Following All Of This?

I've been watching CSPAN for hours.

I even got to see Roy Blunt (R-Missouri 7th Congressional District) talk for his 60 seconds about why he is not supporting the bill.  Don't forget he's running for Senate.

This process is equal parts facinating and frustrating.  Get over to CSPAN and check it out.

And here is what CBS news says about what's in the bill.

Voting to begin in about 40 minutes.

Jo Ann Emerson Waves "Kill the Bill" Sign

Representative (and carpetbagging lobbyist) Jo Ann Emerson (Missouri 8th Congressional District) showed just how callous she is to the needs of her district today:

"As the House was voting on an unrelated bill, Republican Reps. Tom Latham of Iowa, Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri, Brett Guthrie of Kentucky and Gregg Harper of Mississippi stood on the south balcony off the House floor — an area known informally as "the beach" — holding pieces of paper that read "kill the bill" to a group of cheering protesters. "

Tommy Sowers, a veteran running for Congress in the 8th District, told Facebook fans today that 22% of the 8th District is uninsured.

Two of the top 5 industries contributing to Rep. Emerson?  Health Professionals and Insurance.

LATE ADDITION:  Show Me Progress has a statement from the Tommy Sowers campaign, here.

Vote For the People

Tea Partiers Practice Open Bigotry and Racism in DC

There comes a time in every group's existence when it has to answer the fundamental questions of "who are we?" and "what do we stand for?"  Until now, I've been pretty clear on what the teabaggers do not want.  They do not want anything proposed by President Obama, even when those proposals are in their own best interest.  This would be true of teabaggers who paid lower taxes this year (they don't even know anything about tax rates) and/or those who would have access to better healthcare.

But is this who they are?

Demonstrators outside the U.S. Capitol, angry over the proposed health-care reform bill, shouted "nigger" Saturday at U.S. Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia congressman and civil rights icon who was nearly beaten to death during an Alabama march in the 1960s.

The protesters also shouted obscenities at other members of the Congressional Black Caucus, lawmakers said.


Protestors also used a slur as they confronted Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., an openly gay member of Congress. A writer for Huffington Post said the crowd called Frank a "faggot."

Screaming slurs wasn't enough, apparently.  Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver (D-MO) was spit on.

So this is who you are, teabaggers?  You can't articulate your arguments with any relative facts, so when push comes to shove you use the push and the shove?  If this weren't so sick I'd feel sorry for you, misguided and used as you have been by the GOP.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

About this Complete Bullshit About My Uterus

"It is the public policy of the state of Missouri that the life of each human being begins at conception, and that unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being."

Say what?  The state of Missouri is going to take a philosophical position on the question of when life begins?  Viability of a human being?  The existence of a human soul?  Say the hell what????

House Bills Nos. 46 and 434, sponsored by Bryan Pratt and Cynthia Davis, would include language that says just that.  Additionally, it would criminalize something called "coercive abortion."  This odd concept apparently involves family members, employers, partners, and physicians ganging up on pregnant women and trying to talk them into getting abortions.  It is so rampant, apparently, that we need a law against it.

This foot-in-the-door crap is just another way to try to chip away at my reproductive freedom and privacy that is guaranteed by the Roe v. Wade decision.  These folks would have you believe that women need some "unbiased" informed consent.  So the "unbiased" information needs to include, in addition to the quasi-religious philosophical statement above, the following:

The physician who is to perform or induce the abortion or a qualified professional has presented the woman, in person, printed materials provided by the department or an informational video provided by the department, which describes the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at two-week gestational increments from conception to full term, including color photographs or images of the developing unborn child at two-week gestational increments. Such descriptions shall include information about brain and heart functions, the presence of external members and internal organs during the applicable stages of development and information on when the unborn child is viable.

and this:

The physician who is to perform or induce the abortion or a qualified professional shall provide the woman with the opportunity to view an active ultrasound of the unborn child and hear the heartbeat of the unborn child if the heartbeat is audible. The woman shall be provided with a geographically indexed list maintained by the department of health and senior services of health care providers, facilities, and clinics that perform ultrasounds, including those that offer ultrasound services free of charge. Such materials shall provide contact information for each provider, facility, or clinic including telephone numbers and, if available, web site addresses. Should the woman decide to obtain an ultrasound from a provider, facility, or clinic other than the abortion facility, the woman shall be offered a reasonable time to obtain the ultrasound examination before the date and time set for performing or inducing an abortion. The person conducting the ultrasound shall ensure that the active ultrasound image is of a quality consistent with standard medical practice in the community, contains the dimensions of the unborn child, and accurately portrays the presence of external members and internal organs, if present or viewable, of the unborn child. The auscultation of fetal heart tone must also be of a quality consistent with standard medical practice in the community

and this:
Prior to an abortion being performed or induced on an unborn child of twenty-two weeks of gestational age or older, the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion or a qualified professional has presented the woman, in person, printed materials provided by the department or an informational video provided by the department that offers information on the possibility of the abortion causing pain to the unborn child. This information shall include, but not be limited to the following:

(a) At least by twenty-two weeks of gestational age, the unborn child possesses all the anatomical structures, including pain receptors, spinal cord, nerve tracts, thalamus, and cortex, that are necessary in order to feel pain;
(b) A description of the actual steps in the abortion procedure to be performed or induced, and at which steps the abortion procedure could be painful to the unborn child;
(c) There is evidence that by twenty-two weeks of gestational age, unborn children seek to evade certain stimuli in a manner that in an infant or an adult would be interpreted as a response to pain;
(d) Anesthesia is given to unborn children who are twenty-two weeks or more gestational age who undergo prenatal surgery;
(e) Anesthesia is given to premature children who are twenty-two weeks or more gestational age who undergo surgery;
(f) Anesthesia or an analgesic is available in order to minimize or alleviate the pain to the unborn child;

There's more.  If you want to read the full text of the bill, click here.

When you're at your physician's office and done with this freak-show of a guilt-trip of "unbiased" information,  then the bill would have you wait 24 hours, pondering all of this, which you have been provided in writing.  Also, posted all over the physician's office, in large writing, are the signs reminding you what felonious behaviors your partner, family members, or friends may have engaged in by talking to you about having an abortion. 

Am I the only person who isn't getting an "unbiased" feeling from this piece of legislation?  Additionally, Senator Tom Dempsey, of St. Peters, MO, wants to require doctors to ask women their specific reason for seeking an abortion.  He thinks this information would be "helpful" to policymakers.  This is a separate but related gem of legislative stupidity.  Senator Demspey, it would be helpful to me if you mind your own damn business, do the job your were elected to do, and get your head out from between the stirups in my gynecological exam room!

I come back to the bottom line where I always do on this issue.  If men could give birth, we would never be discussing this.  It is one of the great sexist issues left in our state and national governmental bodies, still controlled primary by a bunch of guys, that we can't just get that this is medical issue between a woman and her doctor and it's just none of the government's business!  For a party who is always for less governmental control, the conservatives sure do want to be involved in the most personal decisions possible in a person's life.  These new legislative proposals are complete bullshit.  Get your sexist, religious-based governing style out of my doctor's office.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Fuck Fox News in the Face Until It Dies.

(apologies in advance for all the colorful language I am about to use)

This enrages me so fucking much:

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The dude who is filling in for Keith Olberman hits the main points of why this pisses me off, but please allow me one moment to expound on his points.

First, shut the fuck up, Fox News asshole du jour! In case you didn't know, that's the motherfucking President of the United States you're talking to, you disrespectful asshat.

Sub-issue: This is the same network that told me for eight years that I was not allowed to question the Executive Branch on anything, lest I be branded a terrorist sympathizer. The twin towers fall, we support the President. The Vice President shoots someone in the face, and it's unfair to make fun of him. New Orleans washes off the map, and we can't get pissed at the President. The Vice President keeps people-sized safes in his office, and I'm not even allowed to say that's creepy, at the risk of sounding unpatriotic.

Our entire financial system collapses on Bush's watch, and Fox News blames Obama. That is like getting mad at Pampers when your baby shits itself, Fox News! Go away!


Monday, March 15, 2010


No wonder we can't agree on foreign policy in this country! 

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Marc Thiessen Extended Interview Pt. 1
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealth Care Reform

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Cry Me a River, Johnny

Chief Justice John Roberts has been out complaining lately about how President Barack Obama mentioned the Citizens United decision in the middle of the State of the Union Address.  These are the remarks Chief Justice Roberts is so upset about:

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."

Roberts showed his disapproval at the time by disrespectfully shaking his head and mouthing, "not true."  Since then, he's been out whining that the Supreme Court Justices should not have to attend the State of the Union Address.  He's pretty upset about having to sit there during the applause noted above.

Think about the Citizen's United decision.  First of all, this group was originally an anti-Hillary Clinton group, and their name was Citizens United, Not Timid.  So the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a group named CUNT.  Do we really think CUNT is interested in what is best for America?  The CUNT decision is so unpopular that almost every person you speak with, regarless of their polticial affiliation, supports legislation or a constitutional amemdement to try to fix it. 

The point of the State of the Union address is for the President to update Congress on, well, the state of the union.  It has been televised since 1947.  It is the time for the chief elected executive of our country to give a report on how our country is doing.  Since 1947, it has also become a time when Presidents promote their particular poltical agenda to the country.

The Supreme Court attends the State of the Union.  No one has complained until now.  Justice Roberts has been part of a court that has handed down an extremely unpopular decision, essentially granting freedom of speech to corporations and making coporate bribes legal, and he cannot take the heat.  He had no problem sitting through George Bush's addresses.  The judicial branch of our country should not cite judicial independence in order to get out of an uncomfortable moment in an annual traditional speech.

John Roberts's whining and crying about this makes him appear more partisan and less politically independent than his actual decisions do, if this is possible.

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Friday, March 12, 2010

The Sanctity of Marriage and using Jesus to Push Children Around

To really get into a good discussion about why gay people should be allowed to marry in the United States, one must first begin with a very basic vocabulary lesson.  When people start screaming about why gay and lesbian couples should not be treated the same as everyone else, conservatives almost always jump to "preserving the sanctity of marriage."  This is a completely flawed argument, and here is why:

From  Sanctity:   1.holiness, saintliness, or godliness.

                                                  2.sacred or hallowed character
                                                  3.a sacred thing.

From Merriam-Webster online: Sanctity:  1. holiness of life and character
                                                                                                         2. the quality of being holy or sacred

Anyone getting a theme here?  We live in a country where people are to have freedom of religion (and from religion, if they so choose).  To make an argument that an action, such as marrying two men and two women, goes against the "sanctity" of a concept, you are already using religious language.  People feel safe doing this because using one's religion to promote bigotry is somehow still safe in this country.  A politician can't just come out and say, "I don't like gay people."  But he or she feels great about saying, "I believe in the sanctity of marriage."  The holiness.  The sacred.  The religious-based right or wrongness of the act.

And there is no basis for not allowing homosexual marriage except a religious one.  The Religious Right, a group who cannot and/or will not separate their religious values from their political practices, believes that homosexuality is wrong according to the teachings of Jesus.  Therefore we shall not have gay marriage.  I'm sorry, but when did we become a country ruled by their version of What Jesus Would Do?

Take it a step further, and you have people trying to push their religious values about homosexuality onto the publically funded schools of their community.  It's bad enough that the Archdiocese of Denver has decided to outlaw children of gay people in their privately funded schools.  Their private funding grants them license to make their own rules, unless discrimination can be proven.  But this school, in Mississippi, gets taxpayer dollars to keep it's doors open.  When the loudest group of religious zealots can use their voice to push even school children around, we have a serious problem. 

If you don't like homosexuality and it's against your religion, don't hang out with gay people.  Don't attend their marriage ceremonies.  Attend a church that refuses to perform them.  Enroll your children in the Christian school of your choice (might I recommend Sacred Heart of Jesus in Boulder, CO) where gay and lesbian parents or students will not be tolerated.  But you absolutely must stop using our taxpayer money to fund your relgious bias.  And stop telling me you "hate the sin but love the sinner" while you treat some human beings with less dignity and respect than you do others.  You do not love anyone who you would deny equal treatment under the law.

If you believe that today's treatment of homosexual people will one day be looked at as we now look at the segregation of the pre-civil rights movement America, then you must speak out.  If you believe that sexual orientation is not a basis to decide whether or not a child can attend a prom, then you must speak out.  If you believe that every loving couple deserves the full benefits of marriage, you must speak out.  Speak out against every hateful act and every hateful email.  We must make the treatment of gay and lesbian people in this country a shameful part of our past. 

Thanks to the following thoughtful posts that made me finally sit down and write about something I've been meaning to for awhile:,,, and a FaceBook link from a friend to this:

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Hustling Over the Border

From The Huffington Post:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- who has gone to great lengths to hype the supposed dangers of a big government takeover of American health care -- admitted over the weekend that she used to get her treatment in Canada's single-payer system.

"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada," Palin said in her first Canadian appearance since stepping down as governor of Alaska. "And I think now, isn't that ironic?"

The irony, one guesses, is that Palin now views Canada's health care system as revolting: with its government-run administration and 'death-panel'-like rationing. Clearly, however, she and her family once found it more alluring than, at the very least, the coverage available in rural Alaska. Up to the age of six, Palin lived in a remote town near the closest Canadian city, Whitehorse.

Officials at several hospitals in that area declined to give out information on patient visits.

Two Mommies Not OK with the Archdiocese of Denver

I saw this first over Fat Jack's place.  WTF?!?!

It appears that the Archdiocese of Denver has decided that children whose parents are gay or lesbian cannot attend the Sacred Heart of Jesus School.  In part, their statement reads:

". . .what the Church does teach is that sexual intimacy by anyone outside marriage is wrong; that marriage is a sacramental covenant; and that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman. These beliefs are central to a Catholic understanding of human nature, family and happiness, and the organization of society. The Church cannot change these teachings because, in the faith of Catholics, they are the teachings of Jesus Christ."

I wonder if any children of unmarried heterosexual couples are allowed to attend there?  I wonder if the children of anyone who ever had premarital sex and confesses it are kicked out?  Can children of those who have committed adultery attend?  What about children of single adults who have consensual heterosexual sex outside of marriage?  That statement covers a lot of ground.  If they are not expelling children for all of these reasons, then they are, in fact, discriminating against homosexual people.  This would be illegal, even in a private school.

Tommy Sowers Supports Term Limits

If you've read many of my comments on other blogs, or were around back in the days of Corner of the Sky, you know I'm always harping on term limits.  I feel strongly that a federally mandated term limits are the only way to really change the way things operate in Congress.  Everyone knows that individual states cannot implement term limits successfully.  The way things are currently run in Washington, that state would never have any effective power.  We need federally mandated term limits to get rid of this idea that Congress is a career, not a temporary job serving the public interest.

Tommy Sowers is a veteran running for the House of Representatives in the Missouri 8th Congressional District.  He is the one who is finally going to boot career politician (and carpet-bagging lobbyist) Jo Ann Emerson out of office.  I was so glad to hear him out saying publically:

". . .as a challenger facing an entrenched D.C. incumbent, I face long odds. For a cancer of incumbency infects our nation. This disease has all but killed the citizen legislators our Founders envisioned. At the root of this disease sits our current Congress, the longest serving in history.
Instead of producing experienced, effective legislators, the cancer grows a partisanship of paralysis, so distasteful that moderates like Sen. Evan Bayh flee. With a game of grudges to settle when in the majority, and uniform opposition when in the minority, we, the American people, lose.

It is past time we isolate and cure this disease. This is why I support a primary treatment--term limits for Congress. Incumbents will say the ballot box serves as a term limit, plausible only if evidence could support this claim. Yet despite decades of abysmal approval numbers under 20%, we see Congress re-elected 95% of the time.

Only a Constitutional amendment would cure the cancer of incumbency. While amending the Constitution is difficult, it can be done. 63 years ago, Americans recognized an imperfect Constitution and passed an amendment to limit the terms of the President. 18 years ago in Missouri, 75% of voters supported a constitutional amendment limiting legislators to eight years in the House and Senate.

My belief in term limits also reflects a belief in the inherent quality of America. In a nation of 300,000,000, no group of 535 individuals could or should be found irreplaceable." 

You can go here to read the full article.