Reversing the Handbasket

Holy Crap, Do You Get It Now?

2011-01-09T08:32:00.004-06:00

Nothing really new to say about this. But I did add to the comments.

Crossing The Line

My thoughts are with the victims and their families, as well as the family of the mentally ill man who committed this horrible act.

One Thing I Love About Republicans...

2010-12-06T22:36:00.002-06:00

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!!!!

VOTE November 2!!!

2010-10-06T17:32:00.001-05:00

WHAT DOES 9/11 MEAN TO YOU?

2010-09-07T12:02:00.003-05:00

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 comments...now.

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

2010-09-05T08:47:00.000-05:00

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.

My Gift to the Left

2010-08-31T12:47:00.005-05:00

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.

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

2010-08-27T21:01:00.003-05:00

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)

2010-08-27T14:42:00.002-05:00

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 www.kwam990.com. 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,

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

2010-08-24T17:55:00.001-05:00

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.

Why Are Americans So Upset About The Mosque?

2010-08-23T10:59:00.003-05:00

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.

Why You Can't Build A Church Near Ground Zero

2010-08-15T11:12:00.000-05:00

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

2010-08-15T00:06:00.004-05:00

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.

Conservatives and Women, An Odd Combination

2010-08-07T16:51:00.000-05:00

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.

And Now For Something Completely Different

2010-08-02T10:55:00.000-05:00

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.

So, I haven't noticed a big change...

2010-07-30T15:39:00.000-05:00

...in 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:

Thanks for Your Concern

2010-04-15T21:44:00.000-05:00

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.

"Violence is Wrong!"

2010-04-03T11:20:00.002-05:00

More From a US Marine on Threats of Violence

2010-03-30T18:43:00.000-05:00

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.

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

2010-03-28T10:32:00.000-05:00

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

2010-03-28T09:05:00.000-05:00

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.

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

2010-03-25T19:43:00.004-05:00

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

2010-03-25T17:50:00.000-05:00

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.

It's Not A Moose Hunt!

2010-03-24T18:42:00.000-05:00

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

2010-03-24T13:26:00.006-05:00

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.

President Signs Healthcare Reform into Law

2010-03-23T19:00:00.000-05:00

Yes We Did! History Made As Healthcare Reform Passes

2010-03-21T23:10:00.000-05:00

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?

2010-03-21T20:24:00.000-05:00

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

2010-03-21T13:42:00.004-05:00

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

2010-03-21T09:28:00.002-05:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Tea Partiers Practice Open Bigotry and Racism in DC

2010-03-21T08:55:00.002-05:00

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.

(snip)

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.

About this Complete Bullshit About My Uterus

2010-03-18T22:44:00.001-05:00

"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.

Fuck Fox News in the Face Until It Dies.

2010-03-17T23:37:00.004-05:00

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

This enrages me so fucking much:

Visit msnbc.com 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!

UGH.

Delusional

2010-03-15T10:38:00.000-05:00

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

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Exclusive - Marc Thiessen Extended Interview Pt. 1

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Reform

Cry Me a River, Johnny

2010-03-14T08:58:00.001-05:00

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.

No Public Option

2010-03-13T15:11:00.000-06:00

The Sanctity of Marriage and using Jesus to Push Children Around

2010-03-12T14:08:00.000-06:00

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 dictionary.com: 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: http://madmikesamerica.com/2010/03/an-essay-on-the-separation-of-church-and-state/, http://fatjacksrants.blogspot.com/2010/03/school-cancels-prom-rather-than-allow.html, http://fatjacksrants.blogspot.com/2010/03/no-queers-in-catholic-school.html, and a FaceBook link from a friend to this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031103341.html

Hustling Over the Border

2010-03-10T20:45:00.000-06:00

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

2010-03-10T20:01:00.000-06:00

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

2010-03-10T19:24:00.000-06:00

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.

Lack of Posts Update

2010-03-08T21:23:00.002-06:00

Sorry, folks. I've had a sick kiddo for a week so I've been unable to keep up the writing. Click some of the relevant reading links and I'm sure some of my fellow bloggers have great things to say. I'll be back on track soon.

Unsavory?

2010-03-01T07:38:00.000-06:00

What say you? Is the current legislation full of too many "unsavory deals?"

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Is That You Roy Blunt?

2010-02-28T21:16:00.000-06:00

On Leadership and Smoking

2010-02-28T20:32:00.000-06:00

President Obama had his physical and was pronounced to be healthy overall.

Is anyone but me bothered that he continues to smoke? Smoking contributes to the health-care crisis in this country. Obama is the President who wants to bring us Health Care Reform. It's just not sitting right with me.

Here is one estimate about the costs of smoking:

The data in this book are based on present value of loss for men and women who are smokers at the age of 24. One factor that is distinct in this study is the calculation of “quasi-external cost,” which the authors define as the cost of freedom of choice to the family members of smokers, including children who are nonsmokers. In their longitudinal analysis of lifetime smoking, the authors estimate that the social cost of smoking, which is a sum of purely private, quasi-external, and external costs (the latter determined by excise tax) for a 24-year-old person turns out to be $39.66 per pack of cigarettes. The cost to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is substantial. The quasi-external cost of smoking to the spouse of a 24-year-old who smokes comes to a staggering $28 billion. After considering these numbers and the amount of people who turn 24 each year and smoke, the authors of this book have predicted that the national external and quasi-external lifetime cost per year is $13.8 billion for females and $32.8 billion for males. Thus, with each new cohort of 24-year-old smokers in the United States there is an additional $204 billion of lifetime costs. These staggering expenses in light of the high number of smokers in the country make a convincing argument for rethinking the issue of public health policy making. Federal and state cigarette excise taxes have increased dramatically over the years. The calculations made by Sloan and his coauthors provide an analytical reason for such increases.

Have you ever known someone who "can't afford" basic things for themselves or their children? Who can't make their utility payments or pay their court-ordered child support? Who say they need public assitance such as food stamps to get by? How do you feel when you find out these same people smoke? You can go here to see the personal cost of smoking or use their calculator for the cost of cigarettes. If I smoked 1 pack a day for the next 3 years, I would spend $4730 on cigarettes.

This post won't be popular with smokers. If you are an individual who chooses to shorten your life with smoking, you live alone, you always smoke outside, and you never plan to use Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, more power to you. Then then neither me nor anyone else will have to bear the consequences of your smoking. Except maybe your relatives who will mourn your early demise.

Right now President Obama (like all of the Congressional representatives on both sides, whether they are for government health care or not) has government health care. I'd be all for Health Care Reform that makes smokers pay more or get fewer benefits. I'd be all for Obama paying out of pocket for his medical exam and tests today. Because by choosing to smoke, you are putting yourself at risk. People understand risk better when it has an immediate financial consequence to them rather than an murky distant threat of poor health.

President Obama, this is an area where you can lead many by your example. Put down the cigarettes. Get a nicotine patch, a therapist, an electronic "cigarette" that dispenses nicotine, or whatever you need. But show people that they can stop smoking by doing it yourself. It only makes sense when your the guy who wants to change how we do health care.

Troll Alert! Troll Alert!

2010-02-28T07:13:00.000-06:00

Sorry, folks, but I've taken the step I wanted to avoid and enabled comment moderation. It make take awhile for your comments to appear, but I assure you, if they are to the point of the post and not attacking the author or other commenters, they will be posted. Thank you putting up with this, at least for awhile.

Reconciliation and Lamar Alexander's Memory Loss, Take 2

2010-02-27T12:05:00.001-06:00

Reconciliation is a procedure that's been around since the early to mid-70's. The orignial pupose of it was to balance budget bills, as linked to in this post. A reconciliation bill can be passed by a simple majority. That is why some Democrats have wanted to use the procedure to pass Health Care Reform. It would not require a filibuster-proof majority to get the bill passed. It would only require 51 votes in the Senate. The reconciliation process being discussed by Democrats for use with Health Care Reform is exactly the same reconciliation procedure used for passing budget bills.

Lamar Alexander spoke out vehemently this week in opposition to using reconciliation to pass Health Care Reform (see ...Did You Eat Memory Loss for Breakfast?). One of the many complaints of Republicans about Health Care Reform is the potential costs of the program.

Lamar Alexander has frequently voted in reconciliation process for budget bills that were unpopular with Democrats and many Americans, and had no problem doing so. One example is the Bush tax cuts, which is why they expire in 10 years. Any reconciliation bill expires in 10 years. The cost of these tax cuts? $1.8 trillion in those 10 years. Another is the deficit reduction bill that cut Medicaid spending, again wildly unpopular with many Americans (especially children whose benefits were cut, but that's another soapbox). The reason these bills have the word reconciliation in their title is that the reconciliation procedure was used to get them through.

The Republicans tried to use reconcilation to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as part of the federal budget resolution in 2006, which Lamar Alexander supported, but failed.

Lamar Alexander also voted for the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, a recoconciliation measure, and certainly a less controversial vote.

So you see, Lamar Alexander only opposes reconciliation when it is used by Democrats for something he doesn't support. He's full of crap when he says otherwise.

Obama Fail?

2010-02-26T20:39:00.003-06:00

Why I Stopped Blogging

2010-02-26T20:35:00.000-06:00

Those of you who used to hang out at The Corner know this isn't my first time around the blogging block. I used to have a blog that was a nice mix of personal and political. Some of you were regular readers. We were linked in to Blog Net News, we and even got ranked once or twice.

After the 2008 election, I decided to delete the blog and take a break. This was for two reasons in equal part.

1. Time. I work a full time job. I have two beautiful children, two dogs, a husband. I'm busy. I have a life. It takes a lot of work to keep up with a blog, if you want it to be well-written and relevant. I haven't had this blog up more than a few weeks and already it's slipping in the quality I would like it to have.

2. Negative, nasty, rude bloggers. Seriously. There are people out there who think that because conversations or discussions are taking place in the blogosphere, it's ok to insult people's intelligence, call them names, send them nasty emails, and be generally hostile. This attitude started to piss me off more and more, and I finally decided it just wasn't worth the negative energy.

I tell you this because although Reversing the Handbasket is only an infant, it's days may be short. The things I found dreary in the last days of Corner of the Sky are already dragging me down. I'm tired. I don't have enough time. And the attitudes? Well, some people just got no clue how to address their fellow human beings.

Hey, Brainless! Did You Eat Memory Loss For Breakfast?

2010-02-25T19:24:00.000-06:00

So Mr. Alexander isn't for reconciliation, huh? Let's see what his voting record says:

2003, Mr. Alexander votes for the Bush tax cuts (Measure title: To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004).

2005, Mr. Alexander votes for the deficit reduction act, which cut money from the Medicaid budget (Measure title: An original bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95).

And those are just two examples. He also voted for the Tax Increase and Reconciliation Act of 2005, providing for tax cuts on capital gains and dividends.

Perhaps he was right when he said reconciliation has never been used for something like this. He only likes to use reconciliation when it helps his rich Republican friends, not regular Americans like us.

Activism Wednesday!

2010-02-24T07:25:00.000-06:00

How do you feel about Health Care Reform? What have you done about it? Let us know.

Writting any Strongly Worded Letters? Posted them where we can read them? Link us up.

It's Activism Wednesday. Let's get busy.

Climate Change Denial Crock of the Week: "It's Cold, So There's No Climate Change"

2010-02-23T21:10:00.001-06:00

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one's behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

Cognitive dissonance is why people do not believe in climate change, and try desparately to grasp at any other explanations, despite all other evidence to the contrary.

Good Job, Bond; As Expected, Blunt

2010-02-23T18:43:00.000-06:00

Republican Senator Kit Bond (Missouri) doesn't do much that I support, but yesterday he was one of 5 Republican Senators who crossed the isle to support President Obama's job's bill. I hit people pretty hard when I think they are being idiots, so here is a shout-out to Senator Bond for doing something right for once.

And speaking of being an idiot, my current Congressman, Roy Blunt (Missouri 7th District) is running for Senator Bond's seat as the Senator is retiring this year. In his true support-nothing-the-President-or-any-liberal-suggested form, Rep. Blunt has stated he disagrees with Senator Bond's vote and would not have voted for the bill.

I wonder if it brings more jobs to Missouri, we can expect Mr. Blunt to be running around taking the credit, as he has for the stiumuls money he didn't vote for over and over and over?

Claire McCaskill Responds (Well, I Mean, She Sent An Email)

2010-02-22T21:28:00.000-06:00

Here is a response from Senator Claire McCaskill (Missouri) to my Strongly Worded Letter. It would be nice to at some point get a response from a politican that actually addresses my expressed concerns, but here is what she said:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the way things are run in Washington. I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the chance to respond.

Missourians do not want a rubber-stamp for any President or party leader. They want their representatives in Washington to represent their interests. We are the Show-Me State, after all. As your Senator, I have worked to be an independent voice for Missouri. I think my record bears that out; I vote against my party more often than almost any other Senator.

I know that Missourians are especially concerned about the size of the federal government and the size of our national debt. I share these concerns. We do spend too much in Washington, and our deficit is dangerously high. I want you to know that I have consistently voted to hold down spending. I routinely vote to reject any spending increases and force spending to be held at last year's levels. I also vote against spending bills when they spend too much or contain too many earmarks (funding for specific projects selected by legislators). For instance, I voted against the Omnibus Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 because it contained a spending increase of 8% and had millions of dollars of earmarks. This year, I have thus far voted against the FY2010 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, the FY 2010 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, and the FY 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill because of their high spending levels and the large number of earmarks contained in the bills. Spending in Washington simply cannot keep going up in these fiscally difficult times. I will continue to seek to hold down spending.

If we are going to live within our means, I also believe we need to cut waste out of federal spending. I have taken a hard line against all kinds of waste, from earmarks to no-bid contracts. I am one of five Senators who do not request earmarks, and I vote routinely to strike earmarks from spending bills. I have also been working to reform government contracting, which is rife with waste, fraud, and abuse. I lead the Senate Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight that investigates abuses in federal contracting, and I have been active in fighting against no-bid contracts. (I cannot think of anything more "socialist" than giving public money to private companies without any competitive process or oversight). I have supported other anti-waste initiatives as well, such as co-sponsoring a bill to create a line item veto and voting to establish "sunset commissions" to identify and eliminate government programs that are no longer effective.

Fundamentally, we need to use common sense when we are dealing with the budget. We need serious, comprehensive reforms. I am working with my colleagues to make those reforms. I introduced a Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) bill (S. 1600) that would trigger across the board spending cuts unless all new direct spending or tax cuts are deficit-neutral. This is similar to the laws that helped create budget surpluses in the 1990s.

We do need to realize, however, that we cannot close the deficit by cutting non-defense discretionary spending alone (it makes up less than one-fifth of the annual budget). We are facing serious deficits and mounting debt, we are also facing an economic crisis, failing schools, crumbling infrastructure, rising health care costs, and more. Thus, we need to walk a fine line between spending too much and investing too little. I am doing my best to walk that line. I voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise known as the stimulus bill, to provide a vital boost to the economy during the worst economic crisis in generations. However, I will continue to vote against bills like the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, discussed above, that contain too many earmarks and increase spending too much.

As your Senator, I am working to make sure that we manage taxpayer dollars wisely. I will continue to fight wasteful spending, and I am committed to reducing deficits while providing resources for important priorities. I appreciate your input, and I will keep your thoughts in mind when considering budget and spending bills going forward.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.
Sincerely,

Claire McCaskill

United States Senator

P.S. If you would like more information about resources that can help Missourians, or what I am doing in the Senate on your behalf, please sign up for my email newsletter at http://www.mccaskill.senate.gov/.

Reality Bites

2010-02-21T20:38:00.000-06:00

A National Emergency

2010-02-21T12:06:00.004-06:00

Despite claims of an economic recovery, millions of American remain unemployed with their benefits about to run out, and no jobs in sight.

Economists say the recovery may fail to create enough jobs to absorb the record-setting ranks of the long-term unemployed.

Large companies are increasingly owned by institutional investors who crave swift profits, a feat often achieved by cutting payroll. The declining influence of unions has made it easier for employers to shift work to part-time and temporary employees. Factory work and even white-collar jobs have moved in recent years to low-cost countries in Asia and Latin America. Automation has helped manufacturing cut 5.6 million jobs since 2000 — the sort of jobs that once provided lower-skilled workers with middle-class paychecks.

[snip]

Some poverty experts say the broader social safety net is not up to cushioning the impact of the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Social services are less extensive than during the last period of double-digit unemployment, in the early 1980s.

On average, only two-thirds of unemployed people received state-provided unemployment checks last year, according to the Labor Department. The rest either exhausted their benefits, fell short of requirements or did not apply.

“You have very large sets of people who have no social protections,” said Randy Albelda, an economist at the University of Massachusetts in Boston. “They are landing in this netherworld.”

For anyone to find this acceptable, rather than a national emergency, is a travesty.

Daddy's Girl

2010-02-20T22:28:00.000-06:00

Obviously, the apple don't fall too far from the tree.

From This Week to CPAC, Liz Cheney is out following in Big Dick's footsteps, lockstep for lockstep. This includes the annoying smarmy, smug, smirky facial expressions:

And the also annyoning, but infinitely more terrifying, propensity for lying about terrorism in an effort to promote a specific political agenda. We know that Dick Cheney stated that Iraq had "reconstituted nuclear weapons" (Meet the Press, 2003). When that turned out to be not exactly true, he went on to say that Iraq had the "capacity to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) (fundraising dinner, 2004). In October 2004, knowing the WMD thing had been totoally wrong, he continued to say attacking Iraq was the right thing to have done (VP Debate).

And when all else failed, he repeatedly mentioned Al Quaeda and Iraq in the same sentence/statement, giving the impression 9/11 and Iraq were somehow related, even when he didn't say so directly (Interview with John King on CNN 2006, for example). He only admitted this was inacurrate in 2009.

Liz Cheney has become great at playing the same games as her father. On This Week on January 10, 2010, She talked about Yemen and terrorisim. She drew a connection between the Christmas Day underwear bomber and the Ft. Hood attack without missing a beat:

CHENEY: Well, I think that you've got to go back here and look at the way this president has dealt with terror since he's been in office. And the point of that ad was this notion that you cannot win a war if you're treating it as sort of an inconvenient sidelight.

The Obama administration counterterrorism officials, including John Brennan, were briefed by the Bush administration counterterrorism officials during the transition on Yemen and the threat from Yemen. In June of this year, we were attacked at Little Rock, at the recruiting station, by a terrorist who had just come back from Yemen. In September of this year, John Brennan traveled to Saudi Arabia, where he received a personal briefing from Mohammad bin Naif, the head of Saudi intelligence, who himself was the target of an assassination attempt using precisely the same weapon that the Christmas Day bomber used.

You know, you can go down this list on and on. In November, we were attacked...

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... had a record number of drone attacks and this year has personally ordered a record number.

CHENEY: In November, we were -- that's right. But in November, we were attacked at Fort Hood by someone with connections to Yemen, and (OFF-MIKE) attack. And even after that, after the president's press conference, when you had John Brennan and Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano brief, they both said they were surprised that Al Qaida in Yemen was operational. And Napolitano went on to say she was surprised that individuals would attack us.

So there is clearly a problem here. I disagree with George. I don't think that the events, the briefings that were provided this week have begun to give Americans any comfort that there is a real understanding of the threat the nation faces and what it's going to take to be able to defeat that threat.

In the transcript, it says OFF MIKE. But I played it back 3 times, and what it sounded like to me and those watching with me was "someone with connections to Yemen, and the Christmas Day attack." I played it back 3 times because it was slightly unclear and also ridiculously ludicrous.

Here's what she said as part of her speech at CPAC:

Now, this is on top of the money the U.S. taxpayer has already spent on Guantanamo Bay. This isn’t rocket science. My 9-year-old daughter, Grace — who is a genius, if I may say so myself — asked me about this recently. She said, “Mom, is President Obama really trying to bring terrorists into the United States?” (Laughter, applause.) And I told her, “Yes, Grace, sadly that’s exactly what he’s doing.”

What kind of a crazy woman portrays bringing terrorists to trial as dumping them freely onto American soil to her 8-year-old child?

Here's the link to her full remarks (click if you can stomach it).

Dick Cheney has proven to be very dangerous with the lengths he will go to to promote his own agenda at the expense of the truth and of America. Liz Cheney (here is the link to her organization) is at least as scary as her father.

Looks About Right

2010-02-19T22:57:00.000-06:00

Because We're Talking About Other Human Beings, Not Some Subclass of Creatures Called 'Negroes,' That's Why!

2010-02-19T22:42:00.000-06:00

Here's a perfect example of what is wrong with some people in America today. Why is this racist crap even out there? I received this email today, with the subject line "Why should we even care?"

Haiti background:

In the 1700’s what is now Haiti was called the “Jewel of the Caribbean,”and supplied about 40% of the world’s sugar.

In 1791 the government of France passed legislation to phase out slavery in its Caribbean colonies and grant the former Negro slaves citizenship. Rather than becoming citizens, Haiti’s Negro population mass murdered all whites and Mulattoes who could not flee the Island in time. Most all of the white women and girls were gang-raped before being tortured and murdered. A fire had been kindled among half a million black slaves that would not be extinguished till the last of the colony's 40,000 Whites and the majority of free blacks and mulattos had been killed or driven from the island.

In 1804 only full blooded Negros remained and Haiti became the first Negro ruled nation.

The Haitian revolution dominated America’s debate over slavery. While both the north and the south agreed that slavery should be ended, southerners and a large percentage of northerners universally opposed having a large population of freed slaves living in their midst. The Haitian “Revolution” was fresh in every one’s mind.

Flash forward to 1915, then 2010.

First 1915. The “Jewel of the Caribbean” is now a desolate cesspool, that is exporting almost no sugar. The United States decides to “take up the white man’s burden” and send the U.S. Marine Corps to rebuild Haiti’s infrastructure and feed it’s starving population.

The United States gave huge amounts of money to Haiti and oversaw the building of 1,000 miles of roads, telephone lines, modernized its port, and helped Haiti to start exporting sugar once again.

The U.S. also put an end to the thousands of bandits along Haiti’s border with the Dominican Republic. The U.S. left in 1934 at the request of the then stabilized and very ungrateful Haitian government.

Haiti immediately sank straight back into total desolation and strife. In 1973 the United State once again began playing a huge role in Haiti, giving the Island huge sums of money in handouts each year.

In 1994 the Clinton administration once again sent the U.S. military to Haiti to rebuild the Island’s infrastructure.

In 1995 the U.S. Peace Corps went to Haiti in large numbers to train the Haitians in job skills. The U.S. government spent almost one billion dollars providing food and job training to the Haitians between 1995 and 1999.

Now, 2010. So when POTUS Obama says that Haiti has our “full, unwavering, support,” remember that they have had our full support since 1915.

What are the odds that the outcome will be different this time ?

Ps : I checked this info at 3 different sources to verify it’s veracity….Dick

Well, I don't know who Dick is, but he lives up to his name. What a hateful, hurtful, racist, worthless, piece of crap bullshit email.

Joe Stack's Facebook Fans

2010-02-18T22:40:00.002-06:00

Well this is disturbing.

I don't really even know where to begin. I'm sort of in shock at the insanity of it all. Nearly 400 people, in less than a day, have come out to declare themselves "fans" of the philosophy of Joe Stack.

Four hundred people is not really very many people. So at least I have that fact to comfort me. In all of Facebook there are only 400 totally insane morons who would like to throw their lot in with the philosophy of a deranged terrorist (so far). I suppose that is something. I should probably just focus on that.

It is, however, really difficult to not focus on the insane statements on the comment board of the Philosophy of Joe Stack Facebook fan page. Like, super difficult. Because the comments are just so disturbing. They would be totally hilarious if it turned out this whole fan page was just one guy with a bunch of fake accounts doing some satirical piece lampooning the Tea Party People. Unfortunately, I don't think that's what this is. And because that is not what this is, this fan page is not really funny at all. Actually is equal parts scary and sad.

At least one person died in this attack. Joe Stack was a terrorist. He killed a person. With an airplane. By flying that airplane into a building. Like on 9/11. Remember 9/11? I was forced to endure countless 9/11 references to things that were only vaguely and sometimes not even remotely connected to the atrocities in 2001 for many years, generally by conservatives trying to prove a point. Now, a dude straight flies an airplane into a government building and some people are all MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner about it?

What? The? Fuck?

CPAC: Getting Out the Big Dick (again)

2010-02-18T20:02:00.000-06:00

Is Dick Cheney still the best these people can do?

"Hey, jackass, get your government off my freedom!"?????

Are these people for real? You're talking about a bunch of people who want to tell me
1. Which religion's morals should govern my legislation.
2. What I can or cannot do with my body in the privacy of my physician's office (but only if I'm female, it doesn't apply to men).
3. Who I can or cannot marry.
4. Whether or not my friends can openly talk about who they love if they are serving our country in the military.
5. That everyone is not entitled to equal access to healthcare as a basic human right when we live in a country where state-of-the-art healthcare is available.
6. That women are not entitled to equal pay or equal work.

Need I go on? Get my government off your freedom? Get your hate-based prejudiced value system out of my government!

When You Can't Be There In Person. . .

2010-02-17T16:53:00.000-06:00

. . . link up to a great post from someone else's blog. Busplunge took activism seriously today with his pursuit of Roy Blunt's hypocrisy. Go have a read. And when you're done there, check out this post at FiredUp!

Activism Wednesday!

2010-02-17T06:03:00.001-06:00

It's Activism Wednesday, the one day a week I want every single person who reads this blog to do something to make the country a better place. And don't just change your Facebook status.

Have you written your Strongly Worded Letter yet? Because it still looks like Congress are chasing their tails. Put pens to papers or get out your keyboards and get going. Complaining without action is just lazy whining.

Here's a little Jimmy Eats World to get you going:

Are you gonna live your life

Standing in the back,

Looking around?

Are you gonna waste your time?

Gotta make a move

Or you'll miss out.

Someone's gonna ask you what it's all about,

Whatcha gonna have to say for yourself?

I'm on my feet, I'm on the floor I'm good to go.

So come on, Davey, sing me something that I know,

I want to always feel like part of this was mine...

Baby, Bye Bye Bayh

2010-02-16T07:12:00.000-06:00

Congratulations to Evan Bayh (Indiana), for making to the list of Democrats I really don't like, with folks like (former) Democrat Joe Leiberman (Connecticut).

Did you just wake up yesterday and discover you can no longer stomach hard core partisan politics? Couldn't you have given a little more notice?

The filing deadline for the May primary is this Friday. There absolutely has to be a candidate in place by June 30th. Do you know how long it takes to find a viable candidate for Senate?

Did you really just wake up and think, "I think I'll screw over all the Democrats of the country this morning."

Bye Bye, Bayh.

New Supreme Court Robes

2010-02-15T20:08:00.000-06:00

What's Up In the Missouri 7th Congressional District?

2010-02-15T10:41:00.000-06:00

I just Googled Missouri 7th Congressional District. I wanted to know the latest on the election, because Roy Blunt (R) is moving on to other pursuits this fall (happy dance, happy dance, happy dance). I know it's only February, and the elections aren't for awhile, but the Google hits seem fairly disorganized for an election year.

Congratulations to Kevin Craig, who managed somehow to get his name first in the list of hopefuls who got a hit on this search. His website informs me he is a Christian Libertarian running for Congress and uses the phrase Liberty Under God in big red, white, and blue letters a lot. Mr. Craig feels he is the only candidate running who believes in that concept, and his website goes so far as to point out that he is the only candidate that Thomas Jefferson and company would vote for. Someday I'll write up my post about what Thomas Jefferson really thought about mixing Christianity with government, and maybe Mr. Craig will stop by to read it. According to the website, you are not a True Blue American if you do not vote for Mr. Craig. Okey Dokey. Moving on.

I had to dig a little bit to round up all of the Republicans who are running. I already knew some of them, but some are relative unknowns. You could have State Senator Jack Goodman, though his website will not load up so I can't get a link. Auctioneer Billy Long's website tells me he wants to send a citizen to Washington. Greene County Prosecutor Darrell Moore is running. Mike Moon, who has a flashy "Moon on the Hill" graphic, describes himself as a Ronald Reagan Republican. There are Senator Gary Nodler and Nixa businessman Michael Wardell, whose websites again won't load up today (seems kind of important, doesn't it?). Finally, Jeff Wisdom (kind of catchy, Wisdom for Congress, isn't it?), whose website doesn't work but whose blog does. If you want to vote for a Republican, or just vote in the Republican primary, it looks like you are going to have a lot of learning opportunities ahead in the next few months. The filing deadline hasn't passed, and several other Republicans have also hinted at entering the race.

Democrats? Hello? Democrats? Independents? Hello? (Taps foot. Looks at watch. Waits. Taps Foot. Becomes increasingly annoyed).

Ok. Well, there is one candidate. This guy. Tim Davis. If you go to his website, you will see there is no information. Nothing on his position on the issues, nothing except his education information, where he is from, and where he goes to church. I recently met Mr. Davis and asked him what information he would have me post about him on this blog. He conveniently did not ask me for my contact information so that he could share that with me in the future.

I will tell you this: Mr. Davis is a fiscal conservative and a social ultra-conservative. He is not a candidate Sky Girl would ever endorse for the position of king of the treehouse, let alone Congress. I am not sure why he is running as a Democrat. It is an insult to the intelligence of the liberals of the 7th Congressional District that he thinks no one will notice that he is not what he presents himself to be.

So again I say, Democrats? Independents? Democrats?

Misinformed or Misinforming?

2010-02-14T11:18:00.000-06:00

Yes, Yes, Yes! When they lie, we should call them on it EVERY time. This is what I am talking about. Finally!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Pulling From Facebook

2010-02-14T08:35:00.007-06:00

Part of the reason Reversing the Handbasket has been born is to give the folks over at Facebook a break from my political rants. I need a social network site and a political forum. So here's the scoop if you missed what's been up at Facebook in the past month:

Reagan/Bush Appointees Bury McCain-Feingold

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission:

Justices who voted to allow corporations to finance campaigns (basically voted that the Bipartisan Campaign Refrom Act is unconstitutional)

John Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush (R)

Anthony Kennedy, appointed by Ronald Reagan (R)

Antonin Scalia, appointed by Ronald Reagan (R)

Clarence Thomas, appointed by George H. W. Bush (R)

Samuel Alito, appointed by George W. Bush (R)

Justices voicing dissent:

John-Paul Stevens, appointed by Geral Ford (R)

Ruth Bader Ginsberg, appointed by Bill Clinton (D)

Stephen Breyer, appointed by Bill Clinton (D)

Sonia Sotomayor, appointed by Barack Obama (D)

Campaign for The Strongly Worded Letter

When the Democrats lost the filibuster-proof majority, I was really angry. I decided to write what I called The Strongly Worded Letter. I encouraged everybody I know on Facebook to do the same thing. The instructions were to write the letter, post it on Facebook, post The Strongly Worded Letter Flair, and pass it on so others would do the same. This led to Activism Wednesday, where I encourage Facebook friends to take political action of some sort once each week.

Incidentally, my letters to Congress and Obama came back to me, having been email forward to many people in Missouri. It was an odd experience. But never think that your little piece of activism doesn't matter. Below is my Strongly Worded Letter to Congress:

Dear Senators McCaskill and Reid and Speaker Pelosi,

I am from Ozark, Missouri in Christian County. This is in the far southwestern part of the state, way down here in Sarah Palin territory. I hope you know what that means when I say that I voted for President Obama in the last election.

I have a few words to say to you and your colleagues in Congress about how you are blowing it for us, the dedicated Democrats of America. Those of us who are working hard in our two-income families. Those of us who take our two children to school, and Cub Scouts and soccer practices, and still have to figure out how to pay the bills. Those of us who had a car accident, broken arm, and MRSA infection in the same year in our household, so even though we have “good” health insurance, we owe the local hospital thousands of dollars. Yes, the real people who stood with you and said “yes, we can!” and got you all elected.

You are blowing it because you don’t seem to be able to understand how to use your majority in Congress to get anything done. When the Republicans and President Bush had a much smaller majority, I had my public lands taken from me and warrantless wiretaps granted as a “security necessity.” Wars were fought for reasons no one has ever explained where no weapons of mass destruction were found. The CIA gained enormous power and I lost my civil rights. No one batted an eye.

You people have let the image of our party shrink in the eyes of the country to the point that last night in Ted Kennedy’s stronghold a man who formerly paraded naked in a magazine was elected to Senator Kennedy’s vacant seat. You should be ashamed! Every day I get emails from people who believe, they actually believe, in the death panel rhetoric spewed by the right regarding the health care plan. They believe the outrageous cost estimates that are blown out of proportion and inaccurate. They believe these things because you people have given them a vast lack of counter information! My liberal friends and I have tried to refer them to FactCheck.org and other locations for correct information, but the big question is, why aren’t you out there providing the accurate information in the quantity the misinformation is being provided?

You folks need to work on the basic image of the party and fast. I never thought Obama would serve more than one term, though I hope I am wrong. I knew everyone would blame him for Bush’s failed economy and expect miracles. And the so-called “liberal media” lets people get away with calling the stimulus package passed before he was in office the “Obama” package on a weekly if not daily basis. So you likely have just 3 years to get it together. Three years, (you just wasted one), and you’re losing seats every time there is an election. So let me offer some suggestions:

1. Get Nancy Pelosi off television every time health care is discussed. She may be charming in person, and her constituents must love her because she keeps getting elected. But she comes across as really scary on national television, even to other Democrats. As a feminist, I’m so glad to have a female Speaker of the House. But when she talks about healthcare on television it’s like listening to Charlton Heston tell us we’re going to get the plan she wants us to have if she has to shove it down our cold dead throats. And I’m a person who supports her plan.

2. Get some sort of panels on television discussing healthcare in prime time. Make it like a Presidential debate if the other side needs equal time, but get our side out there selling the pros of the package. In fact, so many things have been proposed, even those of us who support the public option don’t even know what we’re defending anymore. The current proposal is like a vast sucking hole of information void, and that’s hard for Joe Citizen to defend to Joe Skeptic.

3. Pass some legislation and make a big deal of it on television. Flex some muscle. Trying to take the high road and be bipartisan is an excellent way to win a peace prize. It is a very poor way win any public respect. We need to have a balance of both, and our party is suffering from a huge image problem. Pass some legislation on something, and put it on television when you do.

4. Stop reading polls and listen to people like me. Educated people who watch the Sunday morning shows, read blogs, have hundreds of friends on Facebook, and have some idea of what the American public really thinks. You all get stuck in Washington with each other and your pundits and your advisors and you are totally out of touch with reality. Surely you have relatives or friends or something you could ask.

5. Watch John Stewart. He’s rude and crude, but he’s got it right about 95% of the time. Especially recently with regard to your total impotence about being able to accomplish anything in Healthcare. Visit his comments about what you might be doing while the Republicans are playing chess.

6. When the Republicans lie on television and the media doesn’t call them on it, you call them on it. They’d call you out in a second. For example, if Rudy Giuliani says there were no terrorist attacks since 911 while George Bush was President and Stephanopoulos lets it go, you point it out. Likewise, if Liz Cheney implies that the Fort Hood incident is related to the underwear bomber and Stephanopoulos lets it slide (This Week, January 10), whatever Democrat politician is at the table needs to point it out. I do not understand why the Republicans are so good at this and the Democrats are so bad at it. It gives them an advantage in image that we just don’t have.

You all have to make changes in Congress. I did not spend all of those hours, and neither did my parents, aunts, uncles, and cousins, in the Obama offices, and out knocking on doors and making calls in hostile Sarah Palin territory, so you all could throw it all away and accomplish nothing. Get on the ball. You have to do better. There is no other option if the lives of regular Americans are going to improve.

Sincerely,

The End Of An Era

2010-02-13T19:25:00.000-06:00

The room in Forsyth was full of people quietly chatting over light refreshments. Most of these people know each other. They worked on the Obama campaign in 2008. They are neighbors and friends. They have gathered for a reason. Hope in in the air.

I drove down from Christian County to be at this gathering for for two reasons. 1. Most of these people are my family and I was invited. 2. I got an email from a friend across they state telling me that a young guy named Tommy Sowers was going to give JoAnn Emerson a run for her money for the 8th Congressional District seat this year and if I had the chance I should check him out.

I don't live in the 8th District. I live in the 7th District where I've yet to hear of any viable Democrat entering the race. But what I saw on Thursday makes me wish I could go out and vote with the rest of Southern Missouri this fall.

If you are sick of Washington insiders, tired of the same-old rhetoric, and ready for something besides the same old incumbant garbage we have been served up on a platter day-in and day-out, then you are ready for Tommy Sowers. This is a man whose time has come.

Lay down your party loyaties, your partisan in-fighting, whatever notions about politics you cling to. Do you want to solve problems? Do you want to improve your life? Do you want Southern Missouri to be a better place to live, work, and raise children? Then get ready for Tommy Sowers.

Tommy is from Rolla, Missouri, where his family has lived for 4 generations. He attended public schools there, and he then went to Duke University on an ROTC scholarship. He has an MS in Public Policy and is currently completing a PhD in Government at the London School of Economics.

Tommy just got out of the miliatry in August. He spent 11 years on active duty and obtained the rank of Major. He has served in Kosovo and Iraq. He attended the Special Forces Qualifications Course, graduating 1st in his class. At 10th Special Forces Group, he led an Operational Detachment-Alpha (A-Team) of 12 Green Berets. He has been awarded the Combat Infantryman's Bage and two Bronze Stars.

From 2006-2009 Tommy served as an Assistant Professor at West Point's Department of Social Sciences. He has taught classes in American Politic and Mass Media and Politics. In 2009, he taught Introduction to American Government at the Missouri University of Science and Technology in Rolla.

Basically, Tommy Sowers is a local guy who is well-educated, served his country in the military, and now wants to put his education and leadership skills to use improving the lives of Missourians. What I heard him talk about on Thursday included his feeling that having the 8th Congressional district rank "dead last" for median female income is "unacceptable." He says the word unacceptable with a kind of emphasis that makes you think he wants to do something about it immediately, personally. He also talked about the poverty in general of the 8th district and how he finds these conditions "unacceptable."

Compare this to JoAnn Emerson. She has never lived in the 8th Congressional District. She is a lobbyist who met the late Bill Emerson while he was in Washington. When he died, she took over her husband's seat. Bill Emerson himself never really lived in the district. She takes special-interest money like it is going out of style. She spends your money like it's her own. If you see her, ask her how she enjoyed that trip to Tiffany's (for a complete list of her expenditures, including the gifts from Tiffany's, click here).

I grew up in the 8th Congressional District. I cannot remember in my lifetime an Emerson not being in that seat. JoAnn Emerson does not care about the average Missourian. It is way past time for a change. Tommy Sowers is a verteran running for Congress, and he is the man to bring it.

How to Do Activism

2010-02-11T23:02:00.000-06:00

I have gotten very frustrated lately with people who say they want change, but are unwilling to get their hands dirty to get the change they want. The country is going to hell in a handbasket, people. The supreme court recently decided that corporations are entitled to the same freedom of speech that we are as individuals. Therefore big corporations can keep buying elections with all of their special interest dollars.

What are you going to do about it?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal." But they aren't. Don't Ask Don't Tell means that gay men cannot serve in the military with the same freedom to be open about who they are that straight men can. And the Pentagon doesn't even want this law! Gay men cannot get married in many states. Hell, in most states they aren't even able to get the same benefits as married people because they aren't even recognized as a "civil union." And that's men. Don't get me started about the inequalities in our country facing women.

What are you going to do about it?

Children don't have access to life-saving medications when they live in the United States of America.

What are you going to do about it?

Activism isn't changing your facebook status for a week. Activism isn't "liking" someone else's status. Activism is hard work. It takes committment and energy. It gets old and depressing at times. But it gets things done. So here is what you have to do if you want to see the country change directions.

1. Get educated. Know the facts. Facts could be found in emails, on websites, on television news programs, in newspapers, on blogs, or on social networking sites. But be wary and skeptical. Many false emails circulate the web trying to sway people to one point of view or the other. Use http://www.snopes.com/ or http://www.factcheck.org/ to find out if information is true before you pass it on. Consider the source of the blog before you freak out about the information. Did you watch it on MSNBC or Fox News? Because it makes a difference (and if you don't know what I'm talking about, or which station goes in which direction, you need to get educatied on that). Watch the Sunday morning political shows, if just to know what people are taking about. Get educated.

2. Know who your representatives are in the House of Representatives and the Senate and how to contact them.

3. Talk with other well-educated people about issues that are important to you. Don't always talk to people with whom you agree. There is a lot to be learned from the well-mannered debate. We have come to an awful polarized place in this country where we think we cannot disagree appropriately on important issues without it being some sort of hellacious surrender. We can actually disagree and learn from each other.

4. Contact you elected officials and let them know where you stand on imporant issues. Write them, call them, email them. Griping, complaining, and whining makes no change. These people work for us, and as their bosses we need to let them know when they do a bad job.

5. Join a political campaign for someone you support, and/or give them financial backing if you are able.

6. Refer to #1 and educated yourself. No one will listen if you sound like you are ranting and raving when you don't know what you are talking about.

Things can change, I think, if enough smart, talented, people really start giving a damn and holding our government to a higher standard. You can help. It starts now. Reverse the handbasket.