Seriously, I don't even know where to start with this one. I noted (on my personal blog - sorry, no link) how appalled I was at the celebration of Bin Laden's death. Yes, I definitely felt a sense of relief, and even gladness that the world had been rid of such an awful person. And incredible pride in our military servicemen and women - especially the SEALs, but truly, all of them. But I also commented on how uncomfortable I was with the idea of celebrating someone's death in the streets (because isn't that just what the terrorists do? And if so, what does that make us?). And I wasn't sure how to explain such a scene to my two teenaged children.
Then I noted here how awful I though it was that the Simi Valley audience clapped and cheered at Rick Perry's 234 executions in Texas, and yet all these folks still call themselves "pro-life".. And yet again at how awful it was that nobody said a word as an audience at a presidential debate yelled "Let him die! Yes!" at the idea of an uninsured critically ill man who had put his time and money into the system, but was now hard on his luck.
Even Jimmy Carter has gotten involved in the capital punishment discussion, saying he hopes "this [Troy Davis] tragedy will spur us as a nation toward the total rejection of capital punishment." And adding, "if one of our fellow citizens can be executed with so much doubt surrounding his guilt, then the death penalty system in our country is unjust and outdated."
Now, I'll say this, and I've said it before. I'm not sure that I approve of capital punishment, unless perhaps there is incredibly strong, indisputable physical evidence (such as DNA) PLUS the accused/convicted's confession, PLUS, oh, I don't know what else would convince me. Likely nothing, now. But it's sure not a man who proclaimed himself innocent even as the needle was going in his arm, and in that case where 7 of the 9 witnesses recanted their testimony, and where there was really no physical evidence at all. But, yes, Troy Davis was executed by the State of Georgia at 11:08 pm last night.
And the inappropriate celebratory reaction to this execution is what made me even angrier.
I give you Ann Coulter (and please, take her!):
I am so disgusted by her today - yes, even more than I usually am - and that's saying something. I truly have no words for this. I'm sure I'll come up with them later, but for now? I got nuthin.
That piece of genius right there is California Christian Coalition head Robert Newman.
"I hardly think bullying is a real issue in schools." He noted that bullying is "part of the maturational [sic] process" and that "there's no reason to have a special bill for, say, three percent of the population, period." He noted, "I hardly think bullying is a real issue in schools."
I'm thinking folks may have made similar arguments against the Civil Rights Act, asking 'why we need to have a special bill protecting a minority (I've inferred the rest) that's so far beneath us lofty super rich white men'.
Well, Mr. Newman, it's called a democracy. And the idea that we are ALL created equally and entitled to equal protection under the law. I'm thinking if someone was bullying your own sweet child, you wouldn't be so quick to just brush it off as "part of the maturational process." Especially if that bullying caused your poor sweet child to commit suicide.
Today, much of the US is mourning the death of Jamey Rodemeyer, a 14-year-old high school freshman in Buffalo, N.Y. He had made the following It Gets Better video, talking about how he decided to accept he was gay, and talking bravely about that process. He didn't deserve to be ridiculed, bullied, and derided. He should have been praised for his bravery.
And now we have the chance to do that again, sadly, posthumously.
Here's the news story from last night, with an interview with his parents. It's heartbreaking. But I love that the news station gave out information on how to get support as wellas simply telling the story. It would have been great if they addressed the issue of the school's responsibility in this, but I am so appreciative of what they did do.
On a personal note, we dealt with bullying this year. I can tell you, bullying is indeed a problem in schools. My son's girlfriend was being bullied horribly on Facebook. A common theme. People were posting horiffic things about this sweet girl, and it made my stomach turn. I sent an email with screen shots to the middle school principal last year, and on to the high school principal this year. We also happen to know the director of secondary education (my husband is a teacher), so sent an email to him as well. The school took it very seriously, going so far as to file a police report once they saw the extent of the rhetoric being flung about. I'm damn happy that there were laws in place to protect her, and that the school didn't treat it as "part of the maturational process." And I'm happy to say that as a result of the school intervening and the laws in place to protect her, the person was identified and dealt with.
I urge you to do all you can to stop bullying in your neck of the woods and nationally.
Now we totally have proof why Elizabeth Warren was thwarted in her efforts to head the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Cause she rocks, and likely scares the hell out of those elitists in Washington who wish not to give consumers any protections. Cause us little people? Yeah, we're nobodies.
Transcription:
I hear all this, oh this is class warfare. No! There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there -- good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea -- God Bless! Keep a Big Hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.
Look out Washington - you pissed off the wrong woman. She is going to kick your ass.
So there is this "Personhood" petition going around in each and every state that claims that life begins at conception, and that the fertilized egg is a person, due full "God-given and constitutional rights". And I love that Personhood USA relies on science for their argument (heh - I thought they didn't believe in science!)
From personhoodusa.com:
If the Court considers the humanity of the pre-born child, for which there is overwhelming scientific evidence, it could restore the legal protections of person-hood to the pre-born under the 14th Amendment as Blackmun foretold, stopping abortion in a few and then in all fifty states!
Oooooh!!!! So now we want the 14th amendment! I thought we were going to repeal it!
<gratuitous editorial commentary> The GOP does love to use the constitution when it suits them (2nd, 14th amendment, anyone?) and disavow it when it doesn't suit them (4th, 14th, etc). Wait - I listed the 14th amendment on both sides of my argument. Huh. </gratuitous editorial commentary>
Hmmm. Well, aside from the obvious idiocy of both Huckabee's and Personhood USA's positions (and yes, it's my blog and if I think it's idiotic, I get to say that), there is the whole religion aspect that the personhood amendment is based upon. Because we all know that God intended women to die in order to birth a child - women are far less important than the fetus, as evidenced by the numerous bills floating around the states that disallow abortion, even when the mother's health is at risk. (I can't be arsed to link to them all; there are far too many)
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but last I checked, Christianity is based upon Judaism, correct? Hence the whole Judeo-Christian thing. And I totally get how tied to Israel they all feel - they luurrrve the Jewish state above all else. OK, so what does Judaism say about abortion?
The Rabbinical Assembly Committee on Jewish Law and Standards takes the view that an abortion is justifiable if a continuation of pregnancy might cause the mother severe physical or psychological harm, or when the fetus is judged by competent medical opinion as severely defective. The fetus is a life in the process of development, and the decision to abort should never be taken lightly. Before reaching her final decision, the mother should consult with the father, other members of her family, her physician, her spiritual leader and any other person who can help her in assessing the many grave legal and moral issues involved.
Note that it does not say anywhere that she should consult with her local or federal lawmaker.
Furthermore, they go so far as to make it their official position that there should be no weakening of Roe v Wade, or in medical coverage for women who have abortions.
Here is the resolution passed in 1991, in full: United Synagogue Resolution on Abortion, Passed at the 1991 Biennial Convention
As the preceding information and the following resolution indicate clearly, Judaism does not provide a blanket pro-abortion stance. The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism nevertheless supports legislation maintaining the legality and accessibility of abortion so that in those cases where our religious authorities determine that an abortion is warranted halakhically, obtaining that abortion will not be hindered by our civil law. WHEREAS, Jewish tradition cherishes the sanctity of life, even the potential of life which a pregnant woman carries within her; and WHEREAS, under certain unfortunate circumstances, such as when the life or health of the mother are in jeopardy, Judaism sanctions, even mandates, abortion, although Judaism does not condone or permit abortion for contraceptive purposes; and WHEREAS, Judaism does not believe that personhood and human rights begin with conception (the premise that personhood begins with conception is founded on a religious position which is not identical with Jewish tradition); and WHEREAS, under special circumstances, Judaism chooses and requires abortion as an act which affirms and protects the life, well being and health of the mother; and WHEREAS, to deny a Jewish woman and her family the ability to obtain a safe, legal abortion when so mandated by Jewish tradition, is to deprive Jews of their fundamental right of religious freedom; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism continues to affirm its strong opposition to any further weakening, limitation, or withdrawal of the 1973 Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, in light of the recent Supreme Court decision and the efforts of the U.S. government to limit the choices available to most Americans, must be diligent in the efforts to safeguard and preserve the full personal and religious freedom given to the American people; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism opposes any legislative attempt through constitutional amendments, the deprivation of Medicaid, family services and/or other current welfare services, to weaken the force of the United States Supreme Court's decision permitting choice; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism encourages the various provinces of Canada and the Canadian government to preserve the rights of all women to legal abortions.
(italics all mine, bolding is part of the resolution)
Even more... Jewish law mandates that a woman receive an abortion if there is something gravely wrong with the fetus, whether the mother's life is in danger or not (not sure I agree with the mandate, but would agree that she should be allowed to have one in that circumstance). The Mishnah states: "If a woman has [life-threatening] difficulty in childbirth, one dismembers the embryo within her, limb by limb, because her life takes precedence over its life. However, once its head (or its "greater part") has emerged, it may not be touched, for we do not set aside one life for another". (emphasis mine)
Therefore, according to Jewish law, life begins when the head emerges from the birth canal; not a moment earlier.
There is biblical reference to this as well, from Exodus 21:22-23:
"If two men are fighting and wound a pregnant woman so that the pregnancy is lost, but no 'great harm' occurs, he will be fined as much as her husband assesses, and the matter will be placed before a court." [And also...] "If 'great harm' does occur, it is a case of nefesh tahat nefesh, 'life for life.' "
So Torah notes a critical difference: causing the miscarriage of a fetus is a civil wrong resulting in monetary compensation (implying the fetus is not a person), while killing the mother is considered to be homicide.
From the Committee of Jewish Law and Standards, Adopted on November 21, 1983
Jewish tradition ... sanctions abortion under some circumstances because it does not regard the fetus as an autonomous person. This is based partly on the Bible (Exodus 21:22-23), which prescribes monetary damages when a person injures a pregnant woman, causing a miscarriage. The Mishnah (Ohalot 7:6) explicitly indicates that one is to abort a fetus if the continuation of pregnancy might imperil the life of the mother. (emphasis mine)
And I love this: "Politically the issue is not advocacy of the correctness of abortion, but, rather, preservation of the freedom to consult and follow an individual's personal moral code and religious tradition when making this difficult decision."
Last October, when Marie Claire unapologetically published Maura Kelly's article disparaging Melissa McCarthy and Billy Gardell, stars of Mike and Molly, it drew the outrage of people everywhere. With statements like, "I think I'd be grossed out if I had to watch two characters with rolls and rolls of fat kissing each other ... because I'd be grossed out if I had to watch them doing anything," and pulling the "some of my best friends are..." card with this: "I have a few friends who could be called plump," Kelly showed her insensitivity and frankly, prejudice against people who are overweight. Many responded that they liked seeing couples that looked like them. And loved the idea that you didn't have to be a pretzel to have love. Overwhelmingly in the comments and in the media, she was derided for her blatant sizeism.
Apparently, America is ready to see a show about people who, yes, are overweight, and yes, while a bit wacky, represent a growing percentage of the population.
So take that, Marie Claire, for your nasty, intolerant, snooty point of view. I believe you were just smoked.
(And congratulations to Melissa McCarthy for helping make Mike and Molly a hit show).
So, Michele Bachmann came out with this campaign ad today. It looks like she taped it in her basement and sounds like it was taped in her bathroom. Great acoustics for music and singing. For campaigning? Not so much.
Anyway, she blatantly lies about the effects of the HPV vaccine, apparently figuring her 3 children won't ever be sexually active and need protection against cervical cancer. And why does the number of children she has vary with the situation? Just sayin. In the debates, she was a mother of 5 biological children and 23 foster children, all of whom needed jobs. Now it's 3 children (I assume she means daughters) who will never ever do that nasty, horrible thing that she had to do under Marcus Bachmann while thinking of the queen that might get them an STD, so they will never need protection against cervical cancer. Whatever.
Here's the ad.
Now people on both the left and the right are calling her out on the claim that the vaccine causes mental retardation. You know when Rush Limbaugh is calling you out, that you've really pissed off your base.
So should she apologize for completely lying to her constiuency (most of whom I would guess will take her completely at her word and believe it til the day they die)? A simple "Oops, didn't mean to convey that was proven, just that a woman was concerned, but no worries. I set her straight". Nope. She went the other route. "I'm not a doctor, I just play one on TV."
Bachmann said, "I didn't make any statements that would indicate I'm a doctor, I'm a scientist, or making any conclusions about the drug one way or the other." Nope, you didn't. You just implied a lie was medical fact to a bunch of people who likely take your word as law.
Oh, hey - look! She's leaving what looks like a house in the same clothes she made the ad in. Maybe she did tape it in her basement!
Anywho... back to the campaign ad:
She also once again invokes the new term "crony capitalism", one of the GOP's euphamisms designed to blame democrats for the stuff the GOP has been doing for... well, forever...
So poor Michele, she is a victim of crony capitalism just like all the rest of us poor Americans. She tells us in her oh so teachery way, "What that means is someone in a position of power who does special favors for people who've given political donations to that candidate."
Oh, I get it. Kind of like Clarence Thomas taking $15,000 in gifts from an organization with a brief pending before the court. Hmmm. Wonder if he recused himself. No? Then I wonder how he ruled on that one.
Oh, and kind of like taking 10s of thousands of dollars from the Koch PAC meant there were no expectations in return. Those Koch brothers. Giving all that money simply out of the goodness of their hearts. *sniff* I'm all verklempt.
Suuuuure.
Just like I never claimed to be an expert on Michele Bachmann or her "sex having to do that horrible nasty thing that her 3 children wiould never ever do" life, so I can say whatever I want about it.
When is enough enough? Like everyone else in LA, I've been glued (or at least paid attention) to the Frank & Jamie McCourt divorce as it relates to the future of the Dodgers. Pretty much all of LA agrees that we want McCourt out of Dodger management.
But that's about the Dodgers, not about them personally.
Before I begin, I freely admit I have done absolutely no research on this matter. I only know what is reported on the radio or the TV news. I'm making a very broad assumption that what's reported is somewhat close to remotely accurate in a kinda-sorta kind of way.
But the story I heard this morning made me spew my coffee all over my windshield on the way to work. The headline? Jamie McCourt fighting to Keep Her Spousal Support.
That's enough to make you sit up and pay attention, right? That poor woman! Not so fast. You see, it seems Frank was asking for his spousal support to be reduced from $625,000 a month to $500,000 a month. And Jamie, poor little rich girl, just can't live on that pittance. She has, after all, 6 houses to maintain, plus a lifestyle to which she's become accustomed to maintain.
My response to that? Boo-fricken-hoo.
Judge Scott Gordon ordered today that McCourt continue paying his ex-wife $225,000 a month in spousal support pending a trial in November. He also ordered that Jamie McCourt sell all six remaining properties the couple shares (the seventh has already been sold for $1.1 million).
Seriously, I get that there are traditional ways that spousal support is usually determined. And yes, it's important to maintain the integrity of that determination. But with so many unemployed and so many underpaid in their current jobs, and really, a fucking Recession To End All Recessions going on, do either of these people really expect anyone to have any sympathy for them? To me, they both seem like a couple of babies. Greedy-ass babies. Who are fighting over more money in a month than I make in years.
So my advice to Frank and Jamie is this: take a big honking dose of Shut The Fuck Up and quit your whining and your complaining. Because soon enough, I'm going to sue you both for support. Lord knows, I need it to support my ONE house and my two children.
The new "it's the worsest thing ever in the whole history of our country to ever hit our poor, unsuspecting, sad little nation" watchword of Michele Bachmann (and even the non*cough*-GOP-candidates).
Which I find interesting, since the entire party platform as well as every single candidate's campaign and lifestyle is built on crony capitalism.
Over the last month or two, Eric Cantor has been extremely vocal about not supporting any disaster relief unless it can be offset by other spending cuts. Yesterday, the Senate voted down the disaster relief bill that would have seen assistance for millions of Americans who have been affected by fire, flood, hurricane, and earthquake.
Never before has the government refused to give disaster relief to those in need. I'm sure that had those Americans planned ahead for disaster (like the east coast planning ahead for a large earthquake, because that happens there so often), that they could have paid to rebuild their homes and towns themselves, but not all of us are as healthy, wealthy and wise as our wonderful GOP representatives in Congress.
And now Cantor has said that he's going to attach a disaster relief package to a "must-pass" piece of legislation. Way to tie our hands, dude. If the dems don't go along with whatever anti-humanitarian bill you want to pass now, you'll paint them as the bad guys in not passing disaster relief. This bill should be a stand alone piece of emergency legislation, not tied up in the political wrangling and the debacle that has become our government. Get these people the help that they need. Without tying it to anything else.
Not even sure what to say about this, except that What. The. Fuck. is the matter with these people? Yes, we plan as best we can. Yes, we try to budget as best we can. But guess what? Shit happens.
And you're there in Washington to help us deal with this particular piece of shit. Except I'm thinking the disasters aren't necessarily what I should be calling pieces of shit right about now.
ETA: As of 3:00 PT, the senate just overcame the GOP filibuster, and the bill now heads to the House. OK, Cantor. It's up to you. Much of that disaster relief is for your own district. Hmmm... Is it an election year for you?
What on earth? How cruel and hateful have we become in this society? The GOP debates have certainly enlightened me.
I haven't been too thrilled with President Obama the last year or so. I believe that in his desire to show he's the bigger man who can compromise, he's given away far too much. Plus, that kind of assumption that the citizens of this country will "get" that you're being the bigger man? Yeah, they just don't. I'm struck by how many uneducated, mean-spirited, un-Christian people there are in this country. I honestly thought that the tea party was just a few total whack jobs. But man, they've gotten the attention of the media (yes, including the "lamestream media" tht they claim only panders to those "liberals"). And the media has given them a tremendous voice.
Why does this appall me? You mean aside from the obvious?
Here's the thing. In the last 2 GOP debates, we've seen audiences applaud and cheer at the fact a governor has put 234 people to death in his 10 year tenure - even those where there was a question of innocence. Why? Because "there's a very thoughtful process in place in Texas for review." And who is he to question the courts when they make a ruling? We'll just avoid any discussion of the unbelievable hypocrisy inherent in that statement, shall we? Because we all know that Perry (and yes, all the other radical right wingers) only believes in the sanctity of the judiciary when it agrees with him.
I thought that was truly awful. But last night? Holy wowza. Do these people even hear what they sound like? Cheering and screaming "YES!" when asked if an uninsured 30 year old man should just be allowed to die because he doesn't have health insurance?
Now, I'm not saying that Paul said that. No, he skirted that by saying that the man made a choice, and he should have taken responsibility and purchased major medical.
Sooooo, let me get this straight. We should let a young man who needs intensive care die because he doesn't have insurance. OK then. Let's buy it for a minute.
How do these same people call themselves pro-life? Because they sure don't feel like the government should pay for helping to keep people alive. And they don't believe that the government should help support those that they've forced to be alive. This, I repeat, is not pro-life.
Unless, of course, it falls in line with their message of the day, which is that a man can't choose to let his persistently vegetative wife die with some dignity.
One question for all these folks: Who was paying for Terri Schiavo's care? You know, the same woman who you tried to pass legislation to protect (in a bill focused only on that one single person?)? Was it their amazing health insurance, purchased on the free market? Was it Michael Schiavo's wonderful "nest egg" that they saved (because they were personally responsible people)? Was it Terri Schiavo's parents? Uh... nope. It was Medicaid. Yes, that nasty entitlement program that we should all be rid of. Once the malpractice settlement ran out, Medicaid picked up the tab. Oh, but it's ok as long as it suits our purposes, which is denying a woman the right to die with dignity.
Now, I'm certain that Ron Paul would have agreed that her care shouldn't be paid for by the government. In fact, in Sept 2007, his answer was no to the following question: Would you support legislation that would protect the cognitively disabled & vulnerable people from having their food & water taken away?
There is one line that stands out to me from his article, however. "Morality is inherent in law, no matter what the secularists might say. But morality is not inherent in politics."
And having said that, let's be honest. The morality discussion in our country has become all about politics. The laws are inherently moral, by treating people fairly and equally. It's the politicians that seek to be immoral under the guise of being pro-life.
Say what you will about Ron Paul (and I will - he's freaking loony!), but he doesn't change his loonytunes views to satisfy anyone. At least he's consistent.
So... my takeaways?
When a governor who is running for president can answer questions like "Do you support gun control?" with the following: "Yeah, I support gun control. Use two hands.", and when that same governor gets applause and cheers for putting possible innocent people to death, and even those who may not have been innocent, to the tune of an average 23.4 per year, and we can cheer the idea of letting a 30 year old man die because he didn't have insurance... it's not just the politics that have become immoral.
Every time I think I can't be more disappointed, outraged, and by Congress, they one-up themselves.
Today, it's the shocking number who can't be bothered to attend when the President of the United States addresses a joint session of Congress.
David Vitter wants to watch the Saints game.
Joe Walsh says the president is abusing his power by asking to speak to Congress about something that isn't a national emergency. (He might want to share that tidbit with his fellow republicans who seem to think this is the biggest emergency to face America ever. Maybe he missed the debate last night. Or maybe he's just FUCKING CRAZY).
Jim DeMint isn't attending because he'd rather just read it.
Paul Broun is planning to hold a twitter town hall from the comfort of his office instead. (He also skipped the SOTU speech)
The fact that they all have something better to do, when they are sitting right there in Washington makes me so angry. I can't even fathom the coordinated and organized disrespect being shown by our elected officials. I only hope that come election day, these assholes are voted out. But I have my doubts, because the same uninformed idiots who voted them in are the same uninformed idiots who will re-elect them.
I couldn't agree more with Nancy Pelosi, who said that what the republicans are doing "is not only disrespectful to him, but to the American people. The Republican silence on Thursday evening will speak volumes about their lack of commitment to creating jobs."
For me, it wasn't so much what the candidates had to say, as I am well aware of where they stand on the issues.
For me, there were a few takeaways. First, that the people who have been in Washington for so many years still have the gall to talk about Washington politics as if they aren't a part of it, and how the country doesn't want Washington to continue as is. So why would I believe that you aren't going to continue as you have been for years and years? Get it through your thick skull people - you ARE Washington!
Second, the hypocrisy of it all. All these Washington insiders who proclaim to hate Washington so much. Then why do you want to stay there? Really. Leave and let someone who loves it and wants to be there take over.
Last, my big takeaway was not just that these people hate Washington, although they all do. They hate the thought of any type of centralized government, period. There was so much talk about giving everything back to the states, I wonder what our country would be called at the end of a GOP presidency in 4 years. The 50 States Who All Sit Next to Each Other and All Occupy Part of North America? Because they certainly do not believe in the concept of the United States of America. There is nothing united about any of this. Also, just a bit of news for them: Jefferson and Hamilton (and all the rest of those amazing, courageous, flawed, human men who wrote our constitution) already worked it out. And believe it or not, they did it by COMPROMISING. Imagine if Hamilton had said, "No way, Tommy. My goal is to make you look like an ass so that I can always have my way." And Jefferson had come back with, "Well Alex, up yours. I won't budge."
These men put their desire for a united country above all else and sat down at the table, not with the thought of how they could leverage the battle so they could win the next election, but by putting their desire for COUNTRY above their own desires. Country before all else. Imagine what might get done if we could get past all the rhetoric and, well, blatant racism, and get things done in the best interest of our country and ALL the people who live here, rather than in the best interest of someone who contributes bucketfuls of money to your campaign.
To the papers of past presidents; Eisenhower Library:
“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
I've often wondered how someone justifies disapproval of terminating life (ie, "pro-life") with strong support of the death penalty (ie, anti-life).
I haven't truly decided where I come down on the death penalty, except that I would have to say that there would have to be incontrovertible DNA evidence of guilt in order for me to support it. However, it doesn't explain how Rick Perry can unabashedly preside over 235 executions, many of which were highly questionable in terms of the offender's guilt, and yet still claim to be pro-life.
Which leads me to say once again, these people are not pro-life. They are, in fact, anti-choice. They believe in taking away the citizen's right to choose for themselves. In other words, "the government is horrible and terrible and OMGintrusive!! Except when I want the government to intrude to uphold my beliefs. Then, the government should intrude because these dumb convicts and these dumb women are incapable of making intelligent decisions on their own, so we have to make them instead. Unless you want to tell ME what to do, in which case, fuck you! I'm seceding from the Union!"
I will never understand the hypocrisy that drives the far right to decry government on the one hand and on the same hand insist that the government intrude on women and stick the long arm of the law up inside my ladyparts and tell me what I can and can't do.
I would love it if these same people agreed that the government should not allow a man to get a vasectomy unless his wife approves and his doctor shows him a tape of someone slicing open his manparts and explaining in excruciating detail that he is ripping away any chance he has of fathering a child (and is in fact, killing his future children by killing off all his swimmers) and that his wife is still of child-bearing age, and so he's depriving her of the right to bear a bazillion children, and that is all just wrong according to the bible and the all-holy Jesus Christ. Because I'm guessing if a man wants to avoid having children, it's a-ok with them. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that many of these guys have already had vasectomies in secret, just like they have their gay sex in secret and their adulterous affairs in secret. Cause those things are certainly ok as long as nobody finds out.
Anyway, I digress. Really, I want to see Rick Perry justify putting 235 people to death while at the same time forcing women to give birth. And I'd like to hear him say with a straight face that this stance is pro-life.
"We must scrupulously guard the civil rights and civil liberties of all citizens, whatever their background. We must remember that any oppression, any injustice, any hatred, is a wedge designed to attack our civilization."
~ Franklin Delano Roosevelt
First off, NYPD & NYFD first responders are not invited to the 10 year dedication/memorial at Ground Zero. Seems there just isn't enough room because they have to make room for all the dignitaries that want the photo op, like John "boohoo I think I'm gonna cry" Boehner. According to this CBS article:
First responders will be given a separate ceremony at a later date.
Way to show your appreciation, NY government. Really.
Also, Obama, Bush, and Giuliani will be there, "meaning extra security will be on hand."
I sure as hell hope that extra security isn't the NYPD, because if it is? That is a serious slap in their face. Good enough to work the event, but not good enough to "attend."
However...
On Friday, House Speaker Rep. John Boehner said the government would be paying for representatives from New York, New Jersey and Connecticut to attend the ceremony.
I really don't want my tax dollars (ie, government money) being spent in this manner. How about the gov't (and by that, this time I mean YOU, John Boehner) stop talking out its ass about all the things it can't and won't pay for, including first responder services. These guys can get themselves there. Why do politicians get to be there before a first responder who risked his or her life? How about instead of paying for the people who won't fund any of these resources to go, you use MY freaking tax dollars (of which I pay a hell of a lot, I might add) to pay for the extra whatever-it-is-you-need to get NYPD and NYFD there? Huh?
And then there's this. Joe "You're a liar" Walsh is now calling the President "idiotic" for making a speech about jobs. Sorry, but that's what the country wants to hear. And if you weren't such a fucking obstructionist, then maybe something could get done to help out the people who need jobs. Perhaps spending the money that's going to security so Boehner can fly out to New York (first class, I'm sure) and be protected from all the crazy people of our country that he professes to love so much, in a better way, like, oh I don't know... extending benefits?
How in the hell is this accepted behavior among elected officials? If a democrat (publicly) called Boehner idiotic, everyone would be up in arms expecting him to resign/apologize/suck his dick (Anthony Wiener, meet David Vitter). But GOP lawmakers haves no consequences for showing such disrespect to the office of the President of the United States? Seriously?
Walsh, you owe a HUGE apology, and if it isn't forthcoming, then you should be censured. Even if you do apologize, you deserve a censure. I know that the Dems are trying to be above all of this childish shit, but Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and President Obama? It's time to grow a pair and stand up and call an asshole an asshole.
"In these days of difficulty, we Americans everywhere must and shall choose the path of social justice... the path of faith, the path of hope, and the path of love toward our fellow man"
~ Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Marriage is a tree.
No, wait, marriage is a napkin.
No, wait, marriage is a chair.
A napkin is not a paper towel, water is not beer, a cup of tea is not a basketball, and a tree is not a car. Wow, I am SO glad he cleared that up for me.
"This is a napkin. A napkin is what a napkin is. It isn't a paper towel. It isn't a car.' You can call a napkin a car, but it doesn't make it a car. You can call a paper towel a chair, but it doesn't make it a chair."
"There's a jihad against Rick Santorum."
People who don't love me foreverandever and believe what I believe, they are bigoted. Boo-fricken-hoo.
"The court can't create new rights for people..."
Well, Ricky, the court can certainly tell you that you can't restrict someone's rights...
"[My religious views] are irrelevant from how I look at things from a public policy point of view."
Really? The shut the fuck up about gay marriage.
"That child in the womb is biologically human — completely and fully human — and alive. Therefore, a human life. It’s reason that tells me that person that is now alive and human should be given the rights of any person under the Constitution. Where they are or where they’re located at the particular time in their life cycle shouldn’t determine whether they have constitutional rights or not."
Unless they're a woman, in which case they have no rights at all.
He must have been sad that Rick Perry was grabbing all the assy headlines this week.
