Quote Unquote: Rand Paul and the SCOTUS

I may (or may not) do a larger post on this, but I wanted to share my favorite reaction to the ruling by SCOTUS upholding the Affordable Care Act. It comes courtesy of Senator Rand Paul. Of course it does.

Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so.

True, if by a couple, you mean 2. Unfortunately for you, 5 people on the Supreme Court declaring something to be constitutional does make it so.

Try reading Marbury vs Madison, or you know, that Constitution that you think is unconstitutional.

Also, if the Supreme Court has no power to decide constitutionality, then I have two words for Rand Paul.

Citizens United.

Why do I need separation of church and state?

Why do I want us to not be a Christian nation?

I'm Jewish.

The end.

More thoughts on the fear of education

I posted a few months back about how fear of education is driving our schools to teach reactionary and revisionist history, science, and sex ed to our children.

A couple things have happened in the last couple of days that causes me to revisit this. First, Texas' GOP came out with their state party platform for 2012. Read it and weep. (Full Platform PDF) No, really. Read it. And weep.

The cray cray this espouses is seriously out of control. These four stood out (ok, they all stood out, but these four in particular for the purpose of this post, as they are so contradictory to one another). I'm changing the order a bit so we can see them in progression of the likely outcomes.

• Calls for further funding cuts for public schools following draconian cuts by lawmakers in 2011
• Rejects “any sex education other than abstinence until marriage” in public schools
• Opposes the sale and use of emergency contraception and backs the Legislature’s war on women’s health programs
• Adopts a radical position that would essentially bar abortion even in cases of rape, of incest or to save a woman’s life

Wow. What are these people so afraid of? I'll tell you what they're afraid of. The exact thing that's going to happen: There will be no funding for public education. Kids won't get sex education. They will continue to have sex. Because that's what kids do. Whether you're in Texas or in liberal California, where we're all doing it. Without birth control, since they won't know much about it. Guess who gets preggo? Yup.The preggo girls will be unable to access any sort of healthcare, since Planned Parenthood has been completely defunded, and they won't be able to access any sort of pregnancy termination. They will have kids out of wedlock, and need public assistance. They won't be able to get it because, well, those people are leeches on society. Their children will go hungry, live in the streets, or be abandoned. Leaving a state mired in uneducated, unemployable, extremely poor kids having kids.

Bleak? Oh hell yes, it's bleak. And it's where the whole damn country is headed.

But these kids will all be so mired in their own misery and poverty that they won't have the chance to question what we've taught them. They'll be too busy trying to simply survive.

Next up, Louisiana. Where the crazy has gotten seriously out of control. Louisiana has decided to put in their textbooks that the Loch Ness Monster is real, and therefore evolution must be disproved for sure this time, since the Loch Ness Monster is ... wait for it... a dinosaur. (Which I thought never existed, but hey - what's a little paradoxical hypocrisy when you have a point to prove).

Needless to say, the people of Scotland think we've completely lost our marbles. And they'd be absolutely right.

"One of these texts from Bob Jones University Press claims that dinosaurs were fire-breathing dragons."

Seriously, Louisiana? Fire-breathing dragons?!?!?! Holy shit! And then you're going to teach that dinosaurs never existed because that's part of the theory of evolution, but evolution couldn't have happened because Nessie is real, and is a dinosaur (or a fire-breathing dragon - whatever), so people & dinosaurs can't coexist, therefore evolution is disproved? When you put it all together, you do realize how amazingly fucked in the head that makes you sound, don't you?

And to the textbook publishers who are going to actually create the content that Texas and Louisiana want? (Bob Jones University Press excluded, cause you're part of the fucked up craziness) Is money that all-important to you that you would knowingly publish such untrue crap? I happen to work for a K-12 publisher, and we are completely devoted to giving our kids the best education that we can. To improving critical thinking skills in kids so they can compete in a global economy. To make the next generation of Edisons, or Galbraiths, or Keynes, or Curies. The fact that a publisher dedicated to the education of children could publish such drivel, knowing it would end up in the hands of children is unbelievable and abhorrent to me. More than that, it's incredibly and unforgivably irresponsible to print that crap in the quest for the almighty dollar.

I don't believe for a single minute that these folks truly think that dinosaurs were fire breathing dragons or that the Loch Ness monster is real. So what does that tell us about the agenda?

Well, it must be to keep our kids so freaking stupid that they can't ever question our authority or the bullshit that we're teaching them. They won't be able to think for themselves, and therefore can perpetuate our own self-important white man Christian superiority machine that keeps cranking out the crazy.

Lather, rinse, repeat. Sob.

Immigration policy you don't agree with is not the equivalent of raping little children

Oh, Michael Reagan, when will you learn?

Please. Join Darrell Issa in standing up and shouting what a douchebag you are.

We seem to have a rhetoric problem in today's politics. If you don't like a policy or solution put forward by the opposition, call them a Nazi, or even better, call them a rapist of little children. 

In a column for the Cagle Post, Michael Reagan once again shows galling disrespect for the President, calling him "Emperor" and accusing him of abusing the separation of powers following the President's speech on immigration and the administration's new policy. Oh, so now you're all about separation and the Constitution.  Now that you don't like what he has to say. Just not separation of church and state in the Constitution. What. Ever.

Anyway... shall we review your article? 

Have you noticed how he never wants to solve anything in the long run?

Uhh... Pretty sure that's what he's been trying to do since the day he took office. Fixing things for the long run. By proposing in the American Jobs Act that we invest in infrastructure, alternative energy, education. Things that the CBO predicted would increase revenue in the long run; improve the economy; improve unemployment. But those things cost some cash in the short term, so nooooo. We couldn't possibly do that!

Plus? (He's black.)

So when your buddies like John Boehner ask "Where's the President's Plan? Uhhh... long term plans for jobs and immigration are right there on his website. He never said that this was the long-term and only solution for the immigration problem. It's a short term helping measure while we work out comprehensive reform. And since when do we only do something if every little piece of it is fixed right then and there? We have always been a nation that inches its way toward big reforms.

As for immigration. I know you don't like the fact that there are any brown people here. Honest. We all get that. However, even your father (the one that was a gentleman, of which I reminded you here) even agreed that those brown folks should be allowed to stay here under certain circumstances. Sound familiar? It sounds just like what President Obama proposed.

Proposing that we help people who are contributing to our economy, bettering themselves, and looking toward the future is NOT the same thing as raping little children.

Now he’s doing to Latinos what Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky allegedly did to the children of Pennsylvania — using and abusing them.

These things are in no way the same. Not even a little, tiny bit. And by implying that they are, you minimize everything that was done to those children. You minimize the fact that a man - someone who they trusted - physically violated their person by shoving his dick up their butt when they were too small or weak or not in a position of power and couldn't stop him. Was that too graphic for you? Well, it is. It's not pretty. Rape is ugly. It's a violation of trust, of respect, of an individual's personal freedom. (aren't you all about individual freedom? Or is that only for the rapist, not the rape victim?) Rape is an abuse of power. In Sandusky's case, it was also a violation of authority. It was child abuse at its worst. It was rape, pure and simple.

And to you and all the other good ol' boys out there who choose to liken rape to something we should simply buy insurance against, or try to remember all the good things that first attracted us to him, or the victim asked for it, I say fuck you. Those little boys didn't ask for it because they happened to be naked... in a shower. They didn't ask for it because they were in awe of a powerful man, a role model in the form of a football coach of one of the most beloved teams in the US. They didn't ask for it because they wanted to feel powerless. They didn't ask for it at all. Not a single one said, "Oh, Mr. Sandusky. Would you please stick your dick up my butt?" And no amount of "personality disorder" or fundraising for underprivileged children will change that. And BTW, Sandusky's personality disorder? It's freaking called pedophilia. And it doesn't excuse him from responsibility for his crimes.

To equate President Obama to a pedophile rapist is reprehensible. Of course, if you stick to your guns, you might have to acknowledge that he isn't Muslim. Because we all know that it's the Catholic priests who most like to rape little children. So... I guess then... the President is Catholic? In which case... go for it!

Word. #WarOnWomen

There is nothing to add to this fan-dam-tastic video.

Starred (or starring) in my feed this week

There are always so many things I want to comment on, but I never seem to find the time. I star them in my blog feed or email them to myself to use later. I never seem to get to them, so I thought I'd start a weekly feature to point out all those things I think are important to talk about, but just didn't find the time.

So, welcome to the first edition of "Starred (or starring) in my feed this week". All the links are to blogpost or news articles I saved for later.

In the "Jobs, jobs, jobs" column
Polling the sabotage question
Do you believe that the GOP is deliberately sabotaging the economy in order to derail a 2nd term for the President? I certainly do, and apparently many others do as well. From things like "Our number one priority is to ensure this is a one-term president" to completely dismissing ideas that they themselves previously endorsed, the GOP has done nothing at all to help the American people during the 112th Congress.

Also, with comments like "The President has not introduced anything to promote job growth", they show they are just flat out liars. But then again, many of them didn't attend that little State of the Union speech where the President introduced the American Jobs Act, which is endorsed by the majority of Americans, as well. As The Maddow Blog so nicely pointed out.


In the hypocrisy and anti-Christian column...
Louisiana Was Totally Cool With Paying For Kids To Go To Religious Schools Until Other Religions Show Up
In the drive to get the government to pay for religion in schools and privatize education on the government's dime, Louisiana passed legislation allowing religious entities to apply for school vouchers. Which is fan-damn-tastic, except that an Islamic school applied and was approved (originally) for the program. Well, in these here Southern states, religious freedom means freedom to be a Christian. And a big ruckus ensued, culminating with this from Rep Kenneth Harvard (R-Jackson):

"I won't go back home and explain to my people that I supported this."

Well ok then. 1st Amendment for all! Except when it doesn't suit us.

The saddest part is that rather than file suit against the state, the school withdrew its request, meaning kids that might have otherwise gotten vouchers from them will now have to attend the dreaded Louisiana public school system or pony up full tuition, unlike those good god-fearing folks who the vouchers were really meant for.


In the immigration column...
Apparently, the President gave a speech about immigration or something that Neil Munro of the Daily Caller didn't really care about.
VIDEO of the Day: CNN’s Don Lemon Witheringly Skewers Tucker Carlson and Daily Caller Reporter Who Heckled Obama.

And also, the President's real problem is that he has no immigration policy. Just ask John Boehner. 'Where's the president's plan?' Good question. Oh, wait.


In the "How come you guys always call us racist" column...
Arizona Talk Radio Gal Who Called Obama ‘Monkey’ Has Excellent Reason Why She Is Not Racist
and Arizona GOP Chair On Radio Show When Host Called Obama A ‘Monkey,’ Said Nothing


In Scott Brown is a big fat baby news...
No muzzle, no debate in Massachusetts
Scott Brown is an idiot. It's a condition of debating Elizabeth Warren that Ted Kennedy's widow can't endorse anyone but you during the election season? Wow. Just. Wow.

Also, trending on twitter? #scottbrowndebatedemands - hilarious! I admit to adding a few to the feed myself.


In the war on the 2nd Amendment... oh and also in Nazi-invoking...
Joe the Plumber: Gun Control Caused the Holocaust
and Joe The Plumber Has Brilliant Analysis Of What Caused The Holocaust
Ummm... newsflash, Joe. You are a complete and utter douchebag.


In the War on non-Christians, oh, and also women...
Anti-Choice Wailing Wall Comes To Wichita, Kansas via Addicting Info
Holy Moses in a basket. What the everloving fuck?


In the War on Women...
Penile implants COVERED by Medicare
Do I even need to go there? The nonexistent War on WOmen is freaking ridiculous. Penile implants exist only to improve the sex lives of men. Period. They aren't baby-making tools (pun intended); they are strictly to shore up, if you will, a man's confidence in his masculinity. Yet where are the calls of "WHORE" and "SLUT" for these men? Oh right. Most of them are in Congress.


And the one we've all been talking about... Michigan.
As Punishment For Opposing Anti-Abortion Bill, Male Michigan House Leader Bans Two Female Reps From Speaking

Yes. One said "vagina" and the other said "vasectomy". GASP! They must be put in time out for their "temper tantrums." Yes, House Speaker Jase Bolger accused them of having temper tantrums on the floor of the house. Well then. Why can't us women just learn our place?

And apparently, the va-jay-jay word is SOOOO offensive that Mike Coleman (R-Nashville) felt compelled to say this:

“It was so offensive, I don’t even want to say it in front of women. I would not say that in mixed company.” 

Phew! Good thing he's out there working to protect women from our own body parts. I, personally, don't even know what that ladypart is called. Because nobody would ever use such an offensive term to me. Especially in mixed company! And if I had a daughter, I know that I'd never ever use that offensive word when she asked me, "Mommy, what's that?" My response would and should be, of course, "Well, honey, that's your 'down there ladypart'. We don't talk about it and aren't allowed to use it, so be a good girl and run along now."


Acceptable words for the va-jay-jay according to the Michigan House of Reps? Hero Michigan Rep. Frank Foster Identifies Appropriate Words For Lady Parts. It's an older story, but Wonkette pulled it out to help educate us, bless them. Also, Slate proposed A Bill Seeking To Regulate Use of the Word Vagina. Hopefully, we'll be able to get these pesky women out of the way and get down to the real business - new and unnecessary abortion laws! Yay!

Well... apparently women finally had enough, because this: The Vagina Monologues at the Michigan state Capitol in Lansing, Michigan. This is worth a read if only for Eve Ensler's speech transcript and video. Awesome.


And just this morning, Wayne Schmidt (R-Traverse City) came out and said he didn't mind the whole va-jay-jay thing. No, what he found offensive was "No means no." (Watch the video. No, really.)

And speaking of rape culture...

Lara Croft Will Be Threatened With Rape In the Next Tomb Raider—But Don’t Worry, Guys, You Can Rescue Her 
The new Tomb Raider will apparently have a scenario where Lara Croft gets raped. Nice. And apparently, we've all been clamoring for that to happen. Tomb Raider executive producer Ron Rosenberg said that there will be a scenario where “island scavengers” attempt to rape her, and WOOHOO! because “She is literally turned into a cornered animal."

Why is it again that the government has a failure to recognize women as people again? Oh, yeah.



And a nice way to end it all...
VIDEO: A Truly Poignant Interview: George H.W. Bush Talks with Jenna Bush About Death and Growing Old
A very sweet and poignant interview with George Bush the first. He may not have been a great president, but he certainly is one of the last gentleman politicians we have.

I am not you

I was going to link up to a million different articles and examples of religious extremists (and sadly, I include the Catholic church now) trying to force their religion on me, trying to prove they're better than me, have better values, have more morals, love the "real god", blah blah blah... yada yada yada...

But then I realized there's just too much out there, and to try to link up would be so daunting it's not worth my time or energy. So I will simply state this:

I am a Jew. I am comfortable in my faith. I am comfortable with my relationship with G-d. I am comfortable that I've given my children a great foundation to begin their adult lives. I am comfortable with my values, morals, ethics (and, ok, sass). They are all what make me who I am. I am not you. You cannot force me to be you though guilt, media, bullying or legislation.

Just like I don't try to force you to be me.



(Oh, and also? My people were here first. And are the chosen people. So there.)

(Hypocritical) Quote of the day

"I’m against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections. But as long as it’s doable I’m going to do it."
~ Sheldon Adelson, the wealthy hypocrite who has indicated that he's willing to spend 'whatever it takes' to get Romney elected.


Adelson is worth $25B. Yes, that's Billion with a capital B. He's willing to spend a whole hell of a lot.

According to Forbes, the $10 million donation he just made to Romney is equivalent to $40 for an American family with a net worth of $100,000.

Phew! Well, I sure feel better about the integrity of elections in the United States. How about you?

Dear Supreme Court,


See what you've perpetuated? The top 1% of the top 1% of the 1% get to buy elections and governments. By the by, don't we condemn this in other countries? Just askin.


No love,
Me

Quote unquote

"He is not the Pastor of the United States; he's the President of the United States. And for the first time in the history of this nation, we have a president who has dared to use his position to make the democratic promise available. Not just for a select few who were up and in, but for everybody - regardless of their race, their creed, their color, or their sexual orientation. I salute the President for that."

~Senior Pastor Frederick Haynes, III of Friendship-West Baptist Church on President Obama's personal stance on gay marriage

Right on.

Listen to his entire sermon - well worth the time.

What a rabble-rouser

Obvi, Dr. Seuss is unfit to read to our children. You know, he had the balls to make his books meaningful to the adults that read them as well as the children who learned to read them.

But this? This is beyond the pale. That liberal, crazy, anti-war muckraker!

Kidding, folks.

On this anniversary of D-Day, you should really go take a look at the political cartoons that Theodore Geisel did during WW 2. The man was obviously a visionary. Or maybe it's just that we are incapable of learning from the past. Prolly. Either way, these two in particular stuck out at me as being perfect examples of today's USian society.

Photos courtesy of ThinkProgress, but created by Theodore Geisel as Dr. Seuss.

 

Anyway, be sure to take the time to appreciate any WW2 Veterans in your midst - those that fought the war in the Armed Forces, and those who simply survived it. Unfortunately, those amazing men and women won't be around that much longer for us to learn from. Listen to their lessons now.

Michael Reagan, you should be ashamed of yourself

You should know better, having grown up in a political family. Your father was president when I voted in my first presidential election. I didn't vote for him. But that was because I didn't agree with his politics. Not because I painted him as an asshole who doesn't believe in liberty and personal and religious freedom.

In your op-ed for The Moderate Voice, you show such disrespect for the President and First Lady that I'm appalled. And if your father were alive, he'd be appalled, too. Because while I didn't agree with his politics, and have no idea what he was like in private, I certainly can't argue the fact that in public he presented himself as a gentleman. A man with manners. Something apparently, you are not.

Imagine for a moment, if anyone had called Mrs. Reagan the "drug nanny in chief". You'd be pretty angry. And rightfully so. Well, when you call the First Lady, "his wife, the health nanny in chief", you are showing a galling amount of disrespect. You don't have to agree with her issue, but you do need to show a modicum of respect  (though you aren't a stick figure, so you might want to give her books a read).

Every first lady has had her pet issue. For Nancy Reagan, it was "Just say no" to drugs. For Barbara Bush, it was literacy, for Hillary Clinton, it was healthcare reform - primarily as it related to children. For Laura Bush, it was reading and education. Note that these women all focused their attention on making life better for children.

So, when our current First Lady, Michelle Obama, has chosen to focus on healthy children by promoting the ideas of exercise and healthy eating (which, BTW, will lower healthcare costs in the long run), you call her a "health nanny in chief". I don't recall anyone ever calling Nancy Reagan a "the druggie police" or either Bush wife a "radical, trying to take education out of the hands of parents." So why focus on the First Lady now, when she wants to improve living conditions, life span, and the health of our nation's children?

Oh right. I forgot. (whispers) (She's black.)

Your article is focused primarily on the Catholic church's efforts to restrict birth control for women in the name of "religious liberty". Guess what? There are loads of reasons that women take birth control. One is yes, to prevent pregnancy. Which, oh wait... is perfectly legal. There are plenty of other reasons women use the hormones in birth control - medical reasons. Not that it matters, because as a citizen of this country, I am entitled to my own personal liberty. And you don't get to dictate what that entails. Nobody has ever said that Catholic church employees are forced to take birth control. Only that it has to be available to church employees, who - guess what - might not be Catholic. Oh, and also? 82% of Catholics believe birth control is morally acceptable, according to a Gallup poll. Either way, however, since the Catholic church doesn't pay taxes? They don't get a say in how MY tax dollars are spent. I really didn't want my tax dollars paying for Dick Cheney's heart translplant, or for my Congressman's Viagra, but guess what? My money went towards both of those things. I didn't want to be involved in two wars, paid for by my tax dollars, but guess what? My money went towards both those wars. When the Catholic church wants to pay their fair share in order to have a say in public policy, then by all means, let's hear their opinion. Until then? With all due respect to the many wonderful and intelligent Catholics I know... the church leadership needs to just STFU in matters of public policy.

What is happening on our country in the name of "religious freedom" is the exact opposite of what the founding fathers intended. They did not want a national religion (read Christianity). They did not want citizens to be beholden to the church's moral judgements - if you recall our history, they'd already gone through that in England and didn't want that to happen over here. It was one of the main reasons the whole religion thing is brought up in the very first amendment to the Constitution that you seem to hold so precious, but obviously have never read. Paraphrased, it means that you can't tell me what to do based on your own religious beliefs  (and vice versa) and the government can't impose laws based on a "national" religion (perceived or not). For example, deciding for a citizen that because your church says it's wrong to terminate a pregnancy, pregnancy termination has to be illegal. Which, oh wait... is perfectly legal. Plus, guess what? My religion commands me to do it in order to save my life. Or imposing your religious beliefs into the teaching of children in taxpayer-funded public schools. Or your morals (or lack thereof) into a legal contract between two citizens - you know... marriage. What? Marriage is a legal contract? Who knew?

You pull the religion card when it suits you, but ignore it when it doesn't, for example... caring for the poor, feeding the homeless, clothing the sick. Charity. Compassion. Yes, I know, that Jesus dude was such a freaking liberal. We all know what he really meant. Care for the rich, feed the rich, clothe the rich. And thankfully, you all aren't afraid to share his true intentions with the rest of us poor ignorant slobs. Damn good thing or we might never know what that Jew thought. Jesus never said squat about homosexuality, BTW. And even if he did? Guess what. Not everyone uses the New Testament as their moral compass. Some of us *gasp* aren't Christian.

Which brings me back to my original point. When you say things like "Mr. and Mrs. Obama still don’t get it," first of all, you are wrong. They completely get it. The majority of the population agrees with the President on the healthcare mandate, and with the First Lady that we should teach our children healthier habits. By implying otherwise, you demean the man and the office of President. The President is beholden to the people that elected him, not the non-tax-paying global institutions. People called your father President Reagan, whether they agreed with his politics or not - in fact, til the day he died. To call him Mr. Reagan or "Reagan" while he was in office would have been an insult. So why do you insist on demeaning our current president?

Oh right. I forgot. (whispers) (He's black.)