How come you guys call us racist? Episode 10Gajillion: The burn

Since President Obama was elected, the GOP & the Tea Party have been trying to get him out of office. From claiming he's Kenyan, to conspiring against his presidency on the day of his inauguration, to showing him in his "traditional tribal garb", to calling him a monkey, to racist bumper stickers, to waving the confederate flag in front of the White House while 2 sitting senators and a washed up symbol of all that is wrong with America headline the event, to filling a lawsuit claiming he can't be president because he's black (no, seriously), to posting racist statements on their official websites, to holding election rallies in front of confederate flags, to claiming he's a A-rab terrorist (hell, even his opponent in the 2008 election had to defend him!). Seriously, watch.

Enough is freaking enough already. Rep Alan Grayson (D-Freaking Awesome) has pushed back. Finally, someone is pushing back against all the hatred, all the racism, all the repulsiveness that is the Tea Party in America.

Telling it like it is:

Tea Party members also have persisted in falsely characterizing the President as Kenyan and Moslem… Tea Party members also called my fellow Member of Congress, civil rights hero John Lewis, a “n***er,” and Rep. Barney Frank a “faggot.” More generally, the leader of the Texas Tea Party displayed a poster saying “Congress=Slave Owner, Taxpayer=Niggar [sic].” Tea Party Members of Congress have referred to Hispanics as “wetbacks,” and having “cantaloupe-sized calves” from picking fruit. Tea Party candidates, including my opponent in the last election, have endorsed forcing Hispanics to speak English.

Here's a little more:

For example, when the President visited [Grayson's] home of Orlando, Tea Party protesters shouted "Kenyan Go Home." Other examples include Tea Party chants of "Bye Bye, Blackbird," and Tea Party posters saying "Obama’s Plan: White Slavery," "Imam Obama Wants to Ban Pork" and "The Zoo Has An African Lion, and the White House Has a Lyin’ African."

and this:

One could go on and on, because there is overwhelming evidence that the Tea Party is the home of bigotry and discrimination in America today, just as the KKK was for an earlier generation. If the hood fits, wear it. (emphasis mine)

A study in the academic, peer-reviewed journal Race and Social Problems showed that Tea Party members are more likely to be racist. Read the PPV article here.

And here are some signs! Signs prove everything!

And in response, the National Outreach Director of TheTeaParty.net said, "He was mean to me!!" No, actually, she said, "there's nothing more offensive" than the comparison.

This, from the party that brings you Hitler & Nazi comparisons on a practically daily basis. Proving the Tea Party is not only racist, but ignorant too.

What, that was a surprise?

ETA: Literally as I was publishing this post, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the biggest newspaper in Atlanta, posted the following tweet about a lottery winner. The tweet has since been deleted, but ALL the people have saved screenshots for posterity.

Racism much?

Quote of the day: Irony

"Our philosophy is do no harm, try to stop the bad from happening."
~ GOP Rep Matt Salmon (R-AZ)


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The end.

Modifying our foods and respecting our young people

Rachel Parent, a brave and passionate young woman, appeared on a talk show in Canada to discuss her stand on GMOs. She is very educated on the subject, knows her stuff, and has a strong rationale for her positions. It's ok to say "Let's agree to disagree", but unfortunately, that isn't what happened. In an enlightened society, we listen to one another. And we respect each other's informed decisions.

I find so many things offensive in this video. First, for Kevin O'Leary to tell an obviously educated, passionate girl that her passion isn't really hers, but that she's a shill for environmental groups? No. Just no.

Then he goes on to challenge her belief in science, when she very eloquently stated that she's not against science. She's for responsible science. A-freaking-men.

Responsible science means long-term studies (not using the general population as your study group without knowledge or consent). Credible long-term studies include control groups. Credible long-term studies include people who have consented. Credible long-term studies conducted by independent organizations, not only the companies who stand to benefit from positive results.

O'Leary challenged Rachel that science could help kids in other countries get the vitamins they need, when in fact, she pointed out, rightly so, that the amount of rice required for a child to ingest the RDA for Vitamin A was 27 bowls of rice. (oh, yummy.) Science also proves that our body absorbs vitamins best in their natural state.

Instead of trying to genetically modify our food without our consent, how about we work to rid the world of poverty. Work to help educate the poor. Work to feed the poor and help them grow the foods that they need to live a healthy life. To produce the crops that give us what our bodies need.

Oh wait. To do that, we'd have to acknowledge science - because we all lurrrve science! Because science tells us we have a climate crisis. And in order to help grow the organic foods we need to thrive as humankind, we'd need to acknowledge the science behind climate change. But we'd rather say that science doesn't exist than solve a food crisis in drought-riddled or flood-riddled countries or even regions of our own country. Or blame it on G-d, because He is punishing us for loving teh gays.

Sensing the hypocrisy yet? I've mentioned it before. When something works for the right, they are all about it. When it doesn't work for them, they hate it or simply refuse to acknowledge its legitimacy. Science is great! When it says what I want it to. When I don't like it? Science is unproven!

I wonder what a long-term study might have to say about the increasing incidence of gluten allergies in the last decade. Or celiac disease. Or obesity (wait, we already know the answer to that one). Or diabetes. (wait - we know the answer to that one, too). Or the best way to ingest vitamins (wait ... ditto). Think that GMOs might possibly have something to do with that? Gee... I wonder.

Additionally, Rachel Parent is a passionate advocate for food labeling. I agree completely. If GMOs continue to produce GE food, at least label them as such and let us make informed decisions. And don't make it more difficult for organic farmers to produce and bring to market their products. Equal opportunities and all (SOCIALISM!!). We have the right to know what is in our foods and make our own choices. Informed consent and all is important, right, the right?

Apparently not. Because Congress passed the "Monsanto Protection Act", which pretty much nullifies any state required food labeling and provides additional subsidies for those GMOs. And in a bonehead move, President Obama signed it. Remember, conservatives? - federal law supercedes state law. So even if you love it, like you do right now, or hate it like whenever it means you don't get your way (like reproductive rights), we still have to live with it. Or die with it.

To suggest that because this young woman is 14, she doesn't know her own mind, and to patronize her and condescend to her by saying she'll change her mind as she gets older (even though we all know 14-year-olds are far older than their chronological years) is insulting to the highest degree. That young woman proved her point over and over and made Kevin O'Leary look like a sad little shill for Monsanto. Yup, who's the shill now?

Watch the entire interview below. If I were Rachel Parent's umm... parent, I would be hugely proud of her. Hell, I don't know her and I'm hugely proud of her. She's a hero for our generation and our children's generation.

Wait... how come you guys call us racist?

So, this is a little far over the line. OK, it's completely and totally and irrevocably catapulted over the line.

One of the most respected and longest-tenured Congressmen, John Lewis, participated in the March on Washington. The original and last weekend's commemorating the 50th anniversary.

In covering Lewis' speech this weekend about the voting rights act and immigration reform and generally spouting racist shit, Laura Ingraham played about 10 seconds of Lewis' speech and then played a gunshot followed by complete silence.

In case you happen to be wondering what's wrong with this scenario, ummm... she just gleefully pretended that someone assassinated a sitting Congressman with a shotgun. The only surviving person to give a speech at the original March on Washington and the 50th anniversary march. Lovely, no?

Yeah, so how come the GOP is branded as racist? Uhhh... gee, I don't know.

There are also some other terms I might like to call Ingraham in addition to racist, but my mom hates it when I swear, so I'll settle for letting you use your imagination.

Hint: It's not "brilliant" or "human being" and it rhymes with a whole lot of things.

(h/t Media Matters)


Listen:

The impact and power of SCOTUS decisions

2013 is the year that SCOTUS unraveled 150 years of social and economic progress in the United States.

In just the last week, the Court has handed down decisions that have taken steps backward in worker’s rights, voting rights, and consumer rights. Gee, can’t wait to see what the rulings are on DOMA & Prop 8. Hmmm, I wonder whatever might they be?

In two cases, SCOTUS pulled back worker’s rights. They ruled that harassment can only take place from one’s supervisor, and they narrowly defined supervisor as someone who has the power to make a “significant change in [your] employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.” (via ThinkProgress)

In other words, if I want to harass my subordinate and only HR can fire them, woohoo! GO FOR IT! As long as I don’t have the ability to directly fire you? You’re shit out of luck.

The justices also struck another blow to compassionate conservatism (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA) when they ruled in a different case that employers can retaliate against workers who claim harassment. Because it’s now imcumbent upon the worker to prove that the “sole” cause of the dismissal or retaliation was discrimination. No other factors involved, period. How lovely.

Basically, SCOTUS gave a huge FU to the American worker today. Their attitude is one that was prevalent 100 years ago. Be happy you have a job. If you don’t like the way I treat you, you’re welcome to go somewhere else. Without a reference, of course. Good luck to you. Fuck you very much.

Also, in a case that may definitely affect you and me, the justices ruled that customers cannot sue makers of generic drugs for any adverse effects, even if they weren’t noted or labeled on the drug. In a HAHAHAHAHAHA moment, the conservative justices invoked the Supremacy clause HAHAHAHAHAHAHA saying that even though the state’s laws had required proper labeling, the federal laws didn’t – and we all know that federal law trumps state law.

There’s a good short summary of the court’s actions on these cases early this week at The Atlantic.

Also this week, the Supreme Court punted on affirmative action, asking the lower court to look at the case again. They could have noted that the statistics bear out that minorities still comprise a disproportionate percentage of students accepted into and entering college.

Per the National Center for Education Statistics

The percentage of American college students who are Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Black has been increasing. From 1976 to 2010, the percentage of Hispanic students rose from 3 percent to 13 percent, the percentage of Asian/Pacific Islander students rose from 2 percent to 6 percent, and the percentage of Black students rose from 9 percent to 14 percent. During the same period, the percentage of White students fell from 83 percent to 61 percent. Race/ethnicity is not reported for nonresident aliens, who made up 2 percent and 3 percent of total enrollment in 1976 and 2010, respectively.

What this means Is that affirmative action is working, and that it has helped us achieve something very close to ethnic parity in colleges.

Per Census 2000
Percentage of population:

	All ages	15−29	College-aged
White	69.1	62.1	61
Black	12	13.4	14
Asian	3.6	4.2	6
Hispanic	12.5	16.9	13

However, as we’ve historically seen, without this oversight, the inclination of American institutions is to directly or indirectly promote racial inequity. Look at the organizations, the workplaces, the states. Which brings me to the next case.

Today, the Voting Rights Act was dealt a mortal blow, with the entire basis of the law struck down.
Steve Benen at The Maddow Blog says this:
“Five justices believe institutional racism and systemic discrimination in voting rights have effectively vanished to their satisfaction.”

One only need review the rhetoric in the states since the election 5 years ago of a black president. Immediately, states began to erode voting rights by enacting unsurpassable roadblocks for so many minority voters.

Per the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law:

At least 180 restrictive bills introduced since the beginning of 2011 in 41 states.
27 restrictive bills currently pending in 6 states.

25 laws and 2 executive actions passed since the beginning of 2011 in 19 states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin).

15 states have passed restrictive voting laws and executive actions that have the potential to impact the 2012 election (Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin). These states account for 203 electoral votes, or 75 percent of the total needed to win the presidency.

Of these, restrictions from 18 laws and executive actions are currently in effect in 13 states (Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin).

In the past two years, vetoes, referendums, court decisions, or the Department of Justice have blocked or blunted restrictive measures in 14 states (Arizona, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin). Note: this list does not include successful legislative victories such as those in Nebraska and other states.

The NY Times also has a very interesting and telling look at how states affected by the VRA have tried to change law to discriminate. Last year, The Atlantic had a look at state voting restrictions as well.

We have had state leaders admit fully that their voting restrictions were designed to keep minorities from voting so that Republicans could maintain control.

In what universe do the Justices live that they believe that racial inequities no longer exist when it comes to voting?

This entire issue is summed up perfectly with this tweet, and in and of itself, explains why the VRA is still needed. Because the blacks might elect another black dude.

1965-2008: Minorities should be able to vote. 2008, 2012: Black guy elected president. 2013: Let’s rethink that voting rights thing...
— Jamison Foser (@jamisonfoser) June 25, 2013

The proof of the poor judgement of SCOTUS will be in the pudding. Let’s see how many states enact the equivalent of poll taxes, restrictions, Jim Crow and more. By this time next year, I predict that several more red states will enact voting restrictions that will make it difficult for traditionally underserved voters to cast their ballots. And all with the blessing of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. But there's no race-based attitude issues here in the states.

As long as Supreme Court justices rule from ideology rather than law, there can be no real justice in the United States. There can be no real rule of law.

No really, why do you guys call us racist?

Holy shit. This is an actual thing that was said. They aren't even trying to couch the blatant racism in any other terms.

This asshole is Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, noted bigot, racist, and all-around general dickwad.



“What you’re about to see, ladies and gentlemen, is Barack Obama is going to be kicked to the back of the Democratic bus... This guy has now become a liability for the Democratic Party.”

“And the Democratic Party is going to tell him to ‘Sit in the back of the bus, the front of the Democratic bus belongs to the white person, Hillary Clinton.’”

Holy motherfucker. Good thing that the American Family Association is so keen on teaching us proper American values. Maybe he should have Paula Deen on his show next time? She only wants her waiters to dress up like slaves, not actually be slaves.

And then there's this from Yahoo News' Rachel Hartman (screencap from my phone):

Here's a different screencap with her byline (from my laptop):

Yahoo has given up all hope of looking like it's not an arm of the right wing. This birther article was later amended to say he won't be stopping in his ancestral homeland. (emphasis mine)

Seriously? How is that more his ancestral homeland than Ireland? When he went to Ireland, I don't recall that being the media narrative. Why is this different?

Oh yeah. *whispers* He's black.

Hypocrisy, thy name is GOP. Oh, and there's no war on women.

Well, well, well. Hypocrisy is surviving and thriving once again still in the GOP. Women have one set of rules, and GUNZ get another.

You see, this horrid doctor, Kermit Gosnell, was performing late term abortions on women in his clinic, and actually murdered a baby that was born alive. He's a horrible man, and was tried, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison. Nobody disputes this set of terrible circumstances and crimes.

Case closed.

Except it's not.

Because apparently the actions of one horrible criminal necessitate a change to federal law. ASAP. See, what he did was so heinous, we can't ever allow any more doctors to ever perform legal abortions ever again.

Seems our illustrious legislators in Washington are bound and determined that this never happen again. They intend to do this by making abortion, a constitutionally protected right, illegal. Bless their hearts. They're so busy looking out for me. I can't tell them how grateful I am. No, really. I can't tell them.

Per John Boehner:

Asked whether the bill might turn off women voters, Boehner replied, "No. Listen, after this Kermit Gosnell trial and some of the horrific acts that were going on, the vast majority of the American people believe in the substance of this bill and so do I."

And Randy Hultgren (R-IL) had this to say:

"I was deeply shaken by the horrific accounts of Dr. Kermit Gosnell's late-term abortion practices. These gruesome acts need to be barred. It is our duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves. I am proud to cosponsor and support this legislation and fight to protect unborn children."

Also, of COURSE women back this bill, because Marsha Blackburn!

During the debate on HR #1797, the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act”, which oh yeah incidentally passed the House today 232-193 (WTF?!?!), we learned a lot of interesting things about pain, pleasure, and fetuses. And i for one, am truly grateful to the GOP for helping me uinderstand what I am obviously too stupid to understand all on my own.

Apparently, babies at 15 weeks are soooooo mature and ready for marriage that they are masturbating in utero. Of course, only boy babies do this because girl babies are far too demure at that age, given that they're still in utero and therefore protected and virginal. According to Rep Michael Burgess, who somehow got his medical degree and actually had his hand up some poor woman's ladyparts as an supposed OB:

“You watch a sonogram of a 15-week baby, and they have movements that are purposeful. If they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. I mean, they feel pleasure..."

Ahhh. So boys diddling outside the uterus = BAD because GOD, but boys diddling in utero = LIFESAVING because GOD.

Forget that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and every other doctor in history disputes this - fetuses do not have any purposeful movement at that stage of development.

Louie Gohmert (R-Horrible), everyone's favorite fucktard, told a woman who testified before committee that she should have carried her non-viable fetus to term and given birth to it even though the fetus had no possible chance of life because it had no brain function. Louie's argument seems valid, actually. He obviously does perfectly well with no brain function, so 'sup dumb babykiller lady?

And since this bill seeks to ban abortion at 20 weeks (even though Burgess thought it should be 15 - think of the poor masturbating fetuses!!), they also needed to deal with what happens for us ladies who invite and ask to be raped.

Well, according to Trent Franks (R-Assholeville), the ladies don't get preggers from rape anyway, so no exception needed.

"The incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low", said Franks, himself an OBGYN. Oh wait, no he's not. He's just an asshole.

However, he's apparently a persuasive asshole because he got an exception for rape written into the bill only if the rape is reported. Well, that's helpful. because unless it's reported, it's not really rape. And we all know how well that turns out for women who report it.

So today, the House passed this atrocious law, limiting abortion to 20 weeks. Which, oh yeah, has already been determined by the SCOTUS to be an invalid timeframe. Because 14th Amendment, yo. At least it won't pass the Senate. And if it does, President Obama is sure to veto the shit out of it.

However, this little civics lesson has an actual point, other than simply crying about how fucked up it is that men seem to think they always know what's best for everyone, paternalistic little shits. Oh right. My point. Which is this.

Kermit Gosnell is soooo horrible, and what he did is sooooo atrocious that we have to make a law based upon his criminal actions - and his alone.

Let's look at this in a different light, shall we?

Newtown.

What happened in Newtown to little children (practically fetuses themselves!) was soooo atrocious and soooo horrible that we had to make a law limiting access to assault weapons and ensuring that we know who is purchasing guns. Thank goodness!!!

Wait, what?? Oh, my bad.

What happened in Newtown to little children (practically fetuses themselves!) was soooo atrocious and soooo horrible that we had to make a law expanding everyone's access to assault weapons and all the states need to pass laws nullifying any federal legislation, and Sherrifs are now G-d. Because 2nd Amendment, yo.

Well now. That makes sense. I feel better and more educated. Don't you?

Quote of the day: AR-15s: Good for the goose, but not for the gander

Photo Credit: AP

"It's been bugging me for weeks now, why IRS agents are training with a semi-automatic rifle AR-15, which has stand-off capability. Are Americans that much of a target that you need that kind of capability?... I think Americans raise eyebrows when you tell them that IRS agents are training with a type of weapon that has stand-off capability. It’s not like they’re carrying a sidearm and they knock on someone’s door and say, ‘You’re evading your taxes."
~Rep Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.)

So let me get this straight. AR-15s are a-ok for you and me to carry and use against the IRS when they come a-knockin. Because 2nd Amendment, yo.

AR-15s as a stand-off weapon are intended only for dumbass 'Muricans who want to assassinate anyone they don't like or agree with (like the IRS, maybe?), but they are eyebrow-raising if government law enforcement agencies use them for training?


I see. Thanks for clarifying the Constitution for me, douchebag.

And this is why women need choice

And why the rape culture in this country and around the world must stop.

So Republicans, you think we should accept rape babies as a gift from G-d? You think we ought to make the best of a bad situation?

How about this bad situation?

It seems that a 13 year old Indiana girl was raped. An actual, real rape, because wowza – her rapist was actually convicted. Though the poor dear is only 17, and has his whole future ahead of him, so of course, he is out on bond while awaiting his (likely minimal) sentencing for not only raping her, but also sexually assaulting 2 other young girls. And because 13 isn’t young enough for this paragon with such a promising future, one of his other two victims was only 12. Yes. 12.

he’s been free since he was charged in January — and even after being convicted on three child molesting charges in May.

Apparently questions do remain, because it seems this 13 year old girl got pregnant while being held down and raped by a boy who wouldn’t accept no. Which, I guess, means that maybe she wasn’t really legitimately raped since her body didn’t actually shut the whole thing down? And pregnancy hardly even happens from rape. In which case, slut! Whore!!

Which is exactly what this little girl is facing.

She did what all you nice older white men want made her do. She is carrying the pregnancy to term. Because ABORTION!!! So what is her reward for doing just what you all want made her do?

Well, it seems that every time she walks out her door, the people in her town yell things at her like SLUT and WHORE, even going so far as to vandalize her house by painting it on the walls. Does she get the protection of the police for this? They of course aggressively pursued the people bullying this little girl who is doing just what you wanted her to do, right?

The repeated vandalism incidents at the family’s home — including the words “whore” and “slut” scrawled on the garage doors — were reported to police. But Green said no charges were filed because there were no witnesses to the acts.

Oh, well ok. Forget investigating it. Since there are no witnesses, she obviously vandalized the house herself to get pity because WHORE!!

Green said she and her daughter were both opposed to abortion, but the topic came up after she learned her “baby girl” was pregnant.

“Under these circumstances,” Green said, “it would have been easier.” But after a two-hour heart-to-heart conversation, her daughter held firm to her convictions.

“I just looked at my mom,” the girl recalled, “and told her I wanted to keep the baby.”
It is a decision, the girl acknowledged, that means she will never get to enjoy typical teenage activities and pursuits.

She already has scaled back her goal of attending the University of Michigan and studying to become a veterinarian.

Now, she’s hoping to attend an alternative school to earn her high school diploma, then possibly study to work in child care or as a hair stylist.

So this young girl has to give up her dreams of a wonderful career because she was raped. And yes, she made the choice to keep the pregnancy. A brave choice. One we should all support her in and help her.

And when she does what you all wanted her to do, when she doesn’t terminate the result of her rape, when she makes a brave decision that is going to affect the rest of her life, does she get the support of her community? Her church? Her friends?

A former self-proclaimed “social bug” — she was a cheerleader and athlete — the young victim has become reclusive since learning she was pregnant.

“I can’t walk out the door without someone calling me a whore or slut,” the girl said. “I used to have a lot of friends, or people I thought were my friends, but as soon as this happened I just isolated myself.”
…

Slurs scribbled on the garage doors at the girl’s home have been painted over, but their faint outlines — and the sting — still linger. They are remnants of repeated vandalism at the girl’s home after she told police that an older neighborhood boy had raped her.

My heart aches for this young girl (and the other 2 victims of this man’s sexual assault).

The rape culture in this country must stop.

When will parents teach their boys that no means no? Even if the girl only says no twice before you rape her, she still probably maybe really meant no.

“I was telling him ‘no,’ ‘no,’ ” she said, “but he wouldn’t stop.”

When will we teach our sons and daughters that rape is NEVER the fault of the victim? It’s an act of power and control over a more vulnerable person.

When will we teach our children that we shouldn’t feel sorry for the convicted rapist’s lost future?

When will our communities show compassion? When will we give more support to the victim than the rapist?

When will we come to our fucking senses?

In which I singlehandedly solve the Texas budget deficit

via Obsidian Wings

'tha fuck, Texas?

I have figured out how you deal with a budget crisis. On my recent business trip to you, I visited your fair cities of Plano and Austin. You managed in that time frame to bilk me out of $250. Not bad for 4 days work. Just imagine if you did that to every visitor to Texas, how soon you could magically turn a deficit into a surplus!

It appears that you have made a practice out of charging customers without telling them you are doing so. In the 4 days I was in Texas, here's what I got charged for:

I prepaid for my car rental in Dallas. In an attempt to save my company money (never again, BTW), I rented from Advantage Rent-A-Car instead of my usual Hertz. My charge for picking up a car Sunday night at 11 pm and returning it on Tuesday at 2 pm was $56 including all taxes and charges. Excellent, no?

Until I got to the rental counter. Where Advantage proceeded to charge me $200 to drive my PREPAID car off the lot. They claim they refund the money when you return the car. They refused to give me a receipt for said $200 when I paid it and when I returned the car. There was no notice on the rental agreement I printed off the internet when I booked and paid for my car that I'd be charged an extra $200. Like that's going to cover the cost of the car if I don't return it? 'Tha fuck, Texas? I've never been charged up front for a deposit from a rental agency before. Ever. And I've rented a lot of cars in a lot of states in my day. Why the hell did I even use them then? Well, I would have walked away from my $50 and gone to the Hertz counter, but my flight was delayed and I didn't arrive at the rental counter until midnight (about 5 minutes before they were closing). I was exhausted from a long day of travel, it was midnight, for chrissakes, and the Hertz counter was closing. It was hard to walk away from a waiting car at midnight. Next time? I'd walk to my hotel before renting from Advantage.  Advantage obviously stands for "take advantage". Do NOT use them. Ever.

From Dallas, I hopped on a plane to Austin. Where I checked into the very lovely Embassy Suites there. And gave them my credit card for incidental charges (the room was already paid for by my company). Where they proceeded to charge my card $50 without telling me as a guarantee against any charges. IO discovered this on the way home from the airport when I checked my balance. So I called them this morning to say 'tha fuck? And just like Advantage, I was promised that since it was only a "deposit", the charges would be reversed. Once again, I have no receipt for these charges, and wasn't told they would be making them. I've stayed at Embassy Suites many times in many different states and never been charged up front a deposit for incidentals. 'tha fuck, Texas?

WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Also, Texas, you brag about having no state income tax. That is lovely. However, I was speaking to my colleague there who said yes, it's true, but her property taxes on her house (equivalent to mine in size and value) are $30,000 annually.

'tha FUCK?

Yes, $30,000. Mine are approximately $4,600. Now granted, I live in California where we are still 'protected' under Prop 13. But still - holy guacamole, $30k is a lot of money! I think I'd rather settle for a couple hundred less per paycheck and pay state income taxes than have a whopper like that due in one fell swoop. Either way, the state manages to screw its citizens. So quit bragging on how awesome you are because Texans don't pay income tax.

So now that I have single-handedly solved the budget crisis in Texas... how was your week?

Quote of the day: I have a few words for Erick Erickson

“When you look at biology, when you look at the natural world, the roles of a male and a female in society and in other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complimentary role."
~Fox "News" Contributor Erick Erickson on the "science" of why women should be submissive

First off, every time I hear his name, I hear Andy Rooney in my head. "What kind of a name is Erick Erickson? Kind of sounds like Sirhan Sirhan."

*Note: I came to this Sirhan Sirhan comparison via my inferior mind and my submissiveness. My MANLY MAN husband likely would view him as THE VIKING. And I know I should be complimentary and tell him how smart and brave and RIGHT he is, him being dominant and me being submissive and all...

Anyway, enough about Andy Rooney.

I have a few words for Erick Erickson about who actually has the dominant role in the animal kingdom:

baboons
hyenas
lions
elephants
golden eagle
praying mantis
spiders
ants
bees
wasps
lemurs

Thoughts on terrorism 4 years after George Tiller's murder

I've been thinking about this for a while, and the anniversary of the murder of Dr. George Tiller seemed a good time to put my thoughts down for posterity.

Merriam-Webster defines Terrorism thusly:

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

According to the FBI, terrorism is defined as:

Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. For the purpose of this report, the FBI will use the following definitions:

Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.

International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. International terrorist acts occur outside the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.

The FBI Divides Terrorist-Related Activities into Two Categories:
A terrorist incident is a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, in violation of the criminal laws of the United States, or of any state, to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

A terrorism prevention is a documented instance in which a violent act by a known or suspected terrorist group or individual with the means and a proven propensity for violence is successfully interdicted through investigative activity.

So… here’s my question. We call an isolated incident of a pair of disenfranchised brothers accused of bombing at the Boston Marathon terrorism. Don’t get me wrong, it was a “terror-inducing” act. On the surface, it appears that the older brother was angry about the US government and some of its policies. But the younger brother, from all accounts so far, had become a US citizen in 2011, was a great guy (NOT that that has anything to do with it), but had never shown anything but love for his adopted country. SO much so, that he became a citizen. Which, BTW, entitles him to ALL rights afforded to citizens.

Is it the mode of weapon that creates terrorism? Is it a bomb? An airline hijacking? Obviously, we know it is not a massacre with an assault weapon. And if it is a bomb, why aren't all bombings considered terrorism?

If we take the FBI definition: “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”, then other things qualify as terrorism as well. Things that aren’t identified as such by the US government, the politicians, or any media outlet. Things like systematic bombings and arsons, murders, and other extreme violence including sending anthrax-laced letters aimed at women’s health clinics that may (or may not) provide LEGAL pregnancy termination care.

Why are we so quick to identify an isolated incident such as the Boston Marathon as terrorism, and yet we don’t aggressively seek to arrest and prosecute perpetrators of women’s health clinic violence as terrorists?

Could it be because the health clinic incidents are intended to intimidate women? And women are definitely treated as 2nd class citizens in this country, to do and say they are told. We should keep a quiet dignity, let our men be dominant, focus on why we married our cheating husband in the first place, or remember why we married our abusive husband in the first place.

Health clinic violence, and the accompanying violence that follows clinic workers to their homes is, plain and simple, terrorism. It meets the government definition. Far more than the Boston Marathon bombing does. Because the Boston bombing was a statement - made out of anger rather than out of a desire to intimidate or coerce, whereas the terrorism that leads to the murders and intimidation of women's health care personnel is systematic, prolonged, and meets every single definition put forth on what constitutes terrorism. There can be no doubt as to the motivation behind women’s health clinic violence. It is solely intended to intimidate and scare women, politicians, and the courts into overturning Roe v Wade and criminalizing women’s health choices, turning them into the inanimate sperm receptacles and incubators that some on the right would like to see.

It seems that only one thing meets the definition of terrorism these days. Is the perpetrator Muslim? That’s it. It couldn't possibly be terrorism if the perpetrator is white, male, and fighting FOR 'Murica. Because who cares about YOUR right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, if I can't do everything I want, when I want, and with whatever gun I want? And also make YOU do what I want you to do, and worship who I want you to worship?

Incidents of Islamic terrorism in the US are far less frequent than women’s health clinic violence. However, we immediately assume that because someone has different religious views that must be a terrorist. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

I am calling on the US government to investigate every attack on women’s health clinics and their workers as terrorism. The motivation meets the definition.

What about Sandy Hook? Was the systematic massacre of 20 children and 6 adults terrorism? Well, it certainly seems to invoke terror. We may never know Adam Lanza’s motivation. We don’t seem to call massacres with assault weapons terrorism at all. Columbine, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Seal Beach, Tucson, Lancaster PA, and so many more.  Yet we don’t call these terror attacks. No, instead, we use them as a call for more opportunities for more people to commit these crimes.

Why wasn’t the 1999 racial & religiously motivated attack on a Jewish Community Center full of small children prosecuted as a terrorist attack, or even as a hate crime? Furrow admitted it was racially and religiously motivated. But Buford Furrow only faced murder, civil rights violation, and weapons charges.

If we are going to be so selective in our assignment of the terrorism label, then we ought not publish our definition of it at all.

When we focus on one group only, racially profile them as terrorists and ignore all other incidents as "fighting for the rights of the unborn" or "fighting for my 2nd amendment rights" or "put women in their place" or "get that BLACK man out of the WHITE house" then we disavow all that our country has stood for these last 237 years.

Terrorism is terrorism, no matter who perpetrates it, and no matter in whose name.

Quote of the day: Chris Kluwe has all the awesome

"Now, I would hope that I would get the chance to play football again, because I think I can still play. But if it ends up being something that costs me that position, I think making people aware of an issue that is causing children to commit suicide is more important than kicking a leather ball."
~Chris Kluwe on whether his outspokenness on LGBT rights had anything to do with being released from the Vikings

(AP Photo/Genevieve Ross)

Chris Kluwe rocks something fierce. And he has it completely right. Thank you, Chris!

via HuffPost Impact

Quote of the day: Bill Clinton on Marriage Equality

Setting aside the way that President Clinton screwed over the gay community when he was president (though to his credit, he tried to keep his promises. Compromises and all...), he's been very outspoken in his support of marriage equality.

While accepting the GLAAD “Advocate for Change” award, Clinton in part, said this:

"I want to keep working on this until not only DOMA is no longer the law of the land, but until all people, no matter where they live, can marry the people they love. For example, when I flew here from New York, I knew I’d still be married when I got here. Heck, I’m going to Texas next week to George W. Bush’s library dedication, and I’ll still be married when I get there."

The issue of leaving marriage up to the states is exactly this. Married is married. Period. 

Other people who were discriminated against in marriage on a state by state basis?

Inter-racial marriage (are you paying attention, Clarence Thomas?).

Would it interest Thomas to know that if he flew to Alabama in 1999, he wasn't married, even though he got married in 1987? That's right. A Supreme Court Justice of the United States of America was not considered married in Alabama until 2000. I sure hope he remembers this when he's considering the case before the Court now.

And it's nice that Clinton is trying to get DOMA repealed, since he signed it into law and all.

You can watch President Clinton's entire speech here.

Ahhh, North Carolina... WINNING!

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/united-states/north-carolina-guide/

So, what’s been happening in North Carolina lately? Well, it’s spring, the weather is beautiful and…

Lawmakers Pass Bill To Resume Executions In North Carolina - Because we don't need no stinkin' Racial Justice Act!

North Carolina Hospital's New Slogan 'Cheat Death' Is Destined to Disappoint - because, apparently, BLASPHEMY! Except when we want to cheat death.

North Carolina GOP wants to create state religion, says federal courts have no power to determine constitutionality of anything - once again, proving that when we like it, the Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND (2nd Amendment) and any other time? Fuck that old fashioned POS.

Eleven North Carolina Republicans Sponsor Resolution Saying Their State Can Ignore The Constitution

(although North Carolina House Speaker kills legislation to create official state religion) - because obvs, it might be unconstitutional

ALEC-Sponsored Bill To Repeal North Carolina’s Renewable Energy Standard Narrowly Passes Out Of Committee - proving once again who was really elected. ALEC.

North Carolina GOP Wants To Require Background Checks On Welfare Applicants Instead Of Gun Buyers - because 2nd AMENDMENT - YAY!!! And POORS - BOO!!!

North Carolina Lawmakers Introduce Bill To Penalize Parents Of College Student Voters - since we all know those young'uns all vote democrat.

After RNC Calls For Hispanic Outreach, Republican Governor Eliminates Latino Affairs Office - since we all know those brown folks all vote democrat.

You’re Not Helping: North Carolina GOP Gov. Closes State Latino Office

Top North Carolina Republican Introduces Florida-Style Voter Suppression Bill - well of course there shouldn't be voting on Sunday! We're an official Christian State! If you aren't in church, SATAN!!

University of North Carolina Faces Backlash For Its Mistreatment Of Sexual Assault Victims - because she was asking for it anyway.

North Carolina Is Just Now Considering Repeal Of Jim Crow Voter Restriction - y'all might want to hold off on this. As soon as SCOTUS kills the Voting Rights Act, you'll still have Jim Crow!! Yay you, North Carolina! That's one less piece of legislation you'll need to rewrite.

'tha fuck, North Carolina?

Let's see...
Death penalty - yay!... check
Christian nation - yay!... check
Love of environment - boo!... check
Welfare is evil - yay!... check
First Amendment, boo. Second Amendment yay! ... check
Tenthers - yay!... check (except for that 2nd Amendment)
Voter suppression - yay!... check
Misogyny - yay!... check
Racism - yay!... check

By the way, all of these headlines are just from this week.

My, my, my. North Carolina, you sure are busy. Too bad you can’t be more like your colleagues in the House. Now they know how to get shit done.

The USPS: Congress' latest victim

So... Congress can vote to end billions of funds for the less fortunate, "tighten our belts", lay off millions of government employees and crow in glee about it. But God forbid we move to 5 day mail service to save jobs, jobs, jobs and money?

In its latest bonehead move, Congress has voted to not allow the USPS to end Saturday delivery. Per Reuters, "the Postal Service has said that while it would not pick up or deliver first-class mail, magazines and direct mail, it would continue to deliver packages and pharmaceutical drugs on Saturdays."

The USPS, because of Congress' brilliance, is forced to fund pensions today for employees who haven't even been born yet. They've got a $16B deficit. Ending Saturday delivery would save the USPS $2B annually.

Look here, you dumbass Congresspeople.

Just because you're a bunch of stupid old technologically deficient blowhards who never heard of the "INTERNET" and "EMAIL", doesn't mean that the rest of the world doesn't know that ending Saturday delivery wouldn't be the apocolypse. The rest of the world does their banking online, gets and pays their bills online, gets their Netflix porn on their laptops, sends birthday cards and wedding invitations and RSVP to bar mitzvahs via Facebook (NOT that I'm bitter about that or anything).

Is it soooo important that you get your damn junk mail on Saturday? One more thing to recycle (oh wait - you don't believe in caring for the planet - never mind).

Are you that eager to bankrupt the USPS so that you can lay off more government workers and privatize yet another government agency in order to line the pockets of your rich fat-cat corporation buddies?

Oh. Never mind.

#Steubenville, Rape Culture, Devaluing Girls, and Raising Boys

The Steubenville verdict came down on Sunday, with both perpetrators being found “delinquent”, which in Ohio juvenile court is the equivalent of guilty. While I was satisfied with the verdict, the messaging that came out afterward left something to be desired.

First and foremost, the judge. He proclaimed it to be a serious offense, yet sentenced the convicted rapists to 1 and 2 years, including time served. To me, that was the equivalent of a slap on the wrist. Add in his statement about social media – this (case) being a lesson on how you record things on social media that are so prevalent today. In other words, if you’re going to rape, don’t be stupid enough to record it and post it on the internet.

Next, a statement by one of the convicted rapists: "I would truly like to apologize. No pictures should have been sent around, let alone have been taken."

In other words, I’m not sorry I did it, I’m sorry I took pictures of it. Oops. My bad.

CNN talked about how sad it was that these boys’ futures, once so bright, were now ruined. Really? HOW ABOUT THE VICTIM’S FUTURE??? And also? Once someone has been convicted of rape, they are rapists. And the victim isn’t the “accuser”, she is the victim. (Not that she wasn’t before either).

The victim-blaming and shaming in the media that proclaimed these good students, these football stars who had scholarship opportunities, these poor boys were convicted of raping a drunken 16-year-old girl. Putting the blame squarely on the victim. She was drunk? What do you expect? Boys will be boys and all.

All of these things make it easy for boys and men (and yes, women - hello CNN!) to excuse rape. To be apologists. To perpetuate a culture that doesn't proclaim rape wrong in every single instance. To allow legislators to claim that if a woman got pregnant she must have consented. Or allows them to introduce legislation protecting rapist’s rights and calling victims of rape “accusers”, while calling victims of other crimes “victims”. That has the media highlighting what could have been for the rapist instead of what could have been for the victim. That has a football coach claiming that “they’re going after our football program” when in fact, rapists were simply arrested and exposed. That allows our culture to put football programs ahead of crime. And makes grown men in teaching positions support rapists rather than victims.

Perhaps the most sad of all: this statement by a friend of the rapists, who stood by, recorded it, and did nothing. "It wasn't violent," he explained. "I didn't know what rape was."

Right there is a huge problem. There is a misconception in this country that rape always looks violent. Done by a stranger who pulls you into a back alley, beats you up, holds you at gunpoint, and “has sex” with you. And if you don't come out of the encounter with bruises between your thighs, a fat lip, a black eye, and a ripped vagina, then you weren't really raped.

While it sometimes happens this way (with the exception of the “has sex with you” part, which is NEVER the case in rape - rape is a crime of power, control & violence, not sex), more often rape is committed by someone the victim knows. Women are raped because they went out with a guy who then expects payment for his trouble. Because they wore skirts too short. Because they had a drink. Because they were out past dark. Because they flirted earlier. Because they changed their mind.

One thing my husband and I have always tried to teach our teenage boys (one now in college, one in high school) from a young age is that at any point, a girl can say no. And while it might be the hardest thing you think you've ever done, if she says no, then you must stop. Also, NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING, invites rape. Not being at a party. Not being your girlfriend for a year. Not being drunk. Not flirting and teasing you.

I hate that in this country we have to teach our girls how to avoid rape. I wish the same emphasis was placed on teaching boys and men not to rape. From day one, teach your boys that no at any time means no. That a lack of “yes” also means no. That being unable to express yourself (whether drunk, sleeping, or otherwise incapacitated – like having cerebral palsy) also means no.

I hope and pray that this message has come across clearly to my sons. I hope my sons never utter the words – “It wasn't violent. I didn't know it was rape.” And that they never stand on the sidelines and watch a girl, or anyone, be violated. That they never think a girl “deserved it”. That they understand that in the same way their bodies sometimes confuse them and they aren't quite sure what they want, and they experiment, girls do the same.

Teenagehood is a time of serious learning. And I don’t mean school. It’s a time when young men and women experiment with their feelings, learn about social norms, take those values that you've spent all those years teaching them and actually apply them to real life. They are learning about sexuality. So while they might feel like girls sometimes tease, it’s really that those girls are learning about their sexuality in the same way that boys do. By trial and error. By seeing how far they can go before they don’t feel right. By learning the effect that men and women have on each other.

And yes, sometimes it might feel like deliberate provocation to a teenage boy who is also learning about their bodies and the interactions between men and women. But even if it is perceived as such, the biggest lessons to come out of it all should be autonomy. Self control. And respect.

Our culture is one that devalues women in so many ways. We arrest a woman for breastfeeding on a bench in a mall while she sits under an advertisement showing a woman baring her breasts in sexy lingerie. We value cells more than we do the women within whom the cells are contained. We idolize shows on TV and ads in magazines that put women in skimpy outfits and portray that as the ideal, and then tell women who wear skimpy outfits that they are cheap sleazy whores who are asking to be raped.

Nobody asks to be raped. And Nothing. Nothing gives anyone the right to overpower another person and touch or penetrate them in any way without their explicit consent. And implied consent does not equal explicit consent.

DRUNKENNESS DOES NOT EQUAL IMPLIED OR EXPLICIT CONSENT.
SHORT SKIRTS DO NOT EQUAL IMPLIED OR EXPLICIT CONSENT.
BEING OUT AFTER DARK DOES NOT EQUAL IMPLIED OR EXPLICIT CONSENT.
GOING TO A PARTY DOES NOT EQUAL IMPLIED OR EXPLICIT CONSENT.

You know what else doesn't equal implied consent? If a girl had sex before. Or if a girl previously had sex with you or your friends. Last week, she consented. She is allowed to not consent today.

You know what else doesn't equal implied or explicit consent? Wearing a short skirt. Or coming home from your job on the bus at midnight. Or leaving your window open while you sleep in the middle of summer. Or going out to dinner with someone. Or anything else other than saying yes.

Parents. Teach your children – both boys and girls – what consent is and is not. In the same way that you teach them other values, teach them to value each other’s autonomy. Teach them their wants and desires are not superior to others.

Put them in the other person’s shoes.

If your son was falling down drunk at a party, after dark, while wearing tight jeans that show off his butt and a tight t-shirt that shows off those arm & chest muscles that he worked so hard on in football practice, would it be ok for someone to pull his pants down and fondle him or penetrate him with fingers, with a penis, with an object? No? You mean just because he’s drunk doesn’t mean that he deserves to be penetrated without his consent? Then why is it ok to do it to a girl?

And if that happened to your boy, would it be ok for others to stand by and watch and do nothing except to take video and pictures of the whole thing and laugh about it, and joke about peeing on him? And if those pictures and video were then posted all over the internet, and people from your town and other towns called him a whore? A bitch? A slut? Would it be ok for people who don’t know your son, and those who do, to shame him and say he deserved it?

And if that happened to your boy, would you want the media falling all over themselves to bemoan the lost future of the poor person(s) that violated him?

No? Then why is it ok to do it to a girl?

Quote(s) of the day: How come you guys call us racist? Oh, and sexist?

"For what? For feeding him and housing him?"
~CPAC participant Scott Terry, in response to a speaker saying that Frederick Douglass wrote a letter forgiving his slavemaster

He then went on to complain, "Why can't we just have segregation?"

According to ThinkProgress,

...when asked if he’d accept a society where African-Americans were permanently subservient to whites, he said “I’d be fine with that.” He also claimed that African-Americans “should be allowed to vote in Africa,” and that “all the Tea Parties” were concerned with the same racial problems that he was.

At one point, a woman challenged him on the Republican Party’s roots, to which Terry responded, “I didn’t know the legacy of the Republican Party included women correcting men in public.”

CPAC is fast becoming mainstream Republican. While it also includes the crazies like Sarah Palin and Donald Trump, the (losing) Republican candidate for President and Vice-President (a prominent Congressional Republican) and several sitting Senators and Congressmen spoke, as well as several names being bandied about for 2016. Speakers included Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Wayne LaCrazysauce, Ted Cruz (who Dianne Feinstein took to school yesterday), sitting WI governor Scott Walker, and Jeb Bush.

Republicans are forever complaining that they are labeled as racist. And deny that they believe women are second class citizens. When such prominent politicians as these don't denounce this type of rhetoric, they implicitly (and frequently explicitly) condone it.

So Republicans, stop with the "You're putting words in our mouths" and the "There is no war on women" and the "We aren't racist! Some of my best friends are black!" and the "Liberal media boohoo!" because you're lying sacks of dog doo.

Quote Unquote: Women, why do you have to be so stupid all the time?

It's why we have call boxes, it's why we have safe zones, it's why we have the whistles. Because you just don't know who you're gonna be shooting at. And you don't know if you feel like you're gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone's been following you around or if you feel like you're in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop, pop a round at somebody."
Rep Joe Salazar (D-Colorado)

While trying to argue against the concealed carry law for Colorado universities, he made this stupid dumbass remark, basically claiming that a woman doesn't know if she's about to be raped (WRONG), and isn't smart enough to understand when it might be appropriate to use a gun against an attacker (WRONG).

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for gun control, and I hate that there's a concealed carry policy at CU, my alma mater. However...

Why is it that every time politicians (read: white men) want to show why something is a terrible idea, it comes at the expense of women in some form or another?

Women are too stupid to understand if they're being raped.

Women are too stupid to understand what they're doing to their bodies.

Native women and lesbians don't deserve protection from getting their ass kicked.

Women should buy insurance against rape-induced pregnancy.

Women would cry rape just because.

Women don't deserve birth control.

Women don't deserve preventive health care services.

Women should remember why they married their abusive husband in the first place. Then all the warm fuzzies would come back and it would be ok for them to beat the crap out of you.

Women don't deserve to be paid the same as men for doing the same job.

Women shouldn't be in combat because they menstruate and make men feel all protective (except when we're beating them, and then it's a-ok). Oh and because POOPING!

Women should never have gotten the right to vote. (to be fair, that was a stupid woman who said that)

Women go to the mall to get Starbucks and abortions. (another stupid woman said that)

Why is it that in order to show why something is a bad idea, you have to blame it on women? Why must women be the root of all evil? (No, don't go spouting off that crap about Eve & the apple - that's bullshit made up by a patriarchal society to justify the subjugation of women.)

Women are not the root of all evil. We give birth to you. We raise you. We teach you right from wrong (though obviously, some of us have failed miserably). We feed you, nurture you. We carry you in our bodies (no, actually you are not an organ) while you change from a cell to a mass of cells to a blob to eventually, once we labor for hours on end, a person.

Why must everything therefore be our fault?

Just once, I'd like for someone to stand up and tell the truth. "I think women are stupid. I think they are inferior. I think we need to take away all their constitutional rights just because."

At least then, we would have something honest to discuss. (Like what a fucktard you are)

Anyway, back to Rep Salazar.

Let me rephrase his argument so that it might be understood by all the other folks out there:

What if a guy wasn't sure if he was being followed and happened to see some guy wearing a hoodie (in Colorado in the winter). He might think that guy was going to kill him. And you feel like someone's been following you around or if you feel like you're in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop, pop a round at somebody. And whoops! You've killed Treyvon Martin.

Dear Florida, This.

Quote of the day: 7 year old terrorist might escape police custody and run away

“He had to be handcuffed — he was a prisoner. If we didn’t handcuff him and he ran out the front door, then we would have had an escaped prisoner on our hands.”

Is this a quote about an alleged terrorist planning to blow up a government building? Is it about a bank robber? Nope, that quote is attributed to an NYPD source, explaining why a 7 year old boy from the Bronx was handcuffed to a wall for 5 hours over a disputed allegedly stolen $5. Yes, Five Dollars. In School.

Because it would be nearly practically actually impossible for a precinct full of adult police officers to catch a 7 year old “escaped prisoner” who might run away from them. Over Five Dollars. Because a 7 year old “escaped prisoner” who allegedly stole Five Dollars is a huge threat to society and we might not ever find him again if we didn't handcuff him to a wall for 5 hours. He might not even be in his bed at 8pm that night to be found.

Oh noes!

“Cops treated the boy as kindly as possible, the source added.”

Ummm, I’m thinking chaining him to a wall for 5 hours over Five Dollars is not as kindly as possible. The little boy was actually arrested and charged. Yes. Charged with robbery. Of Five Dollars. Jean Valjean who?

When my kids were 7, if they’d taken someone else’s $5, you bet I would have had my kid in front of the other kid & their parents, apologizing & returning the money. And grounded him for a good long time. But would I really have wanted him arrested? Uhhh…

We actually ran across this in reverse. A kid in elementary school – kind of a bully kid at the time – stole  Oldest’s wallet. Oldest told his teacher, who had the child return it and sent him to the office. I believe he was suspended for a couple days. Which seemed fine to all parties. The boys were in 4th or 5th grade at the time. Older than 7. Did I call the police? Did I ask for him to be chained to a wall? No, not even for a few minutes, much less 5 hours.

Children are not little adults. They often learn right & wrong by making mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes are whoppers. But they learn and grow from those mistakes. That kid who stole my son’s wallet? Yeah, when they hit high school, the boys became friends. And I understand he’s a great kid. At least according to Oldest. All’s well that ends well.

You cannot treat a 7 year old like an adult. Not that I would expect an adult to be chained to a wall over a $5 dispute. Suspend him from school for a day? Sure. Ground him? Sure. Have the campus cop give him a talking to? Sure.

NYPD, you really aren’t doing much for your image here. You are a bunch of bullies. I hear the mother is thinking of suing you for $250 million. While I think that’s pretty excessive (kind of like handcuffing a 7-year old to a wall for 5 hours over Five Dollars because he might escape otherwise is pretty excessive), I hope the judgment against you is swift.

For this, NYPD earns a You've Got Balls award.

Congress holds gun violence hearings and out come the kooks

The day after a father whose child was slaughtered testified before a state hearing on gun control and was heckled by the NRA, and on the day that Gabby Giffords testified before a Senate hearing on gun violence (make sure to watch the video – she is powerful), I came across this.

Because we all know that kids (and Barton specifically references elementary school kids) have such great judgment and such a wonderful sense of life and death that they could surely be responsible enough to carry guns to school. All in the name of preventing gun violence. What could go wrong there?

Yes, in an interview with has-been Glenn Beck, David Barton said that.



Here’s another little snippet from his show on WallBuilders Live on 17 January.

So the purpose of the Second Amendment was you have got to be able to defend yourself, your rights, period against anybody and that sometimes means it may be your government coming after you. So if the government has got AR-15s, guess what? The people can have AR-15s ... Whatever the government's got, you've got to be able to defend yourself against. So there was no limitation on what you could or couldn't do with the Second Amendment; it was a self-defense amendment and if everybody is coming at you AR-15s, you don't defend yourself with BB guns, you get AR-15s.

OK, so I know! The government has nuclear weapons. Can I buy one at the gun counter at Wal-Mart? Or missiles? Or even RPGs? Oh, what’s that you say? We already have access to those?

Well then. See? Our second amendment must be working because no elementary school kids have shot up a school with an RPG launcher or nuclear weapon yet. Makes perfect sense to me.

Wayne LaCrazysauce testified in the hearings as well, and in part said this (via addictinginfo.org)

“It’s time to throw an immediate blanket of security around our children. About a third of our schools have armed security already – because it works.”

Except when it doesn’t work in places like Columbine or Virginia Tech or Red Lake where armed, trained guards were on staff and on the facility. Or Westside Middle School where the shooters, aged 11 and 13 pulled the fire alarm which dumped the entire student body outside of the school where they shot and killed five and wounded 10 with guns they got from their parents.

Or when armed guards leave their weapons in the student bathroom after taking a dump.

Also? This is not just about school safety. This is about public safety – protecting our citizens, wherever they are – in movie theaters, firefighting, at school, at work. Shall every place of business have armed guards? Shall every retail establishment have armed guards? I suppose that’s one way to create jobs.

Bob Costas spoke about gun culture on The Daily Show on Monday. He has a great point. Until we change the pro-gun culture in our country, we will not curb gun violence. A big step in that is to educate our people on the dangers of guns – that they are more harmful than helpful, cause more deaths than save lives.

Said Costas, in part:

"I think any sane person believes we ought not have high capacity magazines and assault rifles and that there ought to be background checks," Costas said. "You know what? I'm not exactly sure what's sane, but I know a lot of what I've heard in the aftermath is insane." (emphasis mine)

So true. Like arming schoolchildren.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Also, a quick note about Giffords. It warms my heart to see how much progress she's made. She is truly an inspiration. But I'm also saddened when I think about all the great things she could have been doing in Congress the past 2 years.

And having mentioned the Giffords incident - one other note, and that is about mental illness. The NRA would have you believe that mental illness is the real problem here. That is untrue. The mentally ill are not the cause of gun violence in America. Mentally ill people are far more likely to harm themselves than others. We must deal with mental illness, yes, but it is a health issue not a gun control issue. We need to eliminate the stigma, treat it like any other organic illness, and cover it with insurance in the same manner. Not only will we help the mentally ill, we might even make headway in the homelessness problem we face and other socioeceonomic concerns.

But that will not stop gun violence on the streets of America.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Our people are dying. In vast numbers. We must do something. We must act now.

Congress and society alike.

Some days I'm ashamed to be an American

Yes, I said that. And yes, I mean it. This is what we’ve come to in America.

A man’s 6 year old son gets shot up and killed in a massacre by a man wielding a weapon that shoots 45 rounds per minute, and he can’t come to a meeting and give his opinion about guns without getting heckled and ridiculed?

Some days, I wish I lived somewhere else. The shame that these people bring upon America is unimaginable. It's no wonder the rest of the world thinks we're crazed, uneducated, idiotic boobs.

Because we are.

What’s in a name?

I sat there watching President Obama’s inauguration speech (transcript here) and listening carefully to his vision for America. Then of course, after the speech came the pundits. Ugh. The worst part of every single political event. But what struck me was the idea that President Obama’s speech was the “most liberal”, “most progressive” speech EVAR, and was solely meant to be divisive.

Here’s the headline in my hometown LA Times following the speech: In Obama's inaugural speech, a sweeping liberal vision

Allowing that "our journey is not complete," President Obama offered a robust liberal vision of America in his second inaugural address, embracing gay rights, action on climate change and a substantial role for government even as he acknowledged the challenges of a bitterly divided nation. (emphasis mine)

At a time when we should be overflowing with pride in our political system - one that was designed to give us all a voice, our first instinct is to look for our differences rather than our commonalities. To look for those wedges to drive between us rather than glue to hold us together.

I started thinking about what it meant to be labeled as a liberal or a progressive.

Most Americans agree with the President’s thoughts as outlined in the speech.

(source: ThinkProgress)
To me, that says “mainstream”. Not “liberal”.

Is it liberal to want equality for all under the law?

Is it liberal to want the same autonomy over my body that you have over yours?

Is it liberal to want all people to be able to marry the person that they love?

Is it liberal to want children to grow up in a loving home, regardless of who their parents are, as long as they are loved, well-cared for, and their needs met?

Is it liberal to want to drive on a road without potholes, on a bridge without fear of its collapse, to ride on a mass-transit system rather than a crowded highway?

Is it liberal to want my children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren to grow up in a world where they can view the glaciers, where their every season isn’t plagued by drought, fire, hurricane, flood?

Is it liberal to want the freedom to worship G-d in my own way, regardless of whether that is the same way that you worship G-d?

Is it liberal to want to be able to call my god G-d while you call yours Jesus, while someone else calls him Allah, while someone else calls him Buddha, while someone else calls her Goddess, and while someone else doesn't use that terminology at all?

Is it liberal to want society to contribute back to me, after I’ve spent a lifetime contributing to society?

Is it liberal to wish for diplomacy rather than a rush to war? To use my words rather than my fists, just like my parents taught me?

Is it liberal to want the Statue of Liberty to mean what it says? To welcome immigrants to our country?

Is it liberal to have a family when I want to, not when someone else tells me to?

Is it liberal to not want to be shamed when someone else does wrong to me?

Is it liberal to want my children to live in a world where guns aren’t necessary? Where they can go to school and play and learn freely, without an armed guard to remind them that their life may be in danger every single minute?

Is it liberal to want my next door neighbor to be prohibited from amassing an arsenal of military-grade weaponry?

Is it liberal to wish to enjoy my body in the same way that human beings have been enjoying their bodies since the beginning of humankind?

Is it liberal to not want to be shamed for enjoying my body and my feelings?

Is it liberal to want my children to receive a good education; one that encourages them to think independently and that doesn’t rely on someone else’s view of G-d?

Is it liberal to want to earn the same wage for doing the same work as my neighbor?

Is it liberal to want to earn a living wage?

Is it liberal to want to be able to send my children to college?

Is it liberal to seek knowledge?

Is it liberal to want to use the knowledge we gain for the good of all our people rather than to line the pockets of a few?

Is it liberal to want my children to learn the perils of unprotected sex?

Is it liberal to wish for someone else to not label me based upon their own beliefs, but rather to judge me for how I treat others, for my contributions rather than my deficits?

Is it liberal to want us to treat each other as we would wish to be treated? With respect, with understanding, with compassion, with a helping hand, with love?

I don't believe these things make me liberal. I contend these things make me human.

These are the things that President Obama talked about in his inauguration speech. Do they make him liberal? I don't believe so. I contend they make him human.

If most Americans agree with the ideas in his speech, does that make most Americans liberal? I think most Americans wouldn’t agree with that name/label. I think they believe they are simply human.

Names and labels have a way of taking the humanity out of our positions. Will we think that there are different paths to get to those ideals? Surely. But does that mean we should label those ideals as anything other than human values? I don’t think it does.

Governments should not be run like a business. Businesses exist to make money. Governments exist to care for their citizenry. And while we should strive to pay for our programs the best way that we can, the goal of government is not to turn a profit. The goal is to do what it takes to care for its people.

Does that make me a liberal? Fine then.