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.

Turning a rape victim into a felon - as simple as taking away her constitutional rights

Wow. No words. But of course, I must try. Really, all I want to write in this post is a litany of words containing 4 letters that would likely make my mother disown me. She hates it when I swear on this blog. So Mom, you might want to stop reading.

Fuck. Shit. Hell. Damn. Argh. Sonofabitch. (more than 4 letters, but equally appropriate)

OK, you can read again, Mom.

I read this morning that State Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R) of New Mexico has introduced HB206, that would make it a felony to terminate a pregnancy following a rape. This has been tried many times before and has succeeded in some states that have no exclusion for rape or incest. But this would outlaw pregnancy termination altogether for these victims regardless of how far the pregnancy has progressed. Why, you ask? Well, you see, apparently it’s tampering with evidence.

The act is written specifically to:

SPECIFY(ING) PROCURING OF AN ABORTION AS TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE IN CASES OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL PENETRATION OR INCEST.

B. Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime.

First off, What the everloving fuck?

Secondly, What the everloving fuck?

I assume that part of this is done to ensure it was a “legitimate”rape – after all, if you aren’t pregnant anymore, it’s not legitimate. The “shutting that whole thing down” thing. I also assume that Ms. Brown, in her infinite stupidity, guesses that DNA might need to be extracted from the baby once it’s born. Or maybe, if the baby doesn’t come out looking like the alleged rapist, then the woman was lying. Or maybe she’s sure that once the baby pops out the rape victim will be overcome with love, suddenly have the means and desire to raise the baby (who must look like her rapist of course) and of course, be accepted into the family, even if someone in the family was responsible for the rape in the first place.

By forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term following rape, you have once again taken from her the autonomy that was stolen during the rape. Additionally, lest you forget since yesterday was the 40th anniversary of Roe v Wade, ABORTION IS A LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE.

I am so sick of this bullshit. Seriously.

Abortion is a constitutionally protected right, according to the Supreme Court of the United States. So shut up already.

People who assume that rape is a sexual act disgust me. Rape is a violent power play, violating one person’s autonomy and sense of safety strictly to prove one’s power over another in the most violent and awful way possible, by invading someone's body against their will.

By forcing a woman (or even a little girl) to carry to term to prove she wasn’t lying, you take those things away for a second time. Also forced reproduction in the US? What about LIBERTY (^TM far right)? It's the hypocritical flip side of the coin to what those same people argue about re: China - forced abortion (which for the record, I also don't agree with). Oh, I forgot. LIBERTY only applies to the MANLY MEN who completely agree with you. Wimminz don't count. My bad.

Also, I wonder if Ms. Brown is aware of what happens to “evidence.” It’s usually boxed up and placed on a shelf until the case comes to trial. Does she propose to treat this piece of evidence differently than any other? Evidence is required to remain in the custody of the prosecuting entity and documented every time it changes hands. Does she propose that the prosecutor should maintain custody of the baby until the case is concluded and the evidence can be placed in a basement forever? Does she propose to break the chain of custody by allowing forcing the victim of the crime (or the newly accused felonious evidence tamperer) to maintain custody of a crucial piece of evidence? And that every time the baby is picked up by someone other than the victim it must be documented? Perhaps Ms. Brown would like to maintain custody herself of all "pieces of evidence" that might have otherwise been tampered with.

Clearly, Ms. Brown has no concept of how evidence is handled. Additionally, she has obviously never dealt with a rape victim. She also evidently has never read the most important Supreme Court case regarding abortion rights. Which upholds women’s right to privacy when it comes to her body and medical procedures such as termination of pregnancy.

I have no way to end this without saying exactly what I think of Ms. Brown right now, and I’m really trying to curb my language.

What, you couldn't tell?

Anyway, I imagine you can fill in the blanks yourself.

The problem with our values in the US

So Bobby Jindal thinks he’s going to fix his budget in Louisiana by removing hospice care from those on Medicaid. Hallelujah. That 0.9% of his budget shortfall will surely cure all of Louisiana’s ills (as long as they aren’t terminal, of course).

Aside from the sheer assholic (™ me) component, it doesn’t make good fiscal sense. Those people who were getting home health services to meet their needs are now going to be visiting emergency rooms when something goes wrong, or when they need their pain medication adjusted, or when their families can't cope – at a much higher cost to the state. When the measly $140 a day in benefits they receive is a more inexpensive, prudent, and socially & morally responsible thing to do.

We have a problem in this country. We do everything in our power to preserve life and extend it to the fullest  whether we're right or wrong to do so, and even though we’re failing miserably and yet once our elderly and infirm have managed to live their lives, we abandon them. We deny them the right to die with dignity, whether by choice or simply at home surrounded by their loving families.

I admit, this is a subject that hits very close to home for me. My sister-in-law has ALS, aka Lou Gehrig's disease. It's a terminal illness. She long ago hit her cap on insurance and is now on Medicaid. My brother takes care of her at home, with the help of home health, though she is not on hospice. They are fighting this with every fiber of their beings. And while I pray every single day for advances, treatment, and a cure, as much as it pains me to say it - someday? She will likely be on hospice care. What Bobby Jindal is saying is that my beautiful sister-in-law, who spent her career taking care of others as a nurse, is not worth taking care of. That society owes her nothing for all she's done for society. And to that, I say FUCK YOU, BOBBY JINDAL.

So how does Jindal propose to make up all the rest of his deficit? Why, by raising taxes of course. Sales taxes. On the people who can least afford it – the poor and infirm. Those whose every dollar goes toward food, shelter, and clothing.

Don’t get me wrong. I live in California where we just voted to up the sales tax. But that was a choice BY THE PEOPLE, not by a single asshole who chooses his rich buddies and political aspirations in an ever-increasingly crazy and uncaring party over his most needy constituents. Who , I might add, for some bizarre reason, have already voted him into office.

Medicare? Cut it. Medicaid? Cut it. Social Security? SOCIALISM! Health care for all? GASP! FASCISM!

I'm so thankful that we live in California. Where the people and the government put real values above other things - in California we value life, we value education, we take care of each other. Yeah, we may go broke doing it, but we do it anyway. And by no means is California perfect - we do so much that is wrong, too. But in this? We are miles... no... we are leagues ahead of Louisiana. My heart breaks for all those people who will lose their chance to die with dignity in Louisiana. To have control over how the end of their life is handled.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Underserved does not mean undeserved.

The right loves to claim that all our troubles are brought onto us by our increasing “secularization” of society. That God is punishing us because we haven’t “been true” to Him. Perhaps it’s the other way around. Perhaps God is pissed as hell at YOU for your un-Christian actions and your greed. Perhaps all this time, all these hurricanes and fires and drought and floods are God’s way of telling you that you’re an asshole and you need to be more charitable, more kind, more understanding, more tolerant.

Ok, obviously all the crazy weather is a sign of man-made climate change, but why would we believe what? SCIENCE? Fuggedaboudit.

The right (incorrectly) made a huge deal in their arguments against the Affordable Care Act that it would establish death panels. I’m pretty sure that Bobby Jindal has accomplished that all on his own, with no help from President Obama’s health care reforms whatsoever. He is his own one-man death panel. So Bobby Jindal, you get the second You’ve Got Balls award of 2013.

Quote of the day: Gun control, Kentucky style

If Obama passes this, it doesn’t matter what he passes. The sheriff has more power than the federal people. They need to go back and they study that. We’re a commonwealth. I can ask the federal people to leave. They have to leave. I can ask state people to leave. They have to leave. What I’m saying is this is our home. I’m an elected official. The highest elected official, from this point on. (emphasis mine)

Jackson County Sheriff Denny Peyman, noting in a press conference that he refused to enforce any gun control legislation or action. Because he's apparently in charge of everything, everywhere.

Does it matter that plenty of other presidents have issued executive orders re: gun control? Or perhaps a little known snippet in the Constitution known as the Supremacy clause? (Hint: It's not referring to the supremacy of Kentucky sheriffs.) Nope, not when the black dude wants to take away his southern guns.

Then there's this gem that always gives me pause.

Well, it’s just like, if you take out part, it’s kind of like the Bible, either you believe it or you don’t believe it. The Constitution, either you believe it or you don’t. You either live by it or you don’t.

I'd like to check to see if Sheriff King God Peyman has any tattoos, or ever eats shellfish, or drives a car on the Sabbath (and hey - they didn't even have cars back then, so get rid of it!). Or ever cheated on his wife (death by stoning)? Or eaten a big fat steak from a cow killed in a slaughterhouse?

Because it's all or nothing, man. Especially when it comes to a black man elected by over half the country telling us what's what!


via ThinkProgress

How come you guys call us racist?

It's so exciting, y'all. Living in 'Murica where entrepreneurship gets you stuff. Big stuff. South Carolina Tea Party member Bob Cramer designed this t-shirt, yo. And it got him invited to the Tea Party convention!! Hooray! And it's political, not racist. See?

Source

The design has been floating around since Congress began debating the Affordable Care Act, so really, Cramer didn't design anything at all. He just slapped an existing graphic onto a shirt. But CAPITALISM!

And in New Jersey, store owner Bill Skuby, who displayed the image in his store window said the following:

"This is America, isn't it? Aren't we able to say and do pretty much what we want to do?"

Yes, this is America, where you have the right to be as big a douche as you want, up to a point. But having the right to do something doesn't make it right to do something.

This is totally the cutest thing you will see all day

Riddle me this, Batman

This article, which provides a copy of Wayne LaPierre's idiotic fearmongering hate letter to potential NRA members, got me thinking about something, and not for the first time.

So, riddle me this, Batman. If gun fanatics complain that the 2nd amendment is absolute and there are no legal ways to put restrictions on it, then why is it that the 14th amendment isn't good enough to be absolute in its ability to protect pregnancy termination?

And conversely, if Roe v Wade could show that privacy has limits (in this case trimester limitations), then why shouldn't the 2nd amendment also be considered susceptible to limitations as well?

Hmmmmm?

We need a couple more women on the Supreme Court so that they can expand Roe v Wade to do away with the trimester issue, and simply make it an absolute right to privacy.


And last, I just wanted to ensure that you had an opportunity to watch The Daily Show's brilliant and important response to the Sandy Hook shooting (they were on vacation when it happened, and have just returned).

Scapegoat Hunter

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Scapegoat Hunter
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Scapegoat Hunter - Gun Control

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Scapegoat Hunter - Gun Control
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

We shouldn't worry about gun control because KNIVES!

As I navigate the Twitter & Facebook waters these past few weeks, one argument I've heard over and over is that we shouldn't regulate guns because KNIVES! People kill with knives, too, ya know! Even Ted Bundy killed people with knives!! (WRONG, but why fact check yourself before making an ass of yourself on social media?)

Here's a thought for you. Short & sweet.

Guns were invented for one reason only.

To kill people.

Knives? Well, they were invented to kill animals. To hunt. In a time when hunting was the only way to get food. As a friend pointed out, the only things hunted by semi-automatic & automatic weaponry is humans.

Are there other things we do with knives and variations of knives? Sure, we use them to eat the people deer you kill with your "must-have" AR-15. Physicians use them to SAVE LIVES in surgery. Men use them to shave their faces. We spread butter with them. I've even been known to cut a box or some carpeting with one. People even pick their teeth with them.

Not that I'm naming names or anything. But you know who you are!

Do people kill with knives? Sure. But is that their only purpose? Nope. Not even close. In fact, I would argue that it's the activity least often undertaken with a knife.

The only purpose for a gun is to kill.

That's it. All she wrote. Thank you and good night!

Why good government is like a good marriage

There is a great article over at AddictingInfo today on compromise vs caving.

Question: when did the fine art of compromise, the reasoned maturity of coming to terms with opposing sides, suddenly devolve into the realm of the weak? When did we get so presumptuous, become so politically…pissy?

I could not agree with the author more. I urge you to go over there and read the entire article, because she raises tons of excellent points.

I was once asked about what it takes to make a successful marriage. I would argue that most of the same things I talked about can be applied to legislating as well.

Certainly the parts about compromise. And respect.
(NB: I've posted that article here in the archives for purposes of linking this one to it)

Merriam-Webster defines compromise as such:

com•pro•mise
noun \ˈkäm-prə-ˌmīz\

Definition of COMPROMISE
1 a : settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions
b : something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things
2 : a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial

I love this example they gave:
“You can't always come up with the optimal solution, but you can usually come up with a better solution,” he [Barack Obama] said over lunch one afternoon. “A good compromise, a good piece of legislation, is like a good sentence.” —William Finnegan, New Yorker, 31 May 2004

Our Constitution came into being because we had 55 men willing to lock themselves away from their families and argue, discuss, and compromise on the best shaping of the new US government. From NPS.gov:

In May 1787, 55 delegates from 12 states (Rhode Island declined to participate) met at the Pennsylvania State House to revise the Articles of Confederation. Many of the delegates to what became known as the Constitutional Convention were lawyers and doctors, some were merchants, and a few were farmers. The group included many of the most talented and well respected men in America. Twenty-nine of the delegates had college degrees at a time when few Americans were well-educated. Three-fourths of the men had served in the Continental Congress. As the first order of business, the delegates selected George Washington as president of the convention. They established that each state would have one vote and a majority would rule. All discussions and actions were to be kept secret until finalized, so doors and windows were closed tight despite the stifling summer heat. For the next four months, delegates argued long and hard over how to reshape the government.

When we vacationed on the East coast 2 years ago, we took a tour of Independence Hall. The guide talked about how the Constitutional Convention locked themselves in that small house in the middle of a Philadelphia summer, and worked and worked until they incorporated a bit of everyone’s ideas into the document that shaped our government. First off, hello! Have you ever been to Philadelphia in the summer? Not fun. That is commitment. Second, they worked to incorporate everyone’s ideas. There was no such thing as “My way or the highway.”

Compromise is not a dirty word. The give and take that is required for compromise requires a certain level of maturity – one I would argue is sorely lacking in many members of today’s Congress. Compromise means that although you believe your position is right, you are willing to allow that others may have valuable opinions as well, and are willing to work to bring the best that you both have to offer to the table.

Respect. Another of the most important things that makes a marriage work. Two people cannot work together effectively, efficiently, and productively without respect. Respect is something that is so lacking in today’s political realm. Sure, the old-timers secretly respect their colleagues, but if they were ever to say such blasphemy, they could get nothing more accomplished.

Our country has always been a melting pot of ideas and peoples. Once one group determines that they are the “better” group, and displays no respect for the other group’s intelligence, ideas, or cultures, there is no way to effect meaningful change or improvement for both groups.

Let’s get it clear – no one group is better than another. There are only differences on the outside, but inside? We all have all the same parts. Like the old Wendy’s commercial: “Parts iz parts.” (linked just because I loved that one). Excepting the differences between boy parts and girl parts, which does indeed seem to be a rather large sticking point in the “respect” argument, doesn’t it? The dudes love their outside part, and hate women's inside parts. *sigh*

And last. Patience. For the love of all that is holy, meaningful change takes time.

We live in such an instant gratification society these days. Everything is available electronically. School test scores don’t rise immediately? Fire the teachers! Team doesn’t perform well during rebuilding? Fire the coach! War isn’t won on day 1? Our military sucks and we're on the wrong course! That bill doesn’t fix everything perfectly the first time? Fuggedaboudit!

But we forget that human nature is essentially unchanged. Those things that require thought, and human interaction, and compromise, and respect, and all those other human things take time. There is no instant gratification. Meaningful reform takes time. Meaningful reform in our country has never happened quickly, nor has it happened perfectly the first time. In fact, our founding fathers knew this – they knew we will always need to change up the rules to make them better. That is why we have an amendment process to the Constitution. It’s why Congress is charged with creating new legislation. It’s why the courts review things. It’s why Social Security wasn’t perfect, but it was better. Why the Civil Rights Act wasn’t perfect, but it was better. Why banning automatic weapons and high capacity magazines but allowing people to keep their handguns with some safety modifications isn't perfect, but it's better. And why we must continue to make modifications to all of these things in order to make them more better (^TM me).

Much like a marriage, good legislating takes time. It takes patience. It takes respect. It takes compromise.

Much like in a marriage, mutual hatred in government dooms it to failure.

Get off your asses, Congress, and realize that you are not all that and a bag of chips. You are there because the citizens of this country put you there. You have a duty to represent ALL citizens, not just the ones that agree with you. You have a duty to reach the better agreement, even if it isn’t the perfect one.

Quote of the day: The opposite of Progress is Congress

Something has gone terribly wrong when the biggest threat to our American economy is the American Congress.
—Senator Joe Manchin III (D-WV)

Word.

(via NY Times)

4th amendment? What 4th amendment?

Remember when I mentioned some such nonsense about the SCOTUS ripping apart the 4th amendment and allowing anyone even suspected of any old misdemeanor to be strip & body cavity searched? In the name of they might have contraband or a gang tattoo?

What could possibly go wrong?

Well, it seems that some swaggering Texas dude with a badge pulled a couple of ladies over for littering, when the driver tossed a cigarette butt out the car window. And in the course of scolding her, said manly man trooper decided he smelled POT. Mary Jane. Mary Jew Wanna. *GASP*

So after searching the car (because probable cause, yo!) and administering a sobriety test (passed!), he decided that they must have had time to stuff all that bad stuff up their hoohahs. So he called up a female trooper to have her come do a cavity search.

Well, those troopers are amazingly well trained there in Texas. And seems that right there at the side of the road, the female trooper stuck her gloved fingers up the lady's bee-hind, and then moved to her vajay-jay and did the same. I can hear you already - ick, right? Women are taught from birth - front to back.

Well, then. Finding nothing on in the driver, the female trooper moved on to the passenger and did another cavity search. Without changing gloves.

Finding nothing, they were given a warning for littering and sent on their way.

THANK GOODNESS we have the Supreme Court and the Texas State Troopers protecting our civil liberties! I mean, if we don't like the amendments, let's throw them all out! Hell, let's just throw out the Constitution, too, k?

What's wrong with that?

Valuing money over children

And no, this isn’t even about Congress, or state legislatures trying to fund state coffers and gazillionaire’s pockets through legislation designed to keep poor children and their parents the biggest scapegoat of all time and prevent them from receiving any public services. Although that is true.

This is about Governor Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania. He’s suing the NCAA over their sanctions of Penn State following the horrific crimes against little boys by Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky. Crimes which were tacitly condoned by the lack of reporting to the authorities by everyone from Mike McQuarry to Joe Paterno on up through the university's highest officials. And for the record – reporting to the authorities doesn’t mean reporting to your boss. I’m talking about filing a police report.

No, Tom Corbett is upset because the fines agreed to by Penn State won’t all be going directly back into Pennsylvania’s coffers. He believes that all the money should go back into PA state programs, and is willing to use state money to sue the NCAA over it. Boo-freaking-hoo.

If he wanted the money to go toward education on child abuse and mandatory reporting programs and training in PA, I might be able to get behind it. But, as Attorney General of Pennsylvania, he did the equivalent of nothing when the charge was brought to his office. He was more interested in obtaining donations from these people for his run for Governor than in protecting little children. He already proved he really has no interest in providing mandatory reporting education, laws, or enforcing the ones already on the books if it comes at the expense of potential revenue or his run for the governorship.

Pennsylvania's reporting laws:
The Clery Act, which some have used as the law to which the Penn State staff was being held, requires higher education institutions to report crime statistics, but does not require mandatory reporting of child abuse at higher institutions – simply that the institution report on their internal crime statistics.

Pennsylvania’s mandatory reporting act is very elastic and could possibly be interpreted to mean that the higher education university officials did not have a legal obligation to report Sandusky’s crimes. Their moral obligation, however? Yeah. Completely trumped by potential revenue losses for the university and the football program.

Pennsylvania Professionals Required to Report (Cons. Stat. Tit. 23, § 6311) (source: https://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/manda.pdf)

Persons required to report include, but are not limited to:

• Licensed physicians, osteopaths, medical examiners, coroners, funeral directors, dentists, optometrists, chiropractors, podiatrists, interns, nurses, or hospital personnel
• Christian Science practitioners or members of the clergy
• School administrators, teachers, school nurses, social services workers, daycare center workers, or any other child care or foster care workers
• Mental health professionals
• Peace officers or law enforcement officials

Reporting by Other Persons (Cons. Stat. Tit. 23, § 6312)
Any person who has reason to suspect that a child is abused or neglected may report.

Standards for Making a Report (Cons. Stat. Tit. 23, § 6311)
A report is required when a person, who in the course of employment, occupation, or practice of a profession, comes into contact with children, has reasonable cause to suspect, on the basis of medical, professional, or other training and experience, that a child is a victim of child abuse.


So now, after bearing much responsibility for the continued abuse of children at Penn State’s facilities due to his inaction as AG, Corbett is complaining about how the fines are spent. The idea that a fine to an institution should be used to only provide money back into that state in which the institution resides is short-sighted, greedy, and altogether outrageous.

I don’t know how Corbett thinks anyone could possibly have sympathy for his complaint. In fact, the first You’ve Got Balls Award of 2013 goes to Tom Corbett.

Here is what Corbett should have suggested the NCAA do with Penn State’s fine money:

• In all states & territories where the NCAA has authority over sports programs, educate sports staff on signs & symptoms of child abuse, legalities & their responsibilities for mandatory reporting, and the morality of mandatory reporting.
• In all states & territories where the NCAA has authority over sports programs, donate moneys toward educating ALL mandatory reporters on signs & symptoms that might prompt mandatory reporting, as well as their personal and legal responsibilities.
• Lobby legislatures in all 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, & Guam for the tightening of mandatory reporting laws to include all staff employed by preK-12 schools and school districts (public or private, secular and religiously affiliated), all staff employed by day care personnel (licensed or not), all staff employed by higher education institutions (public and private), all medical professionals (including doctors, nurses, PAs, MedTechs, and any other employee in the medical field, regardless of their employer), all staff of any institution which provides services to children (both public and private), clergy (yes, I really went there), and attorneys (yes, I really went there, too).
• Donate money to groups in all 50 states that support child abuse survivors.