Is It Too Much to Ask?

This is John Marshall. He was the Fourth Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. He is credited with establishing the Supreme Court as the voice and power of interpretation and enforcement of the constitution and all federal laws.

Two blogs ago I invoked the world "fascism." It is, no doubt, perceived to be an "extreme" word. And maybe a little scary? It was meant to be.

But having made my POV clear about the choice between having a powerful government that polices corporations OR having corporations with free rein, I want to take another tack. You may find it contradictory. I don't think it is.

As much as I want a strong federal government to regulate and police corporations, I DO NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT INFRINGING ON PRIVATE, CONSENSUAL BEHAVIOR. If government is of, by and for the people, then I, as one of those people, want to protect my rights to privacy, to freedom of speech and expression, to freedom of association and religion (or non-religion), etc..

Ironically, perhaps paradoxically, the Constitution on which our government is based empowers the government to enforce, and restrains our government from infringing, on these individual rights. And the Courts, along with active citizens, are both the guardians of these rights and the restraining hand of the other branches of government - and have been since our nation's infancy. They are not "activists." They are fulfilling a most vital role in protecting minorities and individuals not just from violation of legal rights by the federal, state and local governments, but from the tyranny of the masses. It is both the enforcing and the restraining hand.

When I hear so-called conservatives like Rand Paul criticize civil rights laws because they infringe on people's right to discriminate and exclude people from commerce based on immutable characteristics, I am dumbfounded. People really think that way in 2010?

What kind of freedom is it that is heaped on one group at the expense of the freedom and rights of another group? Are freedom and equality under the law mutually exclusive? Are any of us really free when some of us are oppressed, ostracized, and subjugated by the particular majority in a particular state or region?

Perhaps freedom and equality are at odds to some extent. Perhaps people who wish to discriminate and exclude others just because they are different do have to sacrifice their freedom to act on their bigotry in order to protect those "different" people from being excluded. Is that a bad thing?

This is getting kind of deep and complex. I guess my point is this: I want GOOD government, whatever size it has to be to accomplish these benevolent goals: protect the weak or outnumbered from oppression; prevent corporations from trouncing people and ravaging the environment; protect fair, honest competition rather than rolling over for large corporate interests; recognize and assist when its citizens need help and cannot help themselves; protect us from our enemies and do so in a responsible and as humane a way as possible; respect its citizens and their respective rights; and be a government we can be proud of, even if it is imperfect.

Is that too much to ask?

This Is the Shizzit!

Really. It is!

In a dog park in Cambridge, Massachusetts, an MIT grad has built a methane digester that converts the dog poop into energy - burnable methane gas.

He had the idea after visiting India (where they use digesters frequently) and got a $4000 grant from MIT to build it. Now, so long as pet owners pick up the poop - like they are supposed to - drop it in the digester, and give the handle a turn, the methane flame will burn perpetually.

So it reduces waste, keeps the park clean, and provides energy.

For now, the flame simply provides light, but ideas are being collected to use the energy in other ways. Suggestions so far range from a Shadow Box to a popcorn stand to a tea house.

Something to be proud of, Cambridge!

My only question is, can you run one of these on Shinola?

How Fascism Sneaks Up On Us

Ironically, Tea Partiers call Obama a fascist while their Tea Party rallies are being funded by giant corporate lobbying interests, including the Koch brothers.

The TPers rant and rave and weep about "taking our country back" and lament the long-forgotten time of our founders. While there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting your country to be better and stronger, and there is certainly nothing unAmerican about taking to the streets to rail against the establishment, what we are witnessing is in some ways nothing but silly, illogical hysteria.

What do they mean when they say they want to "take the country back?" Back from whom? Or what? To when? What has happened in the last 2 years to change the way of life in this country so starkly that they are threatening bloodshed and violence?

Assuming for argument's sake that the Tea Party is not just populated by people who are pissed that their President is black, what is it that they see lacking in our country? What is wrong?

Has anyone been able to decipher precisely what the Tea Party wants? I cannot figure it out!

To me, being an American is all about choices. Freedom is, essentially, the power to choose. And I make choices based on (1) the world we actually live in, as I understand it, (2) the goals I would like to see our society pursue, (3)avoiding the path I DO NOT want our country to head down, and (4) the likelihood of success.

So when I hear people screaming about shrinking the federal government, I want to know: which parts of the federal government do you want to shrink or eliminate? (If I knew, I might agree! Why do we still subsidize tobacco, for example? That's stupid!)

When I hear people exclaiming "keep your government hands off my medicare," I know they are obviously confused.

When I hear vague, sweeping criticisms followed by violent threats to "resort of 2nd Amendment remedies" if they don't get their way, I know I'm hearing from people who are seriously upset about something they seem unable or unwilling to articulate who have decided they no longer want to live in a democratically elected republic.

Here is our current situation as I see it. We have a large federal government. We also have local and state governments of varying sizes and influences. And we have a very large, rich and powerful corporate lobby that is comprised (mostly) of 6 industries: defense contractors, energy (including oil), banking, agriculture, health care (insurance), and telecommunications. (Some retailers are pretty powerful too, but those industries are far more competitive. The 6 named above are basically functioning as cartels now, IMO. That gives them SO MUCH POWER!)

In this real world that we have created, power will be wielded. It will be wielded by either the government or by corporations. Since the government is an extension of me (and you and all the people), I choose to empower the government. Empowering government is an extension of ME exercising MY power. If I abdicate my power, I hand it over to the private sector, which, right now, is controlled by CORPORATIONS (not small businesses or individuals or even local governments).

All this rhetoric about the government having too much power is bizarre to me. We elect the people! We should exercise our vote to control how they govern!

So, we don't trust our government, that we elected, but we do trust Goldman Sachs, BP, and other large corporations? How does that make sense? Those corporations do not answer to us AT ALL!

Giving power to corporations to control our society is a scary proposition. Government may be inefficient, but it's raison d'etre is to serve the people (you and me). If it fails to do so, it is most likely because we have become lazy and we do not elect better leaders. In contrast, the purpose of corporations is to make a profit. Period. No moral code, not ethical guidelines, just make a profit. Corporations are necessary, they perform a vital function in our economy and our society. But they are not people, and they are NOT ON OUR SIDE!


If we want to wield more power in this country then we should engage and GET BEHIND YOUR GOVERNMENT INSTEAD OF UNDERMINING IT. In a democratically elected republic, we each wield power through our elected officials. If we tie their hands and weaken them to the point that they cannot do our will, protect us, and provide the vital services we need, then our choices are reduced to corporate government (fascism) or anarchy. Those are choices I wish to avoid.

Injustice Scalia Says Constitution Does Not Protect Women from Discrimination

"Justice" Scalia said today that in his opinion, the US constitution does not protect women from being discriminated against based on their gender. Well, knock me over with a feather!

Since the 1970s, the Supremes have applied the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause to prevent gender discrimination. What does it say, exactly?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The last phrase, known as the Equal Protection Clause ("EPC"), is a widely used clause in American constitutional jurisprudence. Because of this clause, modern Americans think that we are all equal in the eyes of the law: "Nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." But, apparently, not Injustice Scalia. When he reads this, he must be thinking, "Hmmm. Women are not "persons," so obviously this does not apply to them."

How does this NOT apply to protecting women from discrimination? And more importantly, why is Scalia trying to lick his elbow to create gender inequality?

This has been established law for FOUR DECADES. And one major reason the Equal Rights Amendment failed to be adopted is because the Supremes - and generally everyone who can read and understand English - recognized that the EPC had already accomplished gender equality.

When all you Uptighty-Righties start railing against "activist judges," I want you to consider that happens to our laws, and indeed our society, when Injustices start ignoring court precedent to reinstate discrimination.

He claims he's not for discrimination, he's just an "Originalist" who thinks we must apply the Constitution only as the writers intended. But by his decisions, he has shown that to be as utterly false as it is silly.

In January of this year, this same Justice participated in a landmark, precedent-reversing decision, holding that corporations are "persons" and therefore may not be treated differently than other "people" in capping campaign donations. Yes, for the first time in American history, and without any Constitutional basis whatsoever, Scalia and his right-wing buddies on the Court treated corporations not just as "artificial persons," but as persons with political rights equal to human beings. So, where did all his "Originalism" go on this one? What "Originalism?" I call it "End-Justifies-the-Means-ism."

So, get this: Scalia thinks corporations are persons, but women are not.

That's just F'd up IMHO! I have other opinions as well. Such as: Injustice Scalia is a misogynistic opportunist paying homage to his corporate benefactors and the GOP that appointed him.

Couching this campaign against the American people as a legitimate constitutional philosophy doesn't change what it really is: a concerted effort to take power from individuals and give it to corporations. That's not conservative, people. That's fascism.

O'Donnell Running to Protect Us from the Tyranny of the Mouse-Men

"And coming down the stretch, Delaware is in the lead, nosing ahead of New York on the back of Christine O'Donnell's campaign against Human-Mouse Hybrids."

This seems too fantastical to be true. Unfortunately for Delawaroids, it is true.

In a 2007 appearance on The O'Reilly Factor, Ms. O'Donnell warned us against the dangers of stem cell research and let us know that here, in the US, American scientific companies "are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains."

Putting aside for the moment the physical difficulty of a human "breeding" with a mouse, even using artificial insemination, let's focus on the real threat.

THE TYRANNY OF THE MOUSE-MEN!

Our laws were NOT written to address this issue. This is a real problem!

How will equal protection apply to these hybrids? Will they get one-mouse-one-vote? And since they are both men and mice, do they get TWO votes?

Soon they'll come out of the cupboard, and they'll want "special rights," like the removal of traps and the right to marry cat-women (GROSS!). This is serious, people!

Thank God for Christine O'Donnell and her commitment to stand up to the mouse-men-movement. If not for her, you know what would happen. They would start out small, running for local offices like "city planner." The next thing you know, all of our streets will be re-directed to flow like mazes, and then where will you be? Lost and completely dependent on mouse-man ingenuity!

That's how they get you! They make you think they're just like you and me, and then BAM! - they've got your cheese!

Christine did not say where this heresy took root, but come on! We all know it had to have started in Wisconsin, with their cheese and their "Midwestern family values." But regardless of where this all started, we know the goal of these rodent people. They will not stop their infiltration of our society until they have a mouse-man (or mouse-woman) in the White House. And that's just NOT what our founding father's - or GOD - intended!

Make Room for Batty!

Yesterday was a struggle for me, trying to decide whether to feature Christine O'Donnell and Delaware, or this guy, Carl Paladino of New York.

You can read about him here and here and here. Or google him yourself to check out more details about him.

He says he is going to stop the Islamic Community Center by exercising eminent domain. Don't conservatives believe in property rights any more?

You know the voters are mad when they completely give up. And by giving up, I don't mean stay home, I mean deliberately vote for someone so embarrassing he should be on Jerry Springer instead of the GOP candidate for New York governor. This guy makes the hooker-hiring-governor look like a prize.

He's racist, sexist, elitist, and he talks like a thug. He actually wants to put welfare recipients in prison camps and have them work in state-administered labor. He says its "voluntary," but if he cuts their assistance, their choice is (a) starve or (2) become a slave to the state of New York. Sure, that's a choice.

People who voted for this guy should wear masks to hide their faces. Here is one the emails he sent.



His excuse for this and the other offensive emails? He heads a construction company. Things get a little rough.

I used to work for a real estate developer and get angry because some of the lazy-ass workers would pee in empty water bottles and leave them all over the development rather than walk 10 steps to the port-o-john OR trash-can. And excuses were made then too: "They're construction guys. heh heh heh. They do that." You know what? If you are not potty trained, you should probably not have a big-boy job. And if you are not ethical and smart enough to delete racist emails rather than forwarding them, then you shouldn't be governor! OF ANY STATE!

As frustrating as "politics as usual" can be the "machine" actually trains and hones people. What is this moron going to do if he actually wins? He's pissed-off everyone in the state! So, New York GOP, your best case scenario is you waste your vote on him. Your worst case scenario is that he wins, and your entire state waste four years on him.

But I'll advise you the same way I advised the Delawartions: don't beat yourself up. If you do, I'm calling Ms. O'Donnell and SALT to wrap your knuckles. (Or are you in to that?)

But, Whitney Says It's the Greatest Love of All!

Today's big winner is .......Delaware.

You all had to know I was going to blog about Christine O'Donnell. But actually, I'm not picking on her. I'm mocking the people who voted for her.

Delaware voters yesterday said "No" to experienced, conservative, respectable Mr. Castle, and instead said "YES!" to a person who may be an even bigger political joke than Sarah Palin.

Ms. O'Donnell has a professionally unimpressive resume with many of her jobs being actually in the realm of politics - so not so much an outsider as the Tea Party thinks. One of her jobs was actually a political job in Washington, DC!

She has had serious debt issues with both her college alma mater and the IRS. And has been accused by her former campaign manager of misusing campaign funds for her own benefit.

She is an ardent proponent of teaching creationism, and opponent of evolution, calling it "just a theory." (As the cited article points out, evolution may be technically a "theory," but it is so widely accepted by scientists as to be considered "fact.")

And I haven't even gotten to the best part: She is a strong advocate of sexual purity. In that context, she campaigns against masturbation (a victimless crime if ever there was one).

This seems like a mere thumbnail of information. Yes, it is. But look her up. There is nothing else. At least Sister Sarah was the half-Governor of Alaska. Ms. O'Donnell's got nothing on her CV to make anyone think she even understands parliamentary procedure, much less convince the voters that she possess the skills and knowledge to carry out the duties and responsibilities of a US Senator.

So, Delaware has elected a woman who is both a professional and financial failure, with a mediocre work history inside the DC beltway, who owes the IRS and misused her campaign funds, who does not believe in evolution, and who thinks masturbation is the moral equivalent of adultery.

Wow. Just. Wow.

But don't beat yourself up, Delaware Republicans. Really. Don't. Apparently that's a serious moral offense.

This Is A Teaching Moment

I saw this pic on twitter. I have no idea what the textbook actually says about social perception. I want to talk about how we perceive things we see on TV and how that perception is crafted by the producers of American Idol.

Adam recently told an interviewer that the judges don't actually have much to do with choosing who makes the show. They of course comment, but the producers "cast" the show.

And they cast the show with a pre-conceived formula in mind.

Did you know that Adam originally auditioned with a Michael Jackson song? It didn't air. They had him do a second song: Bohemian Rhapsody - because they wanted a rocker. And he had the voice and experience to "be a rocker." Despite his talent, if he had not had such a wide range of prior singing experience, he may not have made it through.

And Kris Allen was clearly chosen as "cannon fodder." In Star Trek terms, he's the nameless crewman in the red shirt. Once he got into the top 5 or six, they finally had to acknowledge his presence. Then he became the "aw shucks" southern Christian.

Danny Gokey was pimped and pushed like the genuinely nice widower he is. Very little was ever said to criticize his vocals, because really, who doesn't like a widower?

And Allison Iraheta was repeatedly told that she had no personality. (Dude! She has magenta hair! No personality?) (BTW, I bought her CD and it is fantastic. Give it a try on iTunes. In truth, it may be better than Adam's. Maybe.)

None of these things have anything to do with how well they sing, what type of music they sing best, or what kind of performer they are or will be. It's TV, people.

And they do a good job. Can you look back and believe the whole "Is Adam gay or not?" drama and keep a straight (pun intended) face? Duh! He was pictured tongue kissing another guy! That's kinda the definition of gay! Yet they perpetuated this drama the entire season.

No one on that show is ever what you perceive because we are only given a caricature. That doesn't make it evil or sinister, or even bad TV. But it is TV. Not real life.

Kudos to the contestants who take the opportunity to build a fan-base and launch a career.

Also, I commented on Twitter that they also used a pic from AI9 in the school book, but the chapter was titled "Combating Monotony: How We Deal With Boredom."



Producers kinda missed the boat last season. *yawning*

Hey Pastor Book-Burner, You Cannot Burn Ideas!

As you all probably know, there is an uptighty-righty in Florida who plans, with his 50 congregants, to burn copies of the Qu'ran on Saturday, September 11th (3 days from now) because "God told him to."

Are we to believe that his God hates Muslims? Or that his God wants to offend Muslims? Or maybe his God loves Muslims, but hates their religion?

Don't his followers have an internal BS-o-meter? Or are they simply blinded by their own bigotry?

Burning the Qu'ran, or any book for that matter, is a stupid exercise in futility. You cannot burn ideas. When you burn a book that is of significance to a particular group, like the Torah, the Bible, the Qu'Ran, or the Book of Mormon, all you are really doing is giving that group the finger, letting them know you hate them because they are different. It's not like you're actually erasing anything.

How does Pastor Zippo think he is serving God or impeding Islam by this arson? What would he do if someone burned a Bible? Would he say, "Gosh, I guess that was all untrue after all, I quit?" No, he would most likely become even more committed to his faith and wave the flag of religious persecution, just like the millions of Muslims all over the world will this Saturday.

What's more, while the sane among us we are trying to convince Muslims that we are not at war with their religion a certain number of Americans actually are waging a war against Islam (yes, I'm talking to you Newt Gingrich). To these hate-merchants, I say, "It's 2010, you morons, not 1010! The Crusades are over! We live in a free, sectarian society where everyone can practice whatever religion they choose!"

And yes, Pastor "I hear voices and call them God" has the right to burn the Qu'ran as a form of protest. It's his first amendment right. But it still makes me sick, embarrassed, and furious. (And no, my objection it is not the same as opposing the Community Center in NYC because the people opposing the Community Center are being intolerant of Muslims, and I am being intolerant of intolerance, something for which I will not apologize. Bigots are hateful and wrong and do not deserve tolerance in a free society, even if they have every right to be bigots.)

I know the local fire department has said they will stop the burning as a violation of fire code, but I think we all know that the image of him standing there with a fire to the Qu'ran will be published worldwide, and used on terrorist recruiting posters in every Muslim community. How does any of this help us prevent terrorist acts? But more to the point, how does it help Pastor "Say It With Fire" convert a single Muslim to Christianity? (Because isn't that his job?)

Some may say religion is all to blame for this because it makes people ignorant by encouraging blind faith and discouraging thought. There might be some of that influencing this idiot's flock, but the Vatican and vast numbers of other religious organizations have condemned this idea and asked Pastor Crusader to cancel this "event." So lets give blame, and credit, where due.

IMO this is just a few bigots waving their big bigot flag, and it has little or nothing to do with religion or faith. It just makes these ignoramuses feel "a little bit superior." Well, I hope that keeps them warm at night while our troops are incurring the violent wrath of pissed off Islamist jihadists who have been moved to action by their little event.

One of the things W did very well was reign in the anti-Islamists on the right. I wish he would speak up and address this from his Crawford brush-field or Augusta golf course or wherever he is. It might help.

I still hope "God" tells Pastor Everflame to cancel the burning. I shudder to think how far back this hateful act will set our diplomacy and our status in the world. If he does go forward, can we all hope and pray that this crackpot will face his God one day and be judged for this act of hate? Can I hear an Amen?

I have been thinking of a way to make amends for this blight on our country that is to take place on Saturday. I think I'll make a donation to the local Mosque here if Paster Pinhead goes forward. Why don't you do the same? We can make it an anti-hate campaign!

Finally, A Reason to Like NASCAR

I have never understood the popularity of sitting in the squelching heat and watching noisy cars drive in circles for hours at a time. But recently, an Alabama murder suspect/fugitive's obsession with NASCAR got him caught.

Michael Lynn Sherer, age 51, escaped the Winston County jail where he was being held on charges of murdering Thomas Lynn Smith, age 52 on August 24, 2010. (Lynn? Really?)

Once free, he made his was to the Atlanta area and the Atlanta Motor Speedway where he proceeded to barter a .22 caliber pistol for 2 tickets to the NASCAR race there.

Ticket vendors alerted the police because of the strange barter request.

He managed to get the tickets and trade the gun before police found him. When questioned, he identified himself as Thomas Lynn Smith (the murder victim), but flubbed up the birthdate. Suspicious, the police held him and were able to properly identify the fugitive.

So, reason #1 to like NASCAR: It is apparently so addictive that murder suspects will risk capture to get inside the speedway. I don't get it, but I'm glad.