Stop Throwing Light on the Crazies

Stella Tremblay of Auburn NH, is a state legislator there, and she says the US government planned the Boston Bombing.

There are famous rabble-rousers who say crap like this for a living and sane people know they are entertainment hacks, not journalists, who are not to be taken seriously. But the wackadoo crowd worries me. Because apparently, they think it's perfectly plausible, even likely, that our own government murdered and maimed innocent people at the Boston Marathon. And in the past few years, we have seen more and more wackadoos get elected to office.

Stella is on a rather small stage as a New Hampshie legislator, but we have Michele Bachmann who thinks - and tells people - the Muslim Brotherhood has "deeply penetrated" the United States government.

 And she was a legitimate contender for the GOP nomination in the 2012 election.

 And today Representative Jason Chaffetz is one of two congressmen who agreed to have actual congressional hearings on a conspiracy theory fomented by a right-wing radio personality. Really?!

As the article I linked above points out, there is no sinister explanation behind the Department of Homeland Security's purchase of ammunition. The suggestion that the US government's purchase of large quantities of ammo was a "sign" that the government was preparing to attack its own people is absurd and, coincidentally, UTTERLY WITHOUT PROOF.

The US government routinely buys huge amounts of ammo for its many armed agents to use in training, practice, and the field. And it's somehow not a sinister act until the Black President is in office. Huh. Funny.

It's another stupid, baseless load of horse-puckey brought to you by the fear-mongering Alex Jones. So Mr. Chaffetz thought spending some federal tax dollars on a congressional hearing to "get to the bottom" of this drummed-up sham would be a fun thing to do.

The monster is not in the closet, it's in the bed. The monster is the person with the twisted, delusional, irrational mind who screams to the news media trying to scare us all about the the non-existent monster in the closet. This type of craziness used to be fringe and outside the halls of leadership. Not anymore.

The crazy is spreading. The more the regular news media gives attention to the Glenn Becks and Alex Joneses of the world - and their psychotic/profit-seeking blatherings - the more power is given to the wackadoos, and the more Michele Bachmanns, Stella Tremblays and Jason Chaffetzes we are going to see elected to office.  How will we ever Get Above Our Raisin' electing lunatics like this?

There's a Special Place in Hell for People Who Hurt Children in the Name of Religion

This seemed like the hottest spot with the worst possible views.

It is generally accepted that one of Jesus' disciples, Luke, aka Luke the Evangelist, was a physician. Given that a man of this profession was included in such intimate fellowship with the Christian Messiah, one wonders where some folks came up with the idea that Christians should not seek medical help from doctors.

Why would any parents, in the name of Christianity or any other variety of faith, refuse medical care for their children? It is an ignorant absurdity to suggest that faith alone should be relied on to heal the sick when medical science is readily available. (Pray all you want, but take the antibiotics.)

I do criticize it. I do mock it. I do despise it. I give no safe harbor to beliefs that abandon spiritual faith for dogmatic stupidity. Especially this pair of murders in Philadelphia, PA:

Already on probation for letting their 2-year-old die in 2009 because they refused to seek ordinary medical treatment, last week these idiots allowed their 8-month old son to die from fever and diarrhea rather than take him to a doctor as they were required to do by the court. They just sat there praying and watching him die a painful, pointless death.

They let two young children die because of some idiotic superstition. I'm not calling all religion idiotic superstition. The world is full of religious people who do not sit by and watch their children die of curable illnesses. This is idiotic superstition because they think faith means ignoring facts, science, and common sense.

If we extend their beliefs just a little, we could say they should stop feeding their children and pray for the Lord's miraculous hand to sustain them. Or we could refuse to look both ways when crossing the street and pray that God will miraculously protect us from speeding traffic. STUPID.

If they wanted to refuse treatment for themselves, I'd still think it's ignorant, but that would be on them. But to refuse treatment for their children and WATCH THEM DIE OF CURABLE ILLNESSES IS SIMPLE INTOLERABLE!

Faith does not mean rejecting information, science and common sense. And if doctors are of no use to Christians, one wonders why Jesus Christ himself bothered to have one travel with him. If they ever get out of prison, these folks need to Get Above Their Raisin' and see a doctor. They should start with a psychiatrist.

Civilian Court is Draconian Enough for Terrorists

Draco was the first legislator of Ancient Greece. He wrote their legal code. It was considered "harsh" and "unforgiving."

The outcry to deprive people of rights when they are accused of a crime, even the crime of terrorism, is a new meme in our country. Senators, Congressmen, opinionated people on the Internet, all crying out at the injustice of refusing to toss out our core beliefs and principles so we can make some accused - but not yet convicted - terrorist of walk the plank (or ship out to Gitmo). When did we become a nation of vigilantes instead of a nation of laws?

Anyone who has ever dealt with the criminal justice system knows that it is inherently weighted in favor of the city/county/state/federal government investigating or prosecuting. They have resources that individuals don't. They have knowledge of the system that individuals don't. They have the discretion to effectively ruin your life simply by making an accusation. I promise you, there is no need for a tribunal that is more harsh, or more oppressive, more unforgiving than the one we currently have.


"Draconian" means "exceedingly harsh; very severe."  Our civilian criminal justice system is Draconian enough to handle terrorists.

In our system, you have the right to an attorney, but if you can't afford one, chances are you will be taking a plea bargain, whether guilty or not. And if you can afford one, you will probably be bankrupt by the time your case is over (unless you take a plea bargain).

You might even be acquitted, but once accused, you are forever branded. Do you think anyone charged with a terrorist act, or with child sex abuse, is ever able to fully recover, to convince people of their innocence?

This entire melodrama over Dzhokhar Tsarnaev being Mirandized or not, or being treated as an "enemy combatant" or a civilian charged with being a terrorist, is STUPID. I wish the media would treat this crap like the useless dreck it is instead of talking it up. History shows us that the system we have is more than capable of ending Dzhokhar's life (if he is convicted). But be honest: his life is ruined already.

I'm not saying this to be sympathetic. This isn't about Dzhokhar at all, or any other defendant. It never is. It is about us, and what we believe in, what we stand for, what rights we truly believe are "human rights." If we toss them aside in fear or anger, we are just another angry mob, a group of terrorists using a bureaucracy instead of a pressure cooker. We have gone down this path enough and we need to step back into the light.

Bad people do bad things. If we allow their bad acts to undermine who we are and what we stand for, they truly have destroyed America, regardless of the flag flying overhead. Bravery isn't showing how badass we are by torturing people or locking them away without due process. Bravery is sticking to your beliefs in the face of the very human temptation to be that badass.

Get Above Your Raisin', people, and cheer for justice done the proper way, respecting people's rights, including the right to remain silent, to have an attorney, and to confront one's accusers, testing evidence, and making damn sure we have the right person and sufficient evidence to convict. This process alone is a heavy weight for any defendant to bear. We don't need to make it worse to get justice.

Delusional in Muscogee County, GA

A 15-year-old young man with known "anger issues" shot his dad and step-mom with the 9mm handgun they kept in the nightstand because they made him do his chores instead of stopping to look up a Bible verse for a friend.

We're going to do an exercise with this sentence similar to "diagramming" like we used to do in grade school. Sort of a cross between a grammar lesson and a contest of "how many things can you find with this situation that are really screwed up."

1  "Anger issues" do not accurately describe whatever afflicts a person who attempts parent-i-cide. It is believed the Bible vs chores controversy occurred on Thursday evening and he didn't shoot them until Friday when he ambushed them as they came in from work. So, he didn't "lose his temper," he plotted their demise.

2  "Known anger issues" suggested that his parents had an idea that something was wrong with their son. Mom had previously quit a job to give him more attention to help him. He was on medications. But "known" problems suggest that PERHAPS THE GUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER LOCK AND KEY!

3 "Chores instead of stopping to look up a Bible verse" does not seem like the type of parental oppression that would lead a rational person (even a teenager) to use deadly force - the next evening. Clearly this young man is neither processing information nor responding to his environment the way most of us would (again, even if we were teenagers).

The article also reports that the parents were unable to attend the young man's juvenile court hearing because of being hospitalized or too injured. But the family's pastor went instead and spoke in defense of the shooter explaining that when he is not having an "episode," the young man is "affectionate and considerate." (So was Ted Bundy.)

I'm certainly not a doctor or psychologist, but clearly this fellow has issues more serious than his parents are able to handle. He shot them. And they were shocked.

What are the odds the kid goes back home to his forgiving parents AND that they still keep the gun in the nightstand?

This seems like a cautionary tale to me and reminds me of Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook Elementary School killer. I wonder whether Adam's mother thought he just had "issues." And then one day (December 14, 2012) he shot her and then massacred 20 children, 6 teachers, and himself with his mom's semi-automatic weapons. Mrs. Lanza had an arsenal and took Adam to the firing range to practice shooting. It seems the young man in Muscogee County was not a very good shot, thankfully, as both parents survived.

People call their loved ones' scary mental illnesses and instabilities "issues" to try to make everyone feel better, but if someone in your home (A) does not perceive reality in a rational way or (B) has socially inappropriate responses to the environment, does it not seem like common sense to keep that person away from guns of all kinds?

Let's hope these well-meaning parents Get Above Their Raisin' and remove one of these threats (ie the gun or their mentally ill son) from the home before they both end up dead. (And I don't say that to be cruel or uncaring. It is clear from this double-shooting that this young man is not getting the necessary care and protection from himself that he requires.)

Don't Hate President Obama for Giving Seniors and Veterans What They Voted For

I'll begin by saying I don't agree with President Obama's offer of Chained CPI in Social Security and Veterans benefits. (As I understand it, this proposal would mean that benefits would not go up despite increases in the Consumer Price Index as it is currently set up to do.)  I think it's a bad idea to reduce the deficit on the backs of the poor, disabled, and elderly. But if I'm fair about it, I have to admit that since most seniors voted for Gov. Romney and the Ryan Budget (which would be even more harsh on the poor and elderly), they (or most of them) are just getting what they voted for.

A majority of people 65 and older voted fro Romney in the 2012 election, knowing it would mean harsh cuts to Medicare and Social Security.

And active military and veterans, according to pre-election polls, overwhelmingly supported Romney. (I looked for actual poll data and was not able to find it. I'll update if I find it.)

As I said, I think it's a really bad idea. But it's not like these folks can really complain. This is what they asked for.

The irony of American elections is this: some of the reddest states are the very states that receive the most federal assistance, though it isn't exclusive.

My home state of Alabama gets back $1.96 in federal money for every $1 of federal taxes paid by its residents. WELFARE! Look at South Carolina ($2.13) and West Virginia ($2.83)! Arizona gets $1.60, and Mississippi is getting back $2.73 for every dollar it pays into the coffers!

The average by senate representation is  $1.49 if a state has 2 GOP Senators, $1.24 if a state has 2 Democratic senators, and $1.12 if one of each. Where's that small government, spending-cutting GOP? Change begins at home, after all.

The hypocrisy of the GOP decrying deficits and debt only when they lose the White House is nauseating. But the civilian hypocrisy of seniors and veterans lamenting cuts to their entitlements after they voted for the party who promised them even bigger cuts to those same entitlements is head-spinning.

If Americans would get Above Their Raisin' and vote in a manner consistent with their actual policy preferences, President Obama would not be in the position if having to offer the Chained CPI compromise, but could instead institute policy with a Democratic majority that would reduce deficits while protecting the elderly and veterans. Since those groups chose to vote for Romney and the GOP House and Senate candidates instead, President Obama has to deal with a filibuster threat in the Senate and a GOP House. In short, folks, you get what you vote for. And you voted to cut your own benefits.

... It Don't Matter If You're Black or White!

At Wilcox County High School (in Georgia), there is no prom or homecoming dance sponsored by the school because, by law, it must be integrated. So, years ago, the residents started sponsoring "private" dances for these school milestones - in order to keep them segregated.

The students normally have a "White Prom" and an "Integrated Prom." Last year, when a student of mixed race tried to attend the "White Prom," the parents called the cops and had her escorted off the premises. The school did only have one homecoming election this year (for the first time), but since the Queen is black and the King white, the parents insisted on separate pictures for the yearbook, and the Queen was not allowed to attend the White Homecoming Dance.

(These racist parents and their redneck offspring are SO MESSED UP! WTH is wring with people?)

But from this bassackwards southern town emerges hope in the form of four young women whose friendship has transcended racial differences and cultural ignorance. Stephanie, Maricia, Quenicia, and Keela (I'm guessing at spellings. I hope they're correct.) want to enjoy their prom together. But two of them are white and two of them are black. So they can't. Unless they are able to change things themselves:

WSFA.com: News Weather and Sports for Montgomery, AL.

Way to go, ladies! You're getting Above Your Raisin', and your showing your town how to do it too!

While it's sad that this racist BS is still going on, I'm grateful for young people like these who see it for what it is: old, tired, and WRONG!

South Carolina Republicans Miss Mark

Last night, Mark Sanford won the GOP nomination for the SC1 (South Carolina Congressional District 1), A few years ago, Mark Sanford resigned as governor of South Carolina after disappearing for several days, without telling his staff or security, to "hike on the Appalachian Trail" which was actually a euphemism for "fly to Argentina for sexcapades with his mistress." This high-profile lapse in personal morality and dereliction of his duties to his state led to his resignation. But his resignation and apology speech were unique in that he didn't describe his affair as a "mistake" but instead declared his deep love for the Argentinean woman. His love-letters became public and reflect his deep feelings for her. Here's a video with some excerpts from the letters.

Now, three years, one divorce, (one engagement to said Argentinean soul-mate), and one apology tour later, Sanford is running for Congress. And Republicans in South Carolina, apparently, think he's their guy.

For the record, let me state that I am less bothered by his affair than the other problems Sanford had as Governor. The South Carolina Ethics Commissions charged him with 37 ethics violations for which he paid a settlement/fine of $74,000.00. Among the charges include spending tax-payer dollars in business-class flights, using state aircraft for personal travel, and spending campaign funds on non-campaign expenses. Did I mention he just left the country for days without telling anyone where he was going WHILE HE WAS GOVERNOR?

When Bill Clinton was caught in an affair and an impeachment ensued, I was opposed to Congress's actions. I think personal moral failures that have no impact on governing are just that - personal. While sleazy, I never thought the Clinton-Lewinsky mess warranted tax-payer dollars being spent. I thought it was between Bill and Hilary (and to some extent Monica). As another example, when it came to light that Arnold Schwarzenegger had an illegitimate child with a housekeeper, I was personally offended by his sleaziness. But he did not violate his oath of office or slack off on his obligations as the Governator. To me, there is a difference. I think personal moral failures do not necessarily disqualify a person from public office.

We all are imperfect and make mistakes. I can get past these shortcomings. What I cannot get past? Ignoring the oath to serve constituents and perform the duties of elected office. That is what I - we - voted for, after all. We do not marry the candidate, and the candidate does not swear to "cleave only unto us." However, the elected candidate does swear to faithfully defend the laws and constitutions applicable to the position and to "execute" the duties of the office. So, until this oath is violated, IMO, it's none of my business.

Is it fair to say that Sanford made his affair a public issue by abandoning his job without disclosing his whereabouts? An actual man-hunt was launched, searching for the missing governor of South Carolina all along the Appalachian Trail. All the while, he was doing the Tango in Argentina. Oops. It could be viewed as somewhat romantic that Sanford was so gaga over his new love that he abandoned his elected office. But he didn't just cheat of his wife when he made the Argentinean booty call; he broke his promises to the people of South Carolina.

And on top of that, he was funding his side-action with campaign and tax-payer dollars. That's not romantic. That's sleazy. And again, it's not personal sleaze, but sleazy that hurts the public. So, how did he get elected to be the GOP nominee for SC1?

The republican voters of South Carolina are either the most forgiving people in America, the most forgetful, or the most gullible.

Anyone can make mistakes, even in job performance, but why not elect a candidate who has not already shown an utter disregard for ethical requirements and his oath of office? Get Above Your Raisin', South Carolina Republicans. Stop electing candidates who have already made you a political cuckold. Past behavior is, after all, the best predictor of future behavior. I know there must be Republicans in South Carolina that will take their oaths of office seriously. And if there aren't, just start voting for Democrats. Like this one:

Elizabeth Colbert Busch, Democratic candidate for SC1. No known ties to Argentina or the Appalachian trail

Mortified Mother in Mobile

My mother is somewhat mortified by the fact that I have a blog. She doesn't like the title and she doesn't like that I express my opinions so freely. She worries that I'm going to say something to embarrass her or bring death threats onto me. As to my safety, I told her the 9 people who read this blog are very nice and would never do such a thing. As to whether or not she should be embarrassed, well, read on...

The title of this blog, Above Your Raisin', might suggest that I had to undergo some sort of evolution to be the liberal thinker I am today, that I was, in contrast, raised to be a right-winger. Superficially, that might seem true. I grew up in Mobile, Alabama attending a pentecostal church. The average white girl with that background is not a liberal, pro-choice, pro-marriage-equality, pro-pot-legalization, semi-socialist who demands the separation of church and state. She is not someone who travels to attend Adam Lambert concerts or votes Democrat. She is not someone who moved across the US without a job to start a life outside the South. She is not me. (I know "I" is correct here, but it sounds weird. So I went with "me.".

I  am sure there are many reasons I am different than expected. Part of it is my personality. I am a thinker and I question things. Things that are rational and logical appeal to me. Things that defy logic and reason repel me. I recall sitting around a table when I was in college with some fellow students from church and someone brought up the issue of flag burning. Many at the table were enraged at the idea that someone would burn a US flag. My view was (and is) that burning a flag is a form of protest and, what's more, doesn't actually hurt anyone. It's not something I think I would ever do, but I have no real reason  to keep anyone else from doing it. If anyone agreed with me, I don't remember it. But I found their position to be purely emotional and devoid of any rational purpose. How is the country better if we keep people from burning flags? How is it worse if we don't? I still don't get it. That's when I knew I was out of step with my "community."

But a large part of the reason I am the way I am is my parents. Though taking me to one of the most conservative denominations you can imagine, my parents never engaged in some of the harsher aspects of evangelical rhetoric. The morality they took from it, and tried to pass on to me, included things like honesty, integrity, kindness, and love and respect of others. They did not engage in judgment or condemnation of gays, people of different faiths, or people of other cultures and races, although some of this did come down from the pulpit. When I refer to getting Above My Raisin', I am not talking about my parents. I am talking about the community in which I grew up - the South.

Here's an example: April is Confederate History Month thanks to Virginia Governor McDonnell. *sigh* Why are we celebrating slavery? Is it not bad enough that we have that blemish on our national soul? Why do we have to flaunt it in the face of our African-American friends and neighbors? (And it is about slavery. Don't pretend it's about big white houses, oak trees and hoop skirts. You can have those now. The only reason to celebrate the Confederacy is to give the finger to black people.) The fact that I see the insult and absurdity in Confederate History Month that is completely lost on others is a sign that I have gotten Above My Raisin'.

The phrase "Above Your Raisin'" is a shortened version of the caution, "Don't get above your raisin'," and is intended to mean that you shouldn't get "too big for your britches" or act prideful or haughty. It is a reminder to "not forget where you came from." Well, what if I want to forget where I came from?

Sometimes, to get Above Your Raisin' means to survive intact. While the world is big and complicated and people believe different things, and it is possible sometimes to overlook those differences, sometimes thriving requires saying goodbye to the poisonous, the toxic, and the hateful. It means turning your back on things that are destructive. 

The last pentecostal church service I attended (other than a family funeral) included a sermon on sexual immorality wherein the preacher equated a homosexual relationship with bestiality. And I'm not talking about a vague reference to Leviticus. After telling the story of a woman defending her gay daughter, he relayed to us that he said TO HER, "What would you do if you came home one day and found your daughter having sex with a dog?" Even for evangelical homophobes, that was beyond the pale. Or so I thought. A chorus of "Amens" answered him back. It is perhaps ironic to have an epiphany that results in never going back to a particular church. But my moment of clarity that day was profound: there was no love in that body, only judgment and condemnation; and I would not be a part of it any longer.


My Mom doesn't like the title of my blog because, I assume, it suggests I came from a place that is bad. Well, it is. But not really worse than most places. There is ignorance-a-plenty all over the world. I have blogged about ignorant shenanigans in the North, South, East, West, and every direction in between. I will continue to do so.

But this blog is an homage to Mom and Dad who took the Christian parts of what was taught in church and made sure it got passed on to me, leaving behind the culture-war portions that inflamed the congregations. I might have been fine had I continued to attend the pentecostal church. But I wouldn't have been happy and I wouldn't have found peace there. And if faith cannot give you peace, what is the point? So I got Above My Raisin'. You might even say I rose above it. Thanks to the parents who raised me.