Senator Jeff Sessions: GOAT?

Alabama's Senator Jeff Sessions got on a moral high-horse to defend the GOP's efforts to slash food stamps for poor Americans.

Is our national goal to place as many people on welfare, food stamp support, as we can possibly put on that program? Is that our goal? Is that a moral vision for the United States of America, just to see how many people we can place in a situation where they're dependent on the federal government for their food? I just ask that. I think we should wrestle with that question.

Senator Sessions was arguing against an Amenment to the Agriculture Bill sponsored by Senator Gillibrand (D-NY) to re-instate the $45 billion in the Food Stamp Program that the GOP had taken out. Apparently, feeding the poor is, in the eyes of Senator Sessions, a moral failing.

I've never met a liberal who thinks we need to keep as many people as possible on government assistance. On the contrary, liberals favor programs to educate and train people so they can get good paying jobs and be productive and self-sufficient. But to pretend that productivity and self-sufficiency will just happen if we take away poor people's food is equal parts cruel and stupid.

Proving that the GOP does not own all the copies of the Bible in DC, Senator Gillibrand took Senator Sessions to school - Sunday School, that is. She pointed out to Senator Sessions (and everyone else listening) that according to Matthew chapter 25, the first question we will be asked on Judgment Day is "Did you feed the poor?" Here's what Matthew 25 says.

³¹ “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. ³² All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³ He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.³⁴ “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵ For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶ I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
³⁷ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸ When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹ When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’⁴⁰ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’⁴¹ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴² For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³ I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’⁴⁴ “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’⁴⁵ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’⁴⁶ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. ”

Matthew 25:31-46 (emphasis added).

So, you see, for believers in the Gospel, as Senator Sessions claims to be, if you care for the poor - feed them, quench their thirst, tend them in their sickness, clothe them - the Lord will regard you as a sheep (a righteous and faithful follower) and you will remain in the presence of the Lord. Not so for the goats. Those who turn their backs on the poor (the "least of these brothers and sisters") are condemned to eternal punishment. So, you see, Senator Sessions is, according to the Bible, advocating the position of the infamous GOATS.

I'm sure Senator Sessions is busy trying to find an Ayn Rand version of the Bible to justify his utter lack of compassion, some way to twist these words around and put the goats of higher ground (mountain goats?). Unfortunately, one does not exist. She was an athiest.

A Bible-a-thon as justification for policy is not a good idea. The Bible is arcane and is used to justify bigotry, misogyny, and many other ills. But I understand the need to hoist the GOP on its own petarb when they get morally indignant in order to justify making poor children starve. I applaud Senator Gillibrand for her Bible knowledge and her commitment to doing something to ease the suffering of the poor in this, the wealthiest country in the world.

If Alabama could get above its raisin' and remove Jeff Session from the US Senate, we would have one less GOAT to deal with. Unfortunately, in Alabama, there is a line of younger GOATS waiting their turn behind him.

Voter Suppression Is the Greatest Evil We Face

Of all the principles and beliefs on which we built and continue to reconstruct our republic, the fundamental truth that all government power comes from the people, for the people, and by the people is the cornerstone.

This principle is true in every society, even though we only think of it applying to democratically elected governments. But in fact, it is true in every dictatorship, every puppet regime, and in every theocracy as well. Sometimes, exerting the power of the citizenry to choose a government costs lives (the American Revolution, South Africa, India, the Arab Spring) but the government people have is the government they choose, either by active choice (revolution, voting) or by acquiescence. The free will of the citizenry in some countries have been suppressed by force (the Taliban, China), by religious ideology (Iran and the long-abandoned idea of the divine right of kings), and in our country, by operation of law.

Government power is granted and exercised by the consent of the people. Look at what the people of Florida have chosen. Despite the absence of a voter fraud problem, the GOP state officials are trying to remove people from voter rolls with the stated purpose of removing "non-citizens." But when 20% of the first purge resulted in the removal of registered, legal citizens from voter roles, forcing them to petition and fight (again) for the right to vote, the Department of Justice stepped in.

Again, there is no voter fraud problem in Florida. I defy anyone reading this to find proof of voter fraud in Florida or in any state that amounts to anything close to being significant enough to affect outcomes. It just doesn't exist. This entire campaign is an effort to remove minorities (in Florida, primarily Hispanics) from the voter roles because the GOP knows they vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates.

In discussing this with a colleague, he agreed that we need to know how much voter fraud is occurring and then decide whether these actions are necessary. He suggested that if the voter fraud exceeded 100,000 bad votes, and the "remedy" only prevented 10,000 legitimate voters from voting, then the numbers say we should enact the remedy to prevent fraud. What?!

I was aghast! Would gun advocates (which my colleague is, BTW) agree to remove all guns from private ownership because to do so would reduce deaths in the US by HUGE numbers? Do we lock up innocent people in this country to prevent the guilty from going free? Did I fall into bizarro America when I fell asleep last night?

In this country, we do NOT take away people's fundamental rights to prevent abuse of rights by others. WE DO NOT! We let guilty people go free to protect against innocent people wrongfully losing their freedom. We protect private gun ownership even though the result is many unnecessary deaths. The very idea that we can just casually take away someone's right to vote in order to protect against voter fraud by someone else is about as unAmerican an idea as I've ever heard.

The DOJ has filed a lawsuit to stop what is happening in Florida, but the Governor and the Secretary of State insist they are not going to stop. The people of Florida elected these yahoos, and they are getting what they deserve.

If you vote for a party that advocates voter suppression, you are voting for tyranny, not democracy. I don't think this is an exaggeration. It isn't. Everything our free society is built on depends on the equal and free right to vote in elections. An attack on people's ability to vote is an offense far worse than lying, than fiscal irresponsibility, even than blowing up a building, because it is not an attck on Americans, but an attack on the American experiment that Lincoln talked about in his Gettysburg Address.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Lincoln's fear for America was even more profound than the unholy scurge of slavery. It was the fear that America, as it was envisioned, would cease to exist. This was the burden he carried.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us— that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

From 1775 until now, people have given their lives so that we can vote and choose who governs us. In every century since then more have died to protect that right. Constitutional amendments were passed to extend the right to people of all races and to women. Voting is the most important thing we do as citizens. And there are people in elected office trying to take that right away from us.

If you live in Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Texas, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, West Virginia, Ohio, Maine, North Carolina, or Pennsylvania, your citizenry's right to vote is under attack. Get Above Your Raisin' and put a stop to it.

I'm Not a Criminal Attorney, But...

The Daily Beast is reporting a few new facts about the Trayvon Martin killing. They printed a fairly clear report of what Zimmerman supposedly told the police after the shooting.

As has been reported, Zimmerman told police officials that he lost sight of Martin and went around a townhouse to see where he was. Then he claimed Martin confronted him and punched him, knocking him down.

According to The Daily Beast’s source, Zimmerman told police that when he was on the ground, Martin straddled him, striking him, and then tried to smother him.

Zimmerman claimed that he yelled for help, and that various neighbors who peered out to see the fight from their backyards didn’t get involved. Zimmerman, the source said, told officers he was so paralyzed by fear that he initially forgot he had a gun, but he said that after Martin noticed his 9mm pistol, Zimmerman pulled it out of his belt holder and fired one round, a hollow-point—the round that killed Martin. (The autopsy report on Martin has not yet been released.)

According to the source, Zimmerman told police that Martin’s last words after the shooting were, “Okay, you got it.” He said the phrase twice, then turned and fell face-down on the ground.

(Martin’s father told reporters last month that police had told him his son’s last words were, “You got me.” Benjamin Crump, the family’s lawyer, said he doesn’t believe either account.)

According to the source, Zimmerman told police he didn’t realize that Martin was seriously injured, and that he lunged to get on top of him after the teenager fell to the ground. Moments later, a police officer from Sanford arrived, placed him in handcuffs and took his gun.

Because I just like analysis, let's take a look at some of these allegations.

(1) Zimmerman told police that when he was on the ground, Martin straddled him, striking him, and then tried to smother him. Smother him with what? He didn't say "choke," which would have left scratches, bruises, or some kind of red marks on his neck. He said "smother."

Years ago I took the deposition of a guy who hit and ran my client (who was an off-duty policeman who stopped to offer assistance because Mr. Hit and Run's car was stopped on the side of the freeway). In his deposition, Mr. Hit-and-Run testified that he was fearful of my client who was approaching his car at night. (My client was not in uniform, but was wearing his badge on his belt and shone the flashlight on it, then stood in his headlights so Mr. H&R could get a good look at him.) "What about him made you so afraid?" I asked. A: "He looked to me like he was holding a weapon." Q: "What kind of weapon?" A: "I don't know." (This was starting to sound fishy.) Q: "Tell me what it looked like." A: It was white and it extended from the hand he had raised by his ear down past his waist." (Huh?) Q: "That sounds like the beam of his flashlight. Is that what you are describing?" A: "No. It wasn't that." Q: "I'm confused. What kind of weapon looks like (what you described)?" A: (long pause) "A rag."

A rag. That was the scary weapon he thought my client had. Here's a clue for you non-attorneys: he never thought my client was threatening him with a rag. He was lying. We don't know why he was parked on the side of the freeway when his car worked perfectly well. We may never know. But a good guess: it was for something illegal, because when he saw my client's badge, he sped off, hitting my client, leaving the scene and speeding along the freeway where he was pulled over in the next county. Do I know that with 100% certainty? Of course not. But his ragaphobia? Not credible.

So what was Zimmerman being smothered with? We don't know because the police (apparently) didn't ask. I wonder if it was a rag (though no rag was found at the scene as far as we know.)

(2) Zimmerman told police that when he was on the ground, Martin straddled him, striking him, and then tried to smother him.

Zimmerman claimed that he yelled for help, and that various neighbors who peered out to see the fight from their backyards didn’t get involved. Zimmerman, the source said, told officers he was so paralyzed by fear that he initially forgot he had a gun, but he said that after Martin noticed his 9mm pistol, Zimmerman pulled it out of his belt holder and fired one round, a hollow-point—the round that killed Martin.

***

According to the source, Zimmerman told police that Martin’s last words after the shooting were, “Okay, you got it.” He said the phrase twice, then turned and fell face-down on the ground.


So Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, straddling him, beating him, smothering him. Zimmerman shot him. He utters some strange phrase twice, "then turned and fell face-down on the ground." WHEN DID HE STAND UP?

This is either a complete fabrication, or there is a scene missing from this episode. Trayvon was straddling Zimmerman, beating him, got shot, then turned and fell face down. But Zimmerman does not tell us when he stood up. Did he get up and then get shot? This would explain the lack of blood on Zimmerman's clothes in the video, but it also means it was not self defense, IMO. Did he get fatally shot in the chest and then get up? Does that seem plausible to anyone reading this? And if it happened that way, Zimmerman should have blood all over him. But no blood in the police video.

(3) According to the source, Zimmerman told police he didn’t realize that Martin was seriously injured, and that he lunged to get on top of him after the teenager fell to the ground. Moments later, a police officer from Sanford arrived, placed him in handcuffs and took his gun.

He was shot, then he turned and fell face down on the ground, but Zimmerman did not think he was "seriously injured." Does that pass the straight-face test?

Do you know what common sense tells me? This is mostly speculation, but here's my take.

Zimmerman is a cop-wanna-be. That much is clear. His numerous 911 calls, his neighborhood watch work, his concealed weapon permit all add up to being an unofficial Dudley Doright. He was out of work and bored, so he spent an inordinate amount of time "finding" "suspicious characters" in his neighborhood.

If you've heard the 911 call, you know that the dispatcher told him NOT to follow Trayvon. "We don't need you to do that," he said. Zimmerman said OK, but consider these factors: Zimmerman was frustrated that those "assholes always get away." It's on the tape. And Trayvon's girlfriend reported that he told her on the phone at the time this started to go down that "some guy" was following him. She told him to run. He said he'd walk faster. The fact that the man and teenager ended up in the same place means one had to go towards the other. We know Zimmerman wanted to catch Trayvon (from the tape) and we know that Trayvon wanted to get away from the man pursuing him (from Trayvon's girlfriend). My conclusion: Zimmerman followed Trayvon, maybe even chased him, to keep him from "getting away."

I also think Zimmerman pulled his gun on Trayvon to try to get him to stop "getting away." There is no video or eye-witness of this part of the confrontation, but it makes sense. I think Zimmerman simply wanted to make Trayvon stop and wait for the police. But to Trayvon, this strange man who was following him pulled a gun. So I think Trayvon ran. And then I think Zimmerman tackled him. This makes more sense to me than an unarmed teenager who is not breaking the law attacking Zimmerman from behind. And it is more consistent with other evidence.

Other eye witnesses have IDed the man in the white T-shirt as the man "on top" of the other person She looked out her window and saw the man in the white T-shirt on top.

And Trayvon ending up face down? Imagine this scenario: Zimmerman speeds up to catch up with Trayvon and is perhaps even calling to Trayvon to stop. Trayvon goes faster, not know why some guy is after him. Zimmerman pulls his gun and pursues, tackling Trayvon from behind. But his gun is in his hand underneath Trayvon's abdomen/chest. There is a struggle with Trayvon trying to get away, shouting "Help! Help me!" In fact, the funeral director says Trayvon's body showed no signs of a struggle, contradicting the allegations that he was beating on Zimmerman. In the struggle, Zimmerman fires the gun either intentionally or unintentionally.

Zimmerman and his father are known to the police in Sanford. But for whatever reason, they decide that Zimmerman is not a criminal and deserves their help. They label Trayvon a John Doe and send his unidentified body to the morgue where he lays three days unclaimed, with his family wondering what has happened to him. But they put his name, date of birth and other vital information on the police report. Why?

In an absolute sense, no one "knows" what happened between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. But we have brains and knowledge and logic at our disposal. We know enough to know Zimmerman has not been honest.

He lied when he told the dispatcher he was going to stop following Trayvon.

He lied about being the one calling for help.

He lied about the nature and severity of his injuries.

And we know the police and perhaps other officials have been assisting Zimmerman in trying to simply "get past" this homicide. As far as we know: They failed to "bag" Zimmerman's shoes, clothes, and hands for forensic testing (he is seen in the police video wiping his feet on the rug in the doorway). They failed to confiscate and ballistics test Zimmerman's gun. (It was returned to him when they released him early that same morning.) They did not test Zimmerman for gunshot residue, just questioned him and took his statement.

Perhaps they believe this was an accident by a good-intentioned neighborhood watchman. Whatever the reason, they never intended to prosecute any criminal action against this man who shot and killed a non-offending, unarmed teenager. But we do not have police officers and laws in place to protect individuals with police-fantasies from prosecution after pursuing and killing unarmed teenagers. The law and law enforcement exist to protect us all from zealots with police-fantasies.

A judge and jury will decide Zimmerman's fate, as they should. I am not endeavoring to try him here. I just enjoy the analysis and the quest for answers.

"No Religious Test Shall Ever Be Required..."

Article VI paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the United States:

3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

I've heard a lot of preaching and ranting from the Tea Party about the CONSTITUTION and how our President has somehow violated it. I still don't know how. Neither do they. They just know they don't like Barack Obama, so ergo, he must have violated that confounded document they hold so sacred. Blah blah blah.

Those screaming the loudest about the Constitution are treating it the same way they treat the Bible. Here's what I mean.

They say: Gays are unnatural, sinful, and they should not be allowed to marry because of the Bible. But you don't see them protesting legal divorce. Or starting a foundation to end the weaving of wool with linen. They pick and choose the parts of the Bible they think are important, and simply discard - or ignore - the rest. And they do the same with the Constitution.

Obama has been called a Muslim, a secret Muslim, an atheist, an atheist Muslim, a secularist, and has been attacked because of things his former Pastor, Rev. Wright has said. All this despite the Constitutional mandate that

[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

So, whack jobs ranting about imagined interfaith political rumbles, clearly you do not abide by or support the Constitution of the United States. Should we try you for treason?

How about you, Mittens? Here's a link to Mitt Romney questioning Obama's religion and accusing him of considering the establishment of a new religion. A completely fabricated allegation and an UNCONSTITUTIONAL religious test.

Mitt was asked why he thought Obama wanted to require insurance to cover birth control. The obvious answer to any sane person: So that women can have better and more affordable access to birth control. Duh. Mitt's answer: Scary Barry is trying to destroy real religion and force us to practice secularism. (Paraphrased obviously)

And then, when Lawrence O'Donnell says some bad things about Mitt's Mormon religion, the National Review jumps to Mitt's defense. You can begin to see the wisdom of our founding fathers as this attack and counter-attack spirals into utter stupidity.

The Salt Lake Tribune's headline today is "MORMON MOMENT" with a picture of Mitt Romney. Here's a link to the article online. It has a different headline than the printed version. But, NO, it's not a Mormon Moment. It's not a Mormon Moment any more than Kennedy's election was a Catholic Moment or Nixon's election was a Quaker Moment. It's a political moment. That is all.

By the same token, the idea of NOT voting for someone because of their religion - or lack of religion - is about as unAmerican as anything you can put on a list. It is a fundamental principal dating back to our country's founding that our elected officials not be subject to a religious test. Period.

Politics are nasty. And they are made even more nasty by the moral positioning and God-claiming that candidates engage in. Morality and politics are about as foreign to each other as integrity and politics.

Religion and politics? They have been shacking up and fornicating in this country for far too long, despite the Constitutional prohibitions. Look at the bastard candidates that relationship has produced! Sadly, I see no end in sight to this corruption of our elections. The Constitution only has the power we give it, and it only has the authority we submit to. Until the theocrats get out of politics - or are forced out by Americans who truly respect and honor our Constitution - we will never get Above Our Raisin'.

So Many Embarassements, So Little Time to Blog

Since work got back to normal, my blogging has been lagging. Sorry. I'm re-committing to get back to pointing out people cavemanliness and moronitudes.

So, to catch up, here's who should be embarassed for not getting above their raisin' in recent weeks and months.

Mitt Romney - It might be more accurate to say he needs to get "beyond his raisin'." He is so hopelessly clueless, uncomfortably stiff, and shockingly dishonest that he is truly re-defining American politics. Someone should let Mittens know that everything he is saying is being recorded and much of it is on YouTube. Some nice Democrats have put this video together. Yes, they have an agenda, but the video is still shocking, and includes some FoxNews peeps calling him a flip-flopper. Check it here. Character? He is a character, but I doubt he has any character. Is there nothing he believes in with conviction? He seems to be a man of faith, but refuses to answer questions about that at all. His plan for winning seems to be that he is not Barack Obama. But his approval numbers are actually lower that POTUS's right now.

Sanford Police Department and George Zimmerman - Whatever delusions of posse-style grandeur Zimmerman may have been suffering from, Zimmerman's pursuit, confrontation, and killing of Trayvon Martin is inexcusable and shocking. Only slightly more disturbing is the apparent cover-up and complicity of the Sanford City Police. It is never OK for an armed man to pursue, confront and shoot someone who was doing nothing illegal. NEVER. There is no explanation, excuse, defense or dumb-ass law that makes this OK. Period.

Justice Scalia - His questions at oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act were from the Tea Party website, ie broccoli and cell phones. It's not like I'm a fan of Justice Alito or Chief Justice Roberts, but at least they act like they once went to law school, instead of mocking and snorting like some petulant redneck. And he laughed outright at the very idea that either he or his clerks would be expected to read the law in question. It is 2700 pages long. I get it. But you know what? They get paid a load of money, they cannot be fired, they get government health care and pensions, and they only rule on 75-80 cases per year. With the help of law clerks. Yes, we do expect our Supreme Court justices to read the laws they are reviewing. By the way - not one mention of broccoli, cell phones, or the corn husker kickback (it was taken out before passage) is in the law, Justice Scalia.

Men, both political and religious, trying to prevent insurance coverage of birth control. IT WAS NEVER GOING TO BE FREE. That's just a lie. The ACA provision required that birth control be in the definition of "preventive care" so that it would be available without co-pay from our private insurance carriers. We pay for it WHEN WE PAY OUR HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS! There was no provision requiring tax dollars to pay for anyone's birth control. Ignorance makes us susceptible to any lie. This was a notorious one. The fact that health insurance was not required to cover birth control before now is a scandal. The fact that supposedly celibate bishops had a hissy-fit because insurance coverage of birth control meant some employers would have some tangential relationship to their employees getting "the pill" is also a scandal. Re-igniting the debate about the safety and propriety of women even having access to birth control is a scandal of unimaginable size and scope. WTH? Did I just step out of a time machine? Listen, all you small government Ayn Randian wonks, and you theocratic moral policemen, who have no real clue that for a woman, freedom requires the ability to determine when we get pregnant: Get your policy and your theology out of my veehayhay. It's none of your business.

The New Orleans Saints - They put a bounty on the opposition, rewarding players who injured opposing players. This is not Thunderdome (or for a more modern reference, the Hunger Games) you neanderthals. It's freaking FOOTBALL. It's a GAME. Played for fun and entertainment. Treating it like it's life or death is not only stupid, it's barbaric. No penalty is too big for you.

Tea Bagging Alabama Fan - An Alabama fan, apparently drunk in celebration hours after Alabama won the BCS National Championship in January, took advantage of a passed out LSU fan at a Krystal restaurant in New Orleans when he dropped trou and tea bagged the unconscious tiger supporter's face. It was filmed on a smart phone and posted on YouTube. Charges have been filed. I'm a Tide fan myself, but this was appalling. Is it the same as rape? No. But it is in the neighborhood.

Rush Limbaugh - On general principal, but also because he (1) told big fat whopping lies about the birth control provision of the ACA and (2) vilified a Georgetown Law School student who advocated for insurance coverage of The Pill. Slut. Whore. The usual misogyny from Rush. Advertisers fled but he's like a cockroach. He will not go away.

People who anonymously post the most hateful garbage imaginable in the comment sections on the internet - The concept of wishing people harm or death because they are a different race, political persuasion or sexual orientation is completely lost on me. I don't understand this any more than I understand vandalism. It is pointless, harmful, and destructive.

Do I ever have violent or derogatory thoughts when I get angry? Sure. But what separates me from the animals is that my lizard-brain is controlled by my walking-erect brain. Most of us are able to push down the angry 2001 Space Odyssy bone-weilding primate inside us and let other's be - whatever and however that want to be. People who view anyone different as a threat, and lash out at them with violence or hatred, are still being controlled by their lizard brains, and are doomed to never get above their raisin'.

The Disgrace for the Cure (Leadership at Komen is a Cancer)

(Photo is of a breast cancer cell)

The Komen Foundation learned about the impact of overreaching this week. They hired a right winger to be their VP, and she went to war on science and women's health. Karen Handel (the aforementioned right winger) resigned from Komen today, but not before her efforts to impose her political and moral belief seriously tarnished the non-profit's reputation and standing.

Komen announced last week that it would no longer provide grant money to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings, earning it the new unofficial slogan, "The Disgrace for the Cure." Although breast cancer screenings (a physical exam, not mammograms) account for only about 15% of what planned parenthood does (and abortions only 3%), it is estimated that the Komen money paid for screenings last year that caught 177 cases of breast cancer. That's 177 women who might be dead now if not for the Komen money. (You have to hand it to the right wing. That is one sure way to reduce poverty: just let poor people die of curable diseases by cutting off their charitably donated health care.)

I saw a headline yesterday that Koman was also planning to stop finding stem cell research.

Am I the only one that thinks (1) reducing breast cancer screenings for poor women and (2) ending research funding for cancer cures are the opposite actions that Komen should be taking? What is Komen, anyway? Is it a cancer charity? Or is it the evangelical morality police?

Komen subordinated its raison d'etre to subjective political and religious preferences, and it lost credibility. Here's what that decision got Komen.

(1) Loss of supporters and donations. I for one will not be donating to them. Instead, I sent a donation directly to Planned Parenthood, who raised over $5 million since the Komen rejection last week.

(2) Komen had to reverse itself. Now it not only can't be trusted to actually reduce cancer deaths, but it waffles as much as Mitt Romney. It's inevitable when you taint yourself with politics.

(3) This morning Handel resigned. But in many ways it's too late. The head of Komen went all over TV telling people Handel was not behind the Planned Parenthood decision, only to have Handel confirm, in her resignation letter, that she was. So, Komen's leadership is a bunch of liars. There are many cancer charities. We don't need to support Komen.

The leadership at Komen is a cancer not because they are evil. They aren't. (BTW, neither is actual cancer. It's just cells growing out of control.) Like real cancer, the Komen powers-that-be went out of control, and now they must be eradicated, otherwise the organization will die. Handel's resignation is not enough. This is a non-profit medical charity. There can be no perception of dishonesty, nor of being anti-science. Anyone at Komen who agreed with Handel, or who lied for her, has to go. Otherwise, we should expect nothing more or less than a relapse. For a complete remission, there must be complete excision of the cancer.

One day Komen might win back my trust. But it will take a while. En masse resignations is a good place to start.

Oh No, Idaho! (With Some Shame on Liberty U Too)

Some nut-job from Idaho thought he'd travel to DC and kill the President.

That may seem shocking to some of you, but I've heard and read some of my fellow Americans praying for, wishing for, and expressing a desire for the President's death. (Just FYI, rednecks, it's not OK to root for your President's death just because he's African American. He was duly elected. You live in a democratic republic. If you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran.)

On November 11, 2011, Oscar Ortega-Hernandez, 21, traveled to DC, drove to the White House, got out with a semiautomatic rifle, and fired shots at the White House breaking windows and damaging the wall.

And he is a nut-job. First off, Obama was famously out of town. It was broadcast all over the news that Obama was not in DC for days prior to this lame effort.

Secondly, he didn't just shoot at him to assassinate a President he disagreed with. Nope. According to people who know him, he believes Obama is the Anti-Christ. I guess he thought he was going to thwart God's plans for humanity by simply shooting the Anti-Christ. Moron.

I'm grateful the guy is a moron. I don't want my President assassinated, and not just because I agree with him, but because I'm an American. If I were Idaho, I'd be embarrassed.

For some reason religious nuts resort to homicide to fulfill their whacky missions. So when I see people on my Facebook feed, who consider themselves devout Christians, bitterly rooting for someone to kill Obama "as soon as possible," I wonder just how close they are to making the trip themselves and becoming a headline.

Some of the fine "Christians" I have heard and read pleading for Obama's death - including at least 2 graduates of Liberty University - are sufficient proof to me that they are more about bullying people than loving them. Somewhere along the line, their dogma became about judgment rather than grace and persecution rather than charity. It became about winning elections rather than saving souls. But really, what's the difference between the Liberty nut-jobs and Oscar, aside from Oscar's possible mental illness?

And, finally, here's a news flash, religious creeps: the Anti-Christ is more likely to come out of Liberty University than Harvard Law School. Otherwise, how would he convince fools like you to become his disciples?

Not Everyone in New Hampshire Is Up to Speed

There are 160 people in New Hampshire who voted for Herman Cain last night. HE'S NOT IN THE RACE ANY MORE!

If you're going to bother going to vote, you should probably vote for someone actually running for office. For example, Governor Perry is almost as unqualified to be POTUS as Herman Cain. You could have voted for him.

Admittedly, the far right's commitment to anti-intellectualism is getting harder to stick to with withdrawals by Cain and Bachman. But they've still got Perry. And they've got Santorum too. (Can the Tea Party vote for a Catholic?)

Oh, let's not forget Ron Paul, who finished second last night. His ascension to prominence in the GOP primary is proof of the extremism that has taken hold in the party. The man thinks civil rights legislation is unconstitutional and that our economic problems are the result of abandoning the gold standard. I give him credit for having principles. The problem with having such strong convictions arises when you are wrong. Do we really want to go back to toting around bags of doubloons and segregated restaurants? Apparently, some New Hampshirians (New Hampsters?) do.

My dad always said, "A little learning is a dangerous thing." Right now, I'd be grateful for a "little learning" among the GOP primary voters because IMO, they are already about as dangerous as they can get.

Footnote - Just found out: 300 GOP primary voters in New Hampshire voted for Barack Obama to be their nominee. I think that's kinda funny. And fantastic!

Herman Cain says 9-9-9. I say "NO! NO! NO!"

Herman Cain is surprising a lot of pundits by staying in the GOP race. I've seen several Facebook posts from people who are behind his candidacy. The appeal of his simple 9-9-9 tax policy on its face may seem like a good idea, but it is not! Like any flat tax, it is regressive. Allow me to explain.

This article from 2005 described the percentage of American families below the poverty line and, most importantly for purposes of my discussion, the percentage of American families who fall short of basic budget thresholds. In other words, they spend every dollar they make (and more) to obtain the basics. In 2005, "42% of families living in cities and 30% of families residing in rural areas f[e]ll short of basic family budget thresholds." Do you wonder what it is today? For the sake of discussion, let's just say that 40% of American families are "below budget."

Mind you, this is the poorest 40% of families in America. We are counting from the bottom up.

Wealthy people make and spend money differently that this bottom 40%. For virtually everyone, our number one expense is housing. But here the road diverges. For the bottom 20%, the second biggest expenditure is food and other absolute necessities at 17% of their earnings. For top earners, they spend 17% of their earnings on transportation.

The more we earn, the smaller percentage of our income we spend on food. The poorest 20% of Americans spends 12% of its income on food at home, while the middle 20% spends 9% on food and the top 20% spends only 6% on food. This makes sense, right? I mean, no matter how much you make, you can only eat so much.

Health care: bottom 20% spends 8% of its earnings, middle spends 6.8% and the top fifth of earners spends only 4%.

You see where I'm going. Top earners spend money on luxuries and travel, sure, but they don't spend all of their money. They save. They invest. They gift it to their kids.

So, here's my point: If 40% of America is spending every dime it makes to try to meet a reasonable budget, that means that under the 9-9-9 plan, the poorest 40% of this country will be paying 18% total tax on their earnings. Period. They get a 9% income tax - no deductions - and since they spend every dime trying to survive, they spend 9% sales tax on everything else. (Hoping they can make it with what is effectively an increase in their taxes for many of the poorest Americans.)

Under Herman Cain's plan, if you don't save, you pay 18% tax.

If you are a high earner, you could choose to live on this "necessary" budget and only pay effective taxes of 12-13%. But even assuming you lived on a nicer, more luxurious budget, you are never going to pay the full 18% unless you just go out and blow your money. Can we agree that this is not a likely outcome?

What about the third 9? That's corporate tax, and while wealthy people do tend to invest more dollars in corporations per person, many, many people in the bottom 40% have retirement accounts with stock ownership. I'm going to call this a wash.

So, when talking about individuals, under the Cain plan, everyone will pay between 9% and 18% of his or her earnings in federal taxes. Unfortunately, since the bottom 40% will always pay the full 18%, and the top earners never will, Mr. Cain has managed to create the most regressive tax policy in American history. What's more, since the wealthiest actually pay fewer taxes when they spend less, we can also count on these so-called "job creators" to be even more incentivized to sit on their money.

So, poor people get poorer, fewer jobs are created, and rich people get even richer. Sounds good if you're Herman Cain. Not so good if you are in the bottom 40%.

The thing I wonder about is this: How many Herman Cain supporters are in that bottom 40%? Ignorance is really, really dangerous. Get above your raisin' people, and stand up for yourself. No one's going to be on your side but you. Well, and me.

Pine Bluff, Arkansas - Get Above Your Raisin'! PLEASE!

The Valedictorian at McGehee Secondary School, about an hour's drive SE of Little Rock, should have been Kymberly Wimberly. (Yep. That's her name.) But she was forced to share that honor with another student - a white student - with a lower GPA. See, Kymberly is black. Letting her be the Valedictorian - the smartest, best student to graduate in the class of 2011 - would have "caused a big mess." So, the principal named another, whiter student the "co-valedictorian," even though he had a lower GPA.

What are you thinking? Are you asking yourself, "Did she take an easier course load?" Not according to the lawsuit she filed. It claims her transcript is loaded with advanced and AP classes.

Kymberly is a teen Mom, and managed to earn the valedictorian title despite this added responsibility. But, being valedictorian is not about chastity or propriety or other puritanical points of view. It's the title given to the person with the highest GPA in the graduating class. Period. Except at McGehee Seconday School.

It's 2011 and the schools is 46% African American. How could this happen?

The full truth will come out, but the allegations in the complaint are fairly detailed and easy to check with discovery and investigation. Having read about the lawsuit as summarized in the article, I'm convinced (for now) that an injustice occurred here. The case is yet to be litigated, and other facts may come out, but Kymberly's Mom works at the school and overheard her daughter's valedictory fate being discussed in the office.

Why would it be so messy if a black person was the valedictorian? Is it really so hard to accept that sometimes, the smartest person on the room is black? We should all be used to it now since this guy




is in our TV rooms nightly.

We have had decades to come to terms with our embarrassing history of slavery, segregation, civil rights abuses, and racism. But apparently, some people in Arkansas haven't gotten the memo. So, here it is:

MEMORANDUM

TO: Rednecks all over America

FROM: The rest of America

Re: Racism

Being white does not make you better, smarter, prettier or more powerful. It just makes you whiter. Get over it.

If you read this, please post and tweet the link so Kymberly Wimberly can get the recognition she earned, and so the administration at McGehee Secondary School can get the criticism they deserve.

If Fox News Viewers Only Knew the News

I have a job, so I didn't get to see all of Rupert Murdoch's unsworn testimony before the British Parliament. But what I did see was simply astonishing.

Rupert Murdoch was ranked by Forbes Magazine as the 13th most powerful person in the world in 2010. And yet, we are supposed to believe that he had no idea that his hand-picked people in the UK - people he says he trusted and still trusts - were bribing public officials and hacking people's cell phones.

It's easy to see how he can be so influential, what with having half of Scotland Yard in the pockets of his henchmen. Does his denial of EVERYTHING have any credibility at all?

It's like Emperor Palpatine claiming he had no idea that nasty Darth Vader killed those poor Jedi younglings.



(I know it's a bit childish, but be honest. There is a resemblance.)

In the aftermath of this scandal of criminal invasions of privacy and influence peddling, the commissioner and assistant commissioner of Scotland Yard have resigned, though claiming no knowledge of the bribes. But they acknowledge that they were responsible and failed to uncover and stop the corruption.

But not the Emperor. No. He denies any knowledge and insists that he is NOT responsible, despite have hand picked and groomed the culprits himself.

The most amusing part of this tragic story is that Murdoch's own FoxNews has hardly mentioned this scandal. When it was mentioned, it was brushed aside as just another hacking story. Oh, well.

The thing is, it's not just another hacking story. It's a story about criminal conduct being encouraged, condoned, and profited-from by one of the world's largest media empires, including its CEO, one of the most politically influential people in the world. When Emperor Rupertine pulls strings, powerful people in the US, the UK and Austrailia sit, stand, jump, run, bow and scrape at his command.

Ironically, the very audience who need to know that the people bringing them what they think is news are influence-peddling, cell-phone-hacking, criminal-enterprise-building liars have no idea - because their sole source for "news" hasn't told them.

The GOP's War on Women, the Poor and Gays is Not Going to Create Any Jobs

When the GOP took control of the House, they vowed that Job 1 was "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS!" They lied.

And the Tea Party whackados who took control of so many states vowed that they wanted smaller government. They lied too.

The GOP apparently thinks the source of all our problems are (1) women who use birth control and who are, well, women, (2) poor people, and(3) gays who want to practice legally sanctioned monogamy (THE HORROR!).

How many jobs are created by defunding Planned Parenthood? ZERO Though this action will result in more health problems for poor women and more unwanted pregnancies - not because of reduced abortions, but because so many poor women can no longer get birth control.

How many jobs are created by prohibiting marriage equality? ZERO In fact, NY state thinks the new law permitting same sex marriage is going to bring in MILLIONS of dollars in new revenue. See, people. Love is never bad.

And how many jobs are created by outlawing "the pill," which is in the process in 8 or 9 states now. Again, ZERO unless you start counting jobs relating to dealing with unwanted pregnancies.

THE WAR ON WOMEN

Many of these new laws are just misogynistic campaigns against women. Preventing poor women from getting medical check-ups and birth control is not being "pro life," it's being "anti-women." The only justification for these laws would be the assumption that women are too immoral and/or too stupid to make good medical and reproductive decisions. I don't see anyone introducing a law to lock men up when they impregnate some unmarried woman. And I say, why not? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Plus, is there anyone more reckless, unclear, prone to bad judgment than a horny man? I think these poor men need some laws to regulate their reproductive behavior and protect them from their own judgment. Don't you?

THE WAR ON THE POOR

Whenever pols on the left suggest raising taxes on the rich, the right screams, "War on the rich!" Well, if you want to call it war ...... but the rich started it. The wealth disparity in the country continues to explode, corporations and banks are holding trillions of dollars in their coffers, and the rest of us just flounder.

It's not a war to ask those who have benefited the most from our society and laws to pay a little more. One FB friend pointed out that 47% of Americans pay no income taxes. That might be true, BUT:

(1) they do pay taxes (if they have jobs)and federal withholdings for FICA, unemployment, social security, etc. Plus, they pay sales taxes, property taxes (Even if they rent! It's included in their rent!), sin taxes, tolls, filing fees, etc. No one escapes being taxed.

AND

(2) they would pay income taxes if they earned enough money to qualify as "middle class." The best way to make sure everyone pays income taxes is to make sure everyone earns a life-sustaining income. I said EARNS. Right now, wages are LOW LOW LOW. And a Merrill Lynch wanker told me today that,"The good news is, wages will be low for the foreseeable future." How the hell is that good news? I guess it is if you earn a living sitting at home watching your portfolio. But if you work for a living, that's not really the type of economic forecast you want to hear.

WAR ON MONOGAMY

You'd think the religious right would be thrilled that gay people want to settle down and raise a family. I know the divorce rate among heterosexual couples in the US is quite high, but that's not really a reason to prevent same-sex couples from giving it a go. What exactly is so scary about two people wanting to get married? If you don't like it, don't buy them wedding presents. But how about you just MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS. Seems pretty conservative to me to just MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS. If two people want to get married, unless one of them is you, why is it your concern?

I don't know why these things are so important to some Americans when our economy is in shambles and we are trying to get out of 2 - now 3 - hostile countries. If we could all focus on FREEDOM instead of judging the sins of others, act REASONABLY instead of refusing to compromise one little bit, and actually make FACT-BASED instead of myth-based decisions, we would see our country get back on track. If only we could.

The worst thing about the wars on women, poor people, and gays is that we all lose, because the resulting policies make us all poorer - economically, socially, and morally - in the end.

Hasta La Vista, Sperminator!

Arnold Schwarzenegger TWICE vetoed gay-marriage laws in California in order to protect the sanctity of marriage while simultaneously carrying on a polyamorous relationship! WTH? Gay people only want to marry ONE OTHER GAY PERSON. It's not like the kink-fest Arnold was engaged in at all.

I think we all agree that Arnold is a scumbag. If he had done a better job of "fixing" California, and allowed the legislature to pass the gay marriage law they tried to enact TWICE, he would still be a scumbag, but he would have also been (1) a better governor and (2) less a hypocrite. I can forgive the scumbaggery. It's the hypocrisy I have a problem with.

When will people stop repeating this fantasy about the sanctity of marriage in this country? The only sacred thing about marriage is the relationship between 2 specific people. It is not a "sacred institution" as it applies to our society, and it has never been. There have always been adulterers, abusers, people who abandon their families, people who marry for money, women who trap men by getting pregnant, men who have children with maids. We even have people getting paid to go on TV to choose a spouse. Does that sound sacred to you? Half of marriages in the US end in divorce.

I do think a PERSON can hold something sacred. And if two people together succeed in cherishing their marriage, that marriage can be sacred, IMO.

We know that straight people - or at least half of them - do not take marriage very seriously. My question is: Why do opponents of gay marriage assume that two gay people will be as big a failure at taking their wedding vows seriously as two straight people?

Everything Old is Newt Again

Only a politician would explain his serial infidelity as (paraphrasing) "having received much forgiveness from God." Ladies and gentlemen, for your consideration, Newt Gingrich.

Here are my reasons why he won't be President:

(1) His name is Newt. Come on!

(2) He won't get the GOP nomination because, on TV, he said
a- something nice about the "individual mandate" in the Health Care Reform Act, and

b- Paul Ryan's (R) budget plans for Medicare are "radical."

(3) When you have been a pol as long as Newt, you have changed positions many, many times. Chances are, anyone reading this has disagreed with him and agreed with him about the same issue at different times. This throws people.

(4) Did I mention his name is Newt?

(5) Lots and lots of infidelity. (And forgiveness!!!)

(6) Look at the picture. Does that look like the leader of the free world to you? I know it's shallow, but honestly, don't you think John McCain's age and "dodderiness" hurt his chances of getting elected? Electing this guy would be like electing Junior Sample. (If you're laughing at that reference, you are (1) kinda old and (2) from the south.)

(7) He is NOT smart, despite people continuing to say he is. (Though for some voters, this may be a selling point. "I wanna vote for someone like me!" Why in the hell would you want to do that? I want to elect the smartest MFer we can find a long-form birth certificate for. That ain't Newt!) Here's what he said in his efforts to crawfish back into the election after sticking his foot in it TWICE on TV (see above): "Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood." (See above link.)

I could list more reasons, but I want to talk about his quote.

"Any ad which quotes what I said is a falsehood." Well, Newt, if it's a quote of what you said, it cannot, by definition, be a falsehood. It may be more true to report that you were "against it before you were for it," or "for it before you were against it," but you did say it. On national TV. So, expect to see it A LOT in the future.

I think some GOP members were hopeful that Newt would be their legit candidate, quashing the Bachmans and Palins and Trumps and Santorums. I don't think that's going to pan out very well.

The problem here is really not with Newt. The problem is that his party does not tolerate any deviation from (1) absolute rejection of anything Obama is in favor of (I think I read somewhere that the GOP has banned basketball.) and (2) unwavering support of everything advocated by another Republican. I suppose this does help the party stay on message, but it is pretty distressing in a time when we have lots of problems, and intelligent discourse about alternative solutions would be beneficial to us all.

Ironically, I agree with Newt on both the individual mandate and the radical-ness of Ryan's budget. Or, I agreed with him on Sunday. I know what I think today, but since his "recantation," I have no idea where Newt stands.

Iowa Is Not a Field of Dreams, but a Land of Delusion

As the early stages of the 2012 Presidential election campaign begin to churn, pollsters are busy, busy, busy. My last blog was about a Mississippi poll. This time, Iowa gets the limelight.

Again, the polling is of "usual Republican primary voters."

Of those polled 48% do not believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, and another 26% "are unsure" where he was born.

(This is actually pretty close to the national data on GOP members: 51% believing he was not born in the US and another 21% being "unsure." So maybe, I'm being unfair to Iowa and I should just be mocking 72%-74% of the GOP.)

One of my colleagues at work (who I hope was playing devil's advocate) reminded me that anyone can get a forged birth certificate (as if no one had suggested that before).

Snopes
and Factcheck.org have both debunked the forgery allegations and document the many verifications and corroborating facts that prove the President's Hawaiian birth. People who persist in raising their shoulders and eyebrows and fake-innocently asking, "Why doesn't he just provide his Birth Certificate?" are either being patently dishonest (*cough Donald Trump cough*) or are suffering from some kind of FoxNews induced delusion.

I suppose you can create conspiracies in your cray-cray head dismissing every piece of evidence - like the TWO newspaper reports in Honolulu papers announcing his birth within weeks of his birthday (It's on the factcheck.org link.) - and just persist in claiming that "no one really knows." By this logic (illogic?), I don't know if my parents are US citizens, or for that matter, if I am. I mean, for all I know, I was born in Moscow and planted here as a sleeper agent and could be awakened by a phone call any day to wreak havoc on the imperialist corporatists that oppress the workers of the world!

Can we get down to the itty bitty nitty gritty? Barack Obama is "other," "different," "black." He's got a weird name and he's black. He's young and calm and cool and black. And also, he's black. A lot of this stems from a lot of white people being really out of sorts because their president is black. I mean, they hated Bill Clinton, but no one ever asked for his birth certificate. Have you ever seen it?

Early on, strong Hillary Clinton supporters got on the birther bandwagon, but they grudgingly concede Barry's Americanness when faced with the facts. But not 72% of the GOP. Facts will not interfere with their convictions and commitment to the foreignness of the black man in the white house.

In 2004, there were 55 million registered republicans in the US. That means at least 39.6 million Americans (I mean, I'm only assuming they are Americans. Anyone can get a forged birth certificate.) think the government of the state of Hawaii, two newspapers from 1961, and the federal government are (or may be) participating in a vast 50-year conspiracy to trick everyone into thinking Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in August, 1961 (when in fact he was born somewhere else) so he could be elected President of the United States in 2010. To these 39.6 million people, this absurd and completely implausible conspiracy fiction is more reasonable - or at least as reasonable - as relying on an officially issued, sealed, signed, certified Certificate of Live Birth.

America has always had problems. But have we always been this ridiculous?

And In an Addendum to His IQ Test, Bubba Would Like to Comment...

I was searching the web looking for fodder for my blog-rant, and found this:



The article he is commenting on can be found here.

The article itself is something to rant about. The state of Tennessee wants to require doctors' testimony to prove mental retardation (IQ under 70) instead of just relying on time-proven testing. (Medically, and officially, this condition is still known as "mental retardation.") I'm sure the prosecutors in Tennessee would never do something as unethical as seek out paid experts to say that every defendant is above 70 IQ despite what the testing says. *eyes rolling* Just reading about how desperately the good Christians of Tennessee want to execute their mentally challenged neighbors sends a chill up my spine.

Maybe the problem is simply that so many of them cannot pass the 69IQ threshold, that they want to lower the bar so SOMEONE can get gassed. What's the point of having the right to kill your citizens if you don't exercise it!

Ok, so maybe questioning the Tennessee population's intelligence is politically incorrect. Admitted. How about if I question their morality? Or their level of education? Or their ability to be sympathetic to someone less fortunate? Or how about if I just cut to the chase and question their so-called Christian values?

Do you know why we don't execute people with IQs under 70 for homicide crimes? Because the law presumes that individuals with IQs that low are not responsible for their actions, cannot form the necessary criminal intent, do not fully appreciate the wrongness of their actions.

Both adults and children with mental retardation may also exhibit some or all of the following characteristics:

Delays in oral language development

Deficits in memory skills

Difficulty learning social rules

Difficulty with problem solving skills

Delays in the development of adaptive behaviors such as self-help or self-care skills

Lack of social inhibitors

Citation here.

If you know someone with an IQ below 70, or if you have ever spoken with someone with an IQ that low, you know that no further evidence is needed to take the death penalty off the table. Such individuals are "innocents" despite the acts they might have committed or might commit in the future.

But the reason I decided to enter this discussion was not the article. It was the moronic comment. (See photo above)

First, there is no constitutional right to be executed, you ignorant tea bagger! In fact, the law protects these individuals' constitutional rights by preventing them from being executed without evidence of criminal intentions.

Second, the limitation on executing mentally retarded individuals is not about their being ignorant of the law. It is about their inability to form the necessary criminal intent. (Yes, I know. It is very nuanced. It requires thinkin' and concentratin' and openin' your mind and all.)

It occurred to me as I was writing this that maybe Bubba the Commenter is facing a murder trial and wanted to start building that case that his IQ is below 70. He's convinced me!

At Least 46% of Republican Mississippi Primary Voters Polled Are Racist. Are You Shocked?

This is remarkable to me in 2011, but in a recent poll of usual Republican Mississippi Primary voters, 46% said that interracial marriage should be illegal. 40% said it should be legal. The other 14% were undecided. (How does one not have an opinion about this? Are they not sure if they are racist or not?)

Mitt Romney, a Mormon, also did not fare very well in the poll (only 48% approval), although serial adulterer Newt Gingrich did OK (58% approval).

And we wonder why the GOP keeps nominating and electing idiots. Your candidates are only as good as your voters!

In Mississippi, it's better to be a professional politician and adulterer than a successful Mormon businessman who is faithful to his wife. Also, best not to date outside your race since the extreme-right-trending political climate in red states might mean your wooing efforts are in vain.

The one good sign? They apparently don't know who Michele Bachman is. That's a relief!

That's Cool, But Who Took the Picture?

Someone I follow on Twitter tweeted this picture claiming it is a picture of the Earth and its moon as seen from Mercury.

(1) Who went to Mercury and took the picture?

(2) Can we get him or her a better zoom lens?

Apparently this was actually taken by the Messenger probe in orbit around Mercury and transmitted back. Pretty cool.

Pictures like this make me feel small and actually, they kinda hurt my brain. Trying to conceive of the enormity of the universe in which we exist as relative specks of slightly warm dust just strains my weak mental capabilities.

Still, we are specks of dust that invented flying machines and then managed to get into space - and return alive - in less than a century (unless you believe the conspiracy theorists).

Seeing our own planet as a tiny reflective orb from orbit around another planet takes looking in the mirror to a new and scary level. On a personal level, it seems to me like it would be equivalent to looking in the mirror and seeing all your ancestors and all your progeny looking back. Or on a spiritual level, like looking in the mirror and seeing all your mistakes, kindnesses, lessons, failures and achievements staring you back.

I'm kinda off the deep end here. But when you consider that we have gone from the really ignorant notion that the earth was the center of the universe several hundred years ago to taking images of our own planet from orbit around Mercury, it is humbling. Does it make you wonder what amazing things we will accomplish, solve, prove and discover in the next hundred years? It is daunting and exciting!

But for now, this picture is only gonna get the conspiracy theorists going again.

It's a Scholarship for White Guys Only

This white guy in Texas has set up a scholarship for white guys. His names is Colby Bohanan, President of the Former Majority Association for Equality.

If you watch the video, you will see he is challenged by a professor from Columbia University who sums it up: "Being white is a scholarship."

The good news is you can get the White-Guy Scholarship if you are only 25% Caucasian. But applicants do have to be 100% male (I assume).

Former Majority Association for Equality? Poor white guy. It must be so hard to watch the world change into one of diversity where people of all races and cultures have opportunity and you actually have to compete instead of having it fall into your lap.

He says he's not against anyone, just trying to help poor white people. Well, ok. But why not just help poor people. Why do they have to be white?

Back when I was in high school and home sick from school one day, I watched a white supremacist group on a daytime talk show. This one white-advocating woman kept saying she was just fighting for fairness because white people had lost all power in society. Is that true? Do white people not get enough opportunity in this country?

It wasn't true then, and it's not true now.

Racial minorities make up 1/3 of the total US population, but only 17% of the US House of Representatives and only 5% of the US Senate. And while women make up half the US population, they only comprise 17% of the US House of Representatives and US Senate.

White men control everything but the White House. However, since President Obama is 50% Caucasian, he is actually a "white guy" according to Mr. Bohanan's organization. (Which is just weird, IMO.)

Anyway, my point is this: Minorities and women do have more opportunities than they used to and that continues to improve (I hope), but white guys are still in charge of most things. So isn't giving a scholarship to white guys like lowering the basket for LaBron James?

I'm Not Blogging Because I'm Busy. And Also, My Head's About to Explode.

The swing in power to the far right with the last election threatens our society. Let me count the ways.

GOP House proposes cuts that will cost 700,000 jobs while securing subsidies for oil companies and the lowest tax rates in history for the richest Americans in history.

GOP governors attempting to simply eliminate collective bargaining.

Despite rhetoric to be "all about jobs," GOP seems capable only of attacking poor people by cutting any program they can find that helps the poor, defunding environmental protection, and undermining women's health by passing every stupid hurdle they can think to interfere with a woman's right to choose.

They even want to cut funding to programs that protect our borders.

There are more, but these are the big ones.

Their mantra that "everyone must do their part" is equal parts infuriating and laughable. If everyone must do their part, then why didn't we raise taxes on the richest 2% of the population? And why don't we stop subsidizing the most successful industry in the world, oil?

There is no war on the rich in this country. There is a war on the poor and middle class. And the corporations are winning. I wonder if and when the Tea Partiers who wrought this catastrophe will realize they are being used to destroy a really great country.

I take solace in the impressive protests going on throughout the country. Perhaps our best hope is the overreaching we have seen from the right that results from arrogance. People still vote in this country. I suspect we are going to see some serious push-back.

For more of my POV on this problem, see this prior blog.