Redefining Douchebaggery - in the Magic Kingdom

I saw this article yesterday.Wealthy Manhattan moms are helping their already-advantaged children skip the lines in Disney World by paying disabled tour guides $130 per hour to pretend to be a part of their family. This allows the disabled guest and up to 6 "family members" to skip to the head of every line in the park. Plus, they ride a motorized scooter with the rent-a-paraplegic displaying a handicapped placard. So everyone who sees them thinks, "Awww, it's so nice of Disney to accommodate families with special needs members." Except the only special need these people have is for some elusive demon to return their missing souls.

I've been trying to decide how to characterize this story and how to describe my distaste for the practice. This morning I decided the closest analogy was prostitution. Though decidedly less risky to your health than prostitution, this practice has wealthy moms (the "Johns") exploiting disabled people (the "tour guides") with a certain amount of the profits going to the escort company (like a pimp).

But honestly, this exploitation is not what really pisses me off. What really pisses me off is the sense of entitlement that these wealthy people have that neither they nor their children should have to wait in line like the "regular" people.

I've thought about this one overnight so as to examine my own reactions to this story. Of course, they are not doing anything illegal (although it does sound like a violation of Disney's rules). But the free market is not without limits. And what are these moms teaching their kids? That money allows them to have different rules and obtain advantages others cannot obtain? That they are better than everyone else, and they can lie to get what they want, because they have money? That ain't no Ayn Rand right there. That's unadulterated entitlement.

Here's a quote:

“My daughter waited one minute to get on ‘It’s a Small World’ — the other kids had to wait 2 1/2 hours,” crowed one mom, who hired a disabled guide through Dream Tours Florida.

“You can’t go to Disney without a tour concierge,’’ she sniffed. “This is how the 1 percent does Disney.”

This is how the 1% does Disney. I also think Disney is being derelict in allowing this to happen. The practice does tarnish the Magic Kingdom, making it seem a little less magical.

While poor families are losing their spots in Head Start because of austerity measures, the richest of the rich are renting disabled people so they don't have to wait in line to ride space mountain. (To be fair, I guess it does create a job or two for some disable people in Orlando. But not much of a career, riding Mr. Toad's Wild Ride 6 times a month.) And how many families cannot even afford a vacation? But they can't be bothered to wait in line in an amusement park.

And she thinks it's funny. It's part of the thrill, to her, crowing and snorting about how her daughter didn't have to wait the 2 and a half hours the other people had to wait.

There is not a war on the wealthy in this country. But with this behavior that is both entitled and exploitative, there soon will be.

With access to the best school money can buy, how does a person turn out like this: unable to get Above their privileged Raisin' and be a human being who sees others less fortunate as human beings too? And how do they view their rented wheel-chair whores? Just more of the "regular"people to be used and then left behind?  It's like a scene from the Hunger Games. But it's not fiction.

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.

Is A Racial Slur OK If the Slur-er "Meant No Disrespect?"

Alaska Congressman Don Young yesterday referred to migrant farm workers as "wet backs." Today, in lieu of an actual apology, he has explained that the term was commonly used when he was growing up in California and he didn't mean any disrespect.

If he had referred to black people by invoking the N-word, his excuse that he used that word all the time when he was growing up would be fuel to the fire, not a mitigating factor. (I grew up in Alabama, and I go back to visit, and I can tell you that people still use that really offensive slur referring to African Americans. It's just they have the sense to not say it on the radio or while being a US Congressman. People say it in front of me and they think I'm OK with it because I'm white and from Alabama. I tell them NOT to use that word in my presence. Neither that term, nor any racial slur, has ever been "harmless.")

Don Young doesn't get it. The fact that he referred to an entire group of Hispanic people as "wet-backs" without realizing he was insulting them is not a mitigating factor. It is the sign of a much bigger problem. He doesn't even realize he's a racist. And it reminds me of the fellow at CPAC who snarkily suggested that Fredrick Douglas' letter to his former owners should have thanked them for providing him with food and shelter. 

It is equally offensive when men refer to women as objects to be worshiped. When people explain that women cannot have priestly positions in church, or get that big promotion at work, but have the "highest calling"  or "hardest job in the world" because they can can be mothers, it makes me grind my teeth. That's saying that a woman's value is her uterus and milk-producing ability. How demeaning. Women are not brood mares or cows.

And likewise, the current issue dominating the news: marriage equality. Many people have no ill will towards gay people, they just want to deprive them of the right to get married. It's another form of objectification and subjugation of someone who is not the white, male ideal. It's a way of keeping someone seen as being "less than" from acting like an equal.

As a practical matter, I'll take this ignorance over violence, but all of these indignities, to me, represent the most sinister form of racism: the idea that "they treat their Negroes/"wet-backs"/women/gays very well" so they don't mean any harm. It makes me nauseous. I had a hard time even typing it out. It is the sickest form of white, male supremacy clothed in benevolence. It is perhaps more insulting than outright hate. At least hatred would be a form of respect.

Congressman Young has not said he regrets using the words, or apologized, or done any kind of mea culpa. He seems to believe that the fact that he has referred to Hispanic people as wet-backs since he was a young man makes it OK. It doesn't.

Get Above Your Raisin', Congressman and acknowledge that you have a lot of wrong ideas to overcome from your youth. Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

POSTSCRIPT: Since I posted this blog, Congressman Young has issued a statement that is more of an apology. It can be found here.

Freedom to Do the Right Thing

A Polygamist with his wives and progeny.

 This was previously written as a Note on my Facebook. I thought it would make an interesting blog.

The really nice thing about living in a free society? If there is some activity I find immoral, I can choose not to engage in it. We are not a lawless society. We prohibit some things we agree about in overwhelming numbers: murder, robbery, etc. But on the whole, if conduct is a matter of debate, or is between consenting adults, we are free (or should be free IMO) to act or abstain according to our own guidelines.

• If you think abortion is murder, that human life begins at conception, then you can choose not to have an abortion.
• If you think engaging in sex outside of marriage, or non-procreative sex, is immoral, you can choose to abstain.
• If you think drinking alcohol or eating pork is a sin, you can stick with iced tea and mutton.
• If you think homosexuality is "unnatural" you can choose not to engage in homosexual conduct.

BUT WHY WOULD ANYONE'S BELIEFS NECESSITATE PASSING LAWS - OR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS - TO POLICE OTHER PEOPLE'S MORAL CONDUCT?

If everyone behaved like the Christian Fundamentalists, we would have Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists campaigning to outlaw blood transfusions and organ transplants. How many lives would be lost? Yet their belief is quite sincere.

If orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Muslims joined together, they could mount a serious movement to outlaw pork. This might render me suicidal!

If the FLDS folks in Colorado City were larger in numbers, they could start a Polygamy Party that advocates plural marriage and the marriage of 16-year-olds to their uncles. They believe God has instructed them to do these things. (FYI this IS illegal since 16-year-olds are minors.)

My point is this: just because someone believe something with great fervor and conviction does not mean he/she have the right to impose that belief on everyone else. No one wants to be told what he/she can and cannot do!

In principle many Americans would agree with me. In practice, many of those seemingly reasonable Americans vote to impose their personal moral views on all Americans in every election. In recent months I've seen some support for laws that would declare a fertilized egg a person, thereby making the use of "The Pill" a homicide since it prevents pregnancy after fertilization.

My question is, "Why?"

According to philosopher John Locke, the natural state of man is to be free to act as each person sees fit within the bounds of Reason (Yes, with a capital R). Part of the failing in this philosophy in human society IMO is the conflict between Reason and Theology. There are religious people who are reasonable. There are also religious people who are not reasonable.

In my opinion, contending that a fertilized egg is a "person" defies Reason. Many churches do not even contend this. It is as extreme and irrational as tying rocks to witches to see if they will float in the river. That is not to say that I think all people who find abortion immoral are silly or ignorant. I don't. Thinking abortion is immoral is not the same as thinking a fertilized egg is a "person."  I do think making your entire political life about policing other people's reproductive choices is creepy and self-righteous. I also think judging women who have abortions is directly in conflict with the lesson to cast stones only if we are without sin ourselves.

Finally, I want to share the epiphany I had recently. The debate over marriage equality is not about opponents protecting the "sanctity of marriage" as was made very clear this week when proponents of Prop H8 and DOMA could not articulate how same sex marriage has any impact on heterosexual relationships. Moreover, as individual couples, many marriages are very sacred, some not so much. The real issue, IMO. is this: legalizing marriage for same sex couples would make their relationships credible, acceptable, legitimate.

Whether you like "the gay" or not, it is credible, acceptable and legitimate. Some homophobe's (or mild-mannered conservative's) problems with gay people have no bearing on this, and in fact is just a demonstration of their own hang-ups. Opposition to marriage equality is just another expression of bigotry that will give rise to regret in the future.In addition, opposition to gay couples marrying is no different from the opposition in the 1960s to interracial marriage.

I would ask these folks - like the ones who rallied for their view of what marriage should be in Utah yesterday - what if you were the minority instead of the majority? What if Warren Jeffs FLDS polygamists were the majority, and you had to marry whomever Prophet Jeffs told you to? What if you had to marry 4 people he told you to? You would hate that, right? You want to be free to choose whom you marry and build a life with, don't you? Don't you think everyone else wants the right to do that too?

And no, "But it's just wrong," is not an acceptable response, nor is "God says it's wrong." YOU think it's wrong because of YOUR beliefs. Someone else thinks your use of birth control is wrong. Someone else thinks your eating bacon with breakfast is wrong. Someone else thinks your consumption of coffee is wrong. Someone else thinks the organ transplant you got to save your life was wrong.

Not everyone agrees with me or with you. But the best part for all of us? None of us has to do any of the things you think are "wrong"  and we can do all the other things. And everyone else gets to refrain from what they think is "wrong" and do all the "not wrong" things they want to as well. That's what it means to be free. When we can all get Above Our Raisin', we can all truly be free to live our lives doing the right things as we each see it.

It's a Sign!

There are churches of all varieties, denominations, and cultures in every corner of America. And a lot of them have lighted signs in front to speak to you as you drive by. What messages are they sending?

Some are intended to get you in the door on Sunday, even if their messages sometimes have double meanings.

Accidentally pornographic Baptists   ^

SEXY   ^

^   And SEXY Catholics, too!

I love sarcasm!

Some are shaking an angry fist at the world! (As if some righteous indignation on a sign is going to change people's behavior!)

^  Dude! These are the FUN people! Count me in! (Vegetarians?)

Shouldn't faith make you a kind person? ^^ Why all the FEAR MONGERING?!

^ I agree with the "HA HA HA" part. ^

 Some take a softer, more humorous approach.

^  AMEN!  ^

Is this the modern "opiate of the masses?" ^

Nice! Some Methodists get it! ^

G R A C E = 5 letters, Lutherans. ^

 And some have particular issues that MUST BE ADDRESSED IN A LIGHTED SIGN SO EVERYONE WILL UNDERSTAND WHY THEY ARE WWWWRRRROOOOONNNNNGGGGG!

I now have to Google "surgically augmented genitals." ^

Tsk Tsk Tsk Church of Godders. Politics is a no-no. ^

Does this even make sense? ^^ It's like they changed half the sign.

So, kissing is a mortal sin now? ^^ I'm guessing this church has no children. Yikes!

Maybe they are dyslexic and don't believe in Dog? ^

Churches are congregations of people. Some are good and some are not so good. Some are educated and enlightened, and some are Pat Robertson-esque. Some will lift you up. And some will tear you down. This blog isn't particularly deep or meaningful. I just saw an internet post with a sign and thought, "What a weird thing to post in front of a church!" So I found some more and voila, blog post.

I was raised in the Assemblies of God denomination. You know, the one with the "WHY ARE YOU LEADING YOUR CHILDREN TO HELL?" sign. You can understand why I had to get Above My Raisin'.

Minnesota Man Decries Dangers of Butt Enzymes

I am all for freedom of speech. I genuinely believe we should let people talk and talk and talk until they have fully explained exactly whatever crazy-ass beliefs and misunderstandings of the real world to which they cling. This story is an illustration why we should allow everyone to have his or her say. It's how we know who the idiots are.

Remember Todd Akin and his "legitimate rape" comments about how a woman's body can "shut down" to prevent pregnancy? A great example of letting the stupids talk to we can weed out the intolerables.

Here's another one. This Minnesota man, Mike Fry, "testified" before a legislative committee in Minnesota in opposition to the proposed same sex marriage bill.

Part one of his premise is that same sex marriage should not be allowed because married people have sex, and allowing gay people to marry each other will mean that they will engage in sodomy. Well, color me shocked! I hadn't realized that gays in states that do not license same sex marriage are all celibate. Who'd a thunk it?! Apparently gays and lesbians are all getting by on heavy petting and "self gratification" waiting for the law-makers to give them the go-ahead to consummate their relationships. Poor souls.

Part two of his premise is that AIDS results from butt enzymes being transferred into the colon by ejaculation during anal sex. (Sorry to be so explicit, but I only wrote this in my blog for 8 people to read. Mike is on YouTube saying it!) OMG, all this time we thought AIDS was a disease resulting from HIV! Why didn't Mike say something sooner? If we had known that AIDS was caused by butt enzymes, think how many lives we could have saved!

End of sarcasm/beginning of  rant. I have several points. I think I'll number them.

(1) People who are not married have sex. And some people who are married have sex with people to whom they are not married. Mike lives in Puritanicalfantasyland.

(2) I do not want to call what this man said "testimony." He is a lying, bigoted, busybody, IMO. What he said is either utterly irrational or patently false. And what business is it of his who marries whom and what they do in bed, either before or after the ceremony?

(3) So, no problems with lesbians marrying, then, since no one is ejaculating into anyone's colon?

(4) If I never type the phrase "ejaculating into anyone's colon" again it will be too soon.

(5) AIDS is not caused by sperm or butt enzymes or gay sex, but by a virus we have identified. Women get it, children get it, straight people get it. Mike makes Jerry Falwell (wherever he is) seem rational.

(6) How does a literate, American adult in 2013 believe the stupidity spewed by Mike Fry?  It cannot be just FoxNews. To think as Mike does, you just have to choose to ignore information, science, news, and common sense. Or maybe he just like to say crap that makes gay people look dirty/evil/sinful/weird, like an internet troll.

(7) The committee he "testified" before voted in favor of the bill anyway.

(8) What about married heterosexuals who engage in sodomy? Shouldn't we ban all marriage to prevent them from spreading butt enzyme AIDS?


(9) On general principal, I'd say Mike shouldn't knock anything until he's tried it. Prudishness is not sexy.

(10) It really isn't funny (although I treated it like it is) that he defends and disseminates this bigoted misinformation. People have died of AIDS. People have died just for being gay. To have this sort of false witness in a legislative process is offensive. But it does tell us clearly who has yet to get Above Their Raisin'.

The Marijuana Boondoggle

If you pay attention at all, you know that Colorado and Washington (state) legalized recreational marijuana in the November, 2012 election. So, given all the scary, horrible things we hear about pot, I thought I'd write a wee blog highlighting the content of this article at Toke Signals. 

I've been hearing scary things about pot since Michelle Summers' mom (a cop) came to my class in school and showed us how to recognize drugs and explained why they are all dangerous. I was a kid. It would have been dangerous.  Anyway, she also told us how bad cigarettes and alcohol are, so YAY for Michelle's Mom! But there are things we've all been told about marijuana use that are not true (although I cannot recall if any of these untruths came from Michelle's Mom).

There are a lot of myths about grass. Despite the panic-mongering, it becomes more popular and more widely used every year. Here's a summary:

1  Smoking weed does not cause lung cancer. It's been studied. A lot. For a long time. It does not cause lung cancer.

2  Legalized medical marijuana has not been a huge logistical or administrative problem. In LA, it has, because LA didn't deal with their crap. Everywhere else, it's been pretty smooth (excluding federal enforcement efforts).

3  Legalizing marijuana is no more a "slippery slope" than any other law. The "slippery slope" argument is the last trench in a losing battle. Suggesting that legalizing pot will lead to legalizing heroin is like suggesting that allowing 16-year-olds to drive will lead to 10-year-olds driving. That would be stupid. We, as a society, know the difference between pot and heroin just like we know that a 16-year-old is different from a 10-year-old. FYI always reject the "slippery slope" argument. It's always lame.

4  Legalizing pot will not result is serious DUI problems and carnage on the roads. There is simply no evidence to suggest this. Given the pervasive use of pot NOW, do you ever wonder why we never (or rarely) see new articles about a stoner driving into oncoming traffic? Because it just is not happening all that often, if at all. Pot does not impair motor function the way alcohol does. But whatever the reason, we are not experiencing pervasive Driving While High accidents.

5  We are not all going to become potheads. There are HUGE numbers of people who refrain from smoking and/or drinking alcohol despite their being legal. We are not all lemmings.

I understand the change in law in Colorado will result in 10,000 fewer incarcerations in that state. Way to go, Colorado and Washington. Way to get Above Your Raisin' and make decisions based on fact and common sense. 'Ere's to you!

If You're Feeling Rand-y ...

I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. I've even read Anthem and I bet many of you have never even heard of that one. And I cannot figure out how some people took those books to mean "rich" = "maker" and "poor" = "taker." That is not at all what I took from Ayn Rand's novels.

I understand some of her articles, essays and interviews were more pointedly anti-welfare and anti-regulation. I really haven't paid a lot of attention to those. But I find her novels fascinating.

I read The Fountainhead on the recommendation of Professor Brooke Overby at Tulane Law School back in the day. She was a supporter of President Clinton (as was I). I had no idea that these rather preachy novels by an avowed atheist were the intellectual foundation on which the conservatives in this country were building a campaign against the poor. Moreover, being that Brooke was one of the smartest people I knew, and the professor I worked for as a research assistant, I went to the bookstore and bought the paperback.

I had already had my liberal awakening by the time I read The Fountainhead, and I read them feeling genuine anger at the rich, unworthy users taking advantage of Roark. (Though I have to say he became a lot less sympathetic when he raped a woman, but that's probably a topic for another blog entry.) Roark is an insightful, genius architect, highly educated, hard working, who designs brilliant structures based on modern engineering.  The industry is controlled by talentless sycophants who use modern materials to build structures that look like monstrous atrocities merging classic, gothic and other outdated styles. Everyone loves his buildings, but no one knows who designed them, the establishment will not let him succeed. Others take credit for what he does, and when he gets a contract, it gets sabotaged. It is infuriating to see Roark's talents being abused.

I read Atlas Shrugged later. Do you remember the scene in Dirty Dancing (the original one, the classic) when rich douchebag Robby is waiving around a copy of Atlas Shrugged at Baby? He says, referring to the book, "Some people matter, some people don't." I did not get that lesson from the book.

The lesson I got was, "the world is full of people looking to succeed by stepping on you on the way up." I remember people who wanted my notes in school because I did the work and they didn't. Brooke told me about her time clerking for a federal judge and the other clerk, a man, just started dumping his notes on her expecting her to type them for him because she had ovaries. As you're reading this, you are remembering people from your life who have tried to take advantage of you for their own advancement.

If you've read these books, you know the characters and plot-lines are rather extreme, like a comic book. In the real world, few people are completely worthless and few people earn everything they get. But in these books, that's what we get. Do you remember who the villains are? It's been years since I read the books, but I recall that the villains in both books are not slothful people on welfare, but wealthy, powerful people who have not earned what they have. 

How does one even extrapolate the Robby lesson? Are the people who get stepped on the ones who don't matter? Because if that is the lesson, then aren't the "takers" being made into heroes? Or flip it: are the people using the smart, talented others for their own advancement the ones who don't count? Because I think we all know the world does NOT work that way. Nor is this lesson the one being advocated by conservatives today.

In my opinion, a real-life example of a Rand villain would be someone like George W. Bush: the son of a former Senator, CIA chief, and President, who had mediocre grades, went AWOL for a year in the Air National Guard, had a drug habit during the 1980s, never owned a profitable business, and ascended to be a two-term President. Everything W has - his money, his resume, his influence - is the result of nepotism and money his family accumulated. He made nothing on his own, but rode the shoulders of others. This experience does not make him stupid or lazy or evil, but it does make him a "taker" in the truest sense of the word.

To be fair, no one makes it purely on his or her own. But when I see people like Paul Ryan - who was born into a family with a successful business, who used his father's social security death benefits to pay for college - rave about how the "takers" in our society are too big a burden, I alternatively roll my eyes and shake my fist at the TV. It is the definition of hypocrisy for him to vilify others for doing what he did. He didn't earn everything he has. Part of what he has was earned by his father, another part of what he has resulted from tax dollars, and he has worked to add to it.

The modern corruption of Ayn Rand used by people like Paul Ryan seems to be that if you are rich, you are deserving, and that if you are poor, you are undeserving. That is neither what Rand taught, nor rational. The GOP's version of Ayn Rand's lessons are not the lessons I learned. Nor are they the lesson I think she was trying to teach. The lesson I think she was trying to teach is that hard work, creativity, innovation, productivity should be rewarded, that people should be self-sufficient and not parasites on the productivity of others. 

My way of applying this lesson is to try to create a system where everyone (or as many people as possible) can be self-sufficient and productive. That means public schools, health care, and a fair marketplace are necessary so that people born in different circumstances have a chance to be "rugged individualists." In contrast, the GOP application of the lesson is to ignore people's circumstances - whether you are Donald Trump born to a multi-millionaire or a kid born to a poor family in a crime-ridden area of a big city - and pretend they both have the same chance of being self-reliant and productive. It's delusional to think this, and it is cruel to advocate policies based on this delusion.

I'm not suggesting that Ayn Rand would agree with my application of her writings. In fact, I concede that she might not since she was ardently against all public programs. But the fact that she signed up for and took Medicare and Social Security in her old age illustrates how truly irrational and cruel her lessons are when taken to the extreme.

Apparently No One Told Joshua Boston that "Semper Fi" Means "Always Faithful"

This week a former Marine named Joshua Boston wrote a public letter to Senator Diane Feinstein objecting to her proposed bill to restrict access to assault-type rifles and limit magazine sizes. Here's a portion of his letter:

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

He also decries her proposal, claiming he is not her servant or a peasant.

Aside from the clear misogyny in this machofesto - indicating that he will not be told what to do "by some woman" - Mr. Boston is myopic to the point of being scary.  (I wonder if Mr. Boston had trouble following the orders of higher ranked female Marines.)

In the first instance, the government (state, local and federal) tracks all kinds of things we own: guns, boats, cars, certain prescription narcotics, even ibuprofen. Why? Partly because of taxation issues. And partly because of safety and liability concerns. Some things are dangerous and we need to keep track of them. Is a gun less dangerous that ibuprofen? 

The mere fact that the government knows you have a gun is not a threat to you unless you intend to use that gun against that government. Is Mr. Boston planning a coup?

This brings me nicely to my second point: the futility of the pro-gun argument. The gun-toting Tea Party frequently claims its Constitutional right to bear arms is based in the Founding Fathers' mistrust of the federal government and the right of the citizenry to protect itself from the US government. This makes me laugh. This is why original intent is absurd. Please tell me which guns you could own that would prevent the United States government from taking you out if it wanted to. Please. Tell. Me. 

When the Second Amendment was written the weapons used were muskets, cannons, knives, and swords. It was actually possible in the late 1700s to own weapons that would help you hold your farmhouse should a federal military action be launched against you. Today? Satellites could find you in your backyard from space and a drone could take you out before you have a chance to say "Don't Tread on Me!" 

I find the handful of assassinations of US citizens that have been linked to terrorist activities offensive and I think those actions are probably illegal. (There should be trials.) But that limited, targeted activity is not a reason to think the US government is going to start taking out large numbers of Americans willy-nilly. (And if they did, there is little we could do.) But our government will not start sniping and locking up the average citizen without legal justification because for all the cynicism in our politics, almost all of us, politicians included, believe in our system. If this were not true, we would already be a military dictatorship. As would every other gun-regulating democracy with a large military (France, UK, Spain, Germany, pretty much all of Europe.) 

The idea of the US government squashing state and local governments and becoming a military tyrannical regime is nothing but a dark fantasy that scared people like to engage in while playing war games in the woods. (Ironically, many of these folks also favor a very strong military. Figure that out!) Fantasy is fine. Just keep it out of our policy.

The point I think that is utterly lost on Mr. Boston is that as a (former) Marine, he poses (or posed) a bigger threat to our freedom than Senator Feinstein ever could. If we pretend there could be a federal coup - the Dark Fantasy come true - it will certainly be imposed using military personnel and equipment. Whose side do you think Mr. Boston will be on? ("Once a Marine, always a Marine!")

This argument isn't about freedom or tyranny or even the Second Amendment. Not really. That's just the context. If the Constitution mattered that much to people, we would be rioting in the streets about the Patriot Act and warrantless wire-tapping. This debate is heated because people who like the thrill of firing a badass gun don't want to be told what to do. Sorry. I'd like to drive 90 miles per hour on the freeway, but that's not safe. And neither is unregistered ownership of assault rifles.

Finally, though not the real point of this blog, I have an additional point. Mr. Boston seems to think he is entitled to some type of reverence or deference because he was a Marine for 8 years.   No. It doesn't work that way. I respect his service to the country and I respect his right to have and express an opinion. But his opinions have no more or less value than mine or yours. And in my opinion, Mr. Boston is almost as scary as he is wrong.  He has vowed, publicly, to violate federal law (if the bill is passed and signed) to keep unregistered assault rifles.

Wasn't Tim McVeigh also a veteran?