Maine, Oh, Maine!

The dangers of delusion can be profound. This Maine man believes wrongly that Obamacare will take spousal benefits from his sick wife, so he posted a picture of President Obama on Facebook with the caption, "Shoot the n----r."

He also defends his use of the word n----r.

Sometimes I think this blog should be called "What the Hell Is Wrong with People?" But we know what's wrong with Mr. Marsters. He's a racists whose hate for black people has left him completely cracked. It has poisoned his soul and his mind to the point that he thinks assassinating his President is the way to go.

Never mind that President Obama was elected TWICE by significant majorities. Never mind that President Obama is the first President in US history to be required to publicly show his papers, not that it did anything to convince the birther nuts. Never mind that Mr. Marsters' delusions about Obamacare are completely untrue.

Sadly, Mr. Marsters is not alone. I have had to block, unfriend, and unfollow a number of people in my own social media world who pray for, hope for, wish for, and encourage the murder of President Obama. These are people who claim to be Christians.

People have the right to be racist. It's a free country. But it never ceases to sicken me when I witness the vitriol this ignorant poison fuels. Get Above Your Raisin', Mr. Marsters - and all you birthers, racists, and fear-mongers. Practically every aspect of American life has improved since Barack Obama was elected. Instead of campaigning for his demise, how about opening your eyes and minds and start to see your fear for what it is: psychopathy.

Think Progress Gets It Wrong

This week Think Progress is tweeting a link to its story about Utah spending $30,000 (yes 30,000 dollars) to catch 12 drug users on welfare.Think Progress goes on to report the details of the Utah welfare/drug-screening law.

Utah doesn’t randomly test applicants or require them to all undergo a drug test, but instead requires them to complete a written questionnaire that is meant to screen for drug abuse. Those who have a high probability are then given drug tests. The state spent nearly $6,000 on written tests for 4,730 applicants, 466 of which had to take a drug test, which cost more than $25,000. The law doesn’t disqualify those who test positive but instead requires them to go into a substance abuse treatment program.

So Utah does not drug-test all welfare recipients, but instead gives them a written test. Only about 10% of Utah welfare recipients scored appropriately on the written test to get drug tested. And then only 12 failed the drug test, but those folks were not thrown off the welfare rolls. Instead, they are required to participate in a drug rehab program.

What exactly is ThinkProgress complaining about?

• Thirty thousand dollars is the change in the bottom of the state coffers. So the issue is not wasted money.
• Only 10% of welfare recipients got drug tested based on a screening process that is admittedly too inclusive since only 12 people actually tested positive, but at least it shielded 90% from having to pee in a cup.
• And if they test positive, they are not left to starve, but directed into rehab to get off drugs.

The Huffington Post also reported on this program.

[S]tate Rep. Brad Wilson (R-Kaysville) told HuffPost he thinks the bill saved more than it cost. He said an additional 247 Utahns dropped out of the TANF application process after they were told to expect a drug test. 

"We had 247 who once we told them, 'our test shows that you are likely using controlled substances, we need you to take a drug test,' they refused to move forward with the process," said Wilson, who sponsored the new law. "The Department of Workforce Services here in Utah estimates the benefits of those folks would have received would have been approximately $369,000 of, basically, benefits we didn't pay to people who were most likely using controlled substances. We spent $31,000 on this program over the last year but we think we've saved at least $370,000, if not more."

***

Utah's law differs from Florida's in that it first subjects TANF applicants to a questionnaire and only tests those whose answers give the state a reasonable suspicion of drug use. The reasonable suspicion standard makes the law less vulnerable to a civil liberties lawsuit alleging the tests violate the Constitution's protections against unreasonable search.

I don't love this program, but I can live with it. I don't think it's a sham to enrich testing company political contributors or an overreach that humiliates everyone on welfare. It is a little "big brother" but it's welfare, so we are already into that territory. When I saw the headline, I thought I'd be writing a blog blasting Utah but I was wrong: it's Think Progress that needs to  Get Above It's Raisin'. I'm a liberal who thinks drugs should be mostly legalized, but I also know that drug addiction is a huge social problem. If the state of Utah can funnel some addicts into recovery by using its powers in a limited way as I think they are doing here, at the cost of only $31,000 - or a savings of over $350,000 - I cannot get all worked up about it.

To be clear, had I been in the legislature, I probably would have voted against this law, but I can objectively see merit in it and I appreciate that it was constructed to require "resonable suspicion" prior to testing. An effort was actually made to address a perceived problem in a conservative and limited way. So I say, kudos to Utah for not overreacting the way Florida did, costing its taxpayers millions of dollars.

There are a lot of offensive things going on in red states that ThinkProgress can shine a light on. But they really missed the target on this one.

Ducks Lay Eggs and The Tide Rolls

Paul Finebaum back on the air with ESPN Radio

Paul Finebaum returned to the airwaves last week after several months of silence, now as part of the ESPN stable of talent. I listened to him before his hiatus, and I'm listening to him again. His show focuses a lot of SEC football, especially the Alabama Crimson Tide.

He hosts guest experts from ESPN and other sports journalists and figures to discuss actual facts and analyze teams, players and coaches. But what makes his show the success it is are the regular folks who call in. And many of them deserve to be featured in this blog, because they desperately need to get Above Their Raisin'.

I'm not interested in mocking an uneducated person for being uneducated, or a biased fan for being biased, but this display of down-home bloviation had a meta experience this week that deserves analysis.

Paul deliberately and maliciously invited onto his show an Oregon man (and Ducks fan) who wrote a book called  Better Off Without 'Em: A Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession. His name is Chuck Thompson and apparently, he will do anything to try and sell his book, even go on-air with Paul Finebaum and take calls from angry, offended southerners. This is the link to the segment that included Mr. Thomson if you're interested.

Paul hosts a sports show, so he focused on Mr. Thompson's opinions and statistics concerning the BCS and Thompson's perception of a conspiracy at ESPN to elevate the SEC over other conferences. I have no idea if his numbers are correct or not. Neither did the folks who called. But that didn't stop them from calling in and proving Mr. Thompson's point about the south.

One guy said he'd be happy to push Chuck in front of speeding cars. Another was offended that Mr. Thompson called out the south for racism and KKK culture. Another claimed Alabama had actually won 22 national championships. There was a lot of name calling and high pitched squealing with southern drawls. But not one of them effectively shot down his weak arguments about the SEC, the BCS and college football.

I am from Alabama, and I love my Crimson Tide football, but I honestly could not continue living there. I understand some of Mr. Thompson's points about southern culture. But his points about the BCS and college football are whiny and lame, regardless of the statistics he quoted.

Chuck tossed around a lot of statistics and claimed victory by pointing out that if any other team had lost to LSU at home and only scored 6 points, that team would have been a laughing stock, not invited to play in the championship game. There is only one response necessary:

"Chuck, had your beloved Ducks beaten USC on November 19, 2011, they would have played LSU in the championship game, but they didn't take care of business."

The same thing happened to his Ducks in 2012: they lost to Stanford and Alabama jumped back up the rankings and ended the year champions again.

See, the world is not a fair place. Apparently, they don't teach this lesson in Oregon. Black people are more likely to be arrested for pot possession than white people despite using pot at the same rate. Women make 77 cents for every dollar men make for doing the same jobs. (These inequities seem to me to be much more important than the accuracy and legitimacy of the algorithm used to select the college football champion.)  And the Oregon Ducks cannot seem to win a football game when there are championships on the line. The list of unfairnesses in the world is long and fuels a panoply of grievance.

The way we keep going and succeed in the face of all this unfairness is to do our best and take advantage of every opportunity we get. That's what Nick Saban's Crimson Tide team has done for 2 straight years, resulting in 2 consecutive BCS Championships. When the Ducks lay an egg, the Tide step in and bring home a Crystal Football. There are no bonus points for whining and complaining about someone else's shortcomings, especially when your own (duck) poop stinks that bad.

Paul Finebaum's listeners had a chance to educate Mr. Thompson on this point, but they pulled a Duck-move and threw that chance away, focusing instead on being personally offended by his criticisms of southern culture, which, IMO, have some legitimacy. (If I didn't think so, I would still live there.) They got baited into the wrong argument and ignored the entire reason he was on-air with Paul: football.

No one enjoys a good discussion of sociological issues and a spirited political debate more than I do (as you know). But trying to defend the south against the perceptions of an Oregonian is a fools errand. Plus, Paul Finebaum is not Meet the Press, it's a sports radio call-in show. Next time, callers, get Above Your Raisin' and win the game.

Federal Court Finds NYC Stop and Frisk Unconstitutional. DUH!

The New York chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has statistics on the NYC stop and frisk program. The overwhelming majority of the New Yorkers stopped and frisked are innocent. The overwhelming majority of them are also minorities. As I write this, a Democratic NYC council member is on TV defending the programming by arguing that the S&F statistics "exactly match" the incidence of violent crimes committed by race. But that is REALLY, REALLY not the point.

Here are the 2012 statistics. They can be found here.

In 2012, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 532,911 times


473,644 were totally innocent             89%


284,229 were Black                           55%
165,140 were Latino                          32%
50,366 were White                            10%

Compare the S&F stats to the racial make-up of NYC from the 2010 census.


White                                                 33%
Hispanic                                             29%
Black or African American                  23%
Asian                                                  13%

So, despite making up a third of the city's population, whites are only subjected to S&F 10% of the time. But Black New Yorkers make up more that half of the total S&Fs despite making up not even a quarter of the population.

The defense that the S&F stats match crime rates is bogus. If you "over-police" a group based on racial profiling, the way African Americans clearly are in NYC, the result is a disproportionately high incidence of convictions. What I'm saying is, if more white people were S&Fed, there would be more white people convicted of crimes. And if fewer Blacks are S&Fed, you will see a drop in crime statistics among the Black population. It is neither rational nor factually accurate to proclaim disproportionate crime rates as justification for racial profiling when the racial profiling itself has led to the disproportionate crime rate.

A great example of this type of institutionalized racism is the statistics for marijuana use and convictions nationally. Whites and Blacks use marijuana at close to the same rates. But Black pot-users are 3-4 times (that's 300% to 400%) more likely to be arrested for toking up. So, if we just look at convictions, we would think more Blacks than Whites use pot, i.e. are criminals. In this area, we know this is not the case, and we know that Blacks are being "policed" at much higher levels that Whites. But who is going to answer honestly on a survey admitting to other, more serious crimes?

I have no doubt that Mayor Bloomberg is trying to keep NYC safe. But he's doing it by making its innocent, minority citizens feel like criminals. The NYPD walking around the Big Apple like jack-booted thugs may lower crime statistics, but it is accomplishing this goal by trampling the rights and dignity of hundreds of thousands of its citizens. 

Get Above Your Raisin', New York City. You are America's bellwether city. We need you to be better than this.

I Don't Want to Go Back. Why Do You?

The United States of America has always been a special place relative to other countries. I admit to being biased here, given that I am an American. But who can doubt the unique convergence of people, time, and events that led to America shrugging off the rule of England at a time when England was the strongest navy and arguably the strongest military power in the world. That was special.

And who would question the special leader that was Abraham Lincoln, a man who pursued the seemingly inconsistent goals of ending slavery AND keeping the US united. He prioritized these goals above the rule of law and even over his own life. We lost hundreds of thousands of Americans, brothers fighting brothers, but Lincoln elevated the nation's survival and soul over the lives and souls of Americans themselves. That has been judged the correct decision by most, but it was certainly a courageous and rare type of leadership. He was not defending a throne. Telling people to arm themselves to defend their sovereign was nothing new. He was defending a collective and that community's shared (if contentious) ideas of elected government. The result was a bruised but living United States with an end to slavery. But it would be another century before real progress was made for the descendants of those slaves to approach real equality.

And women were not "given" the right to vote until the 20th century. (Rights exist, they are not "given." In effect, the government stopped denying women the right to vote.) But the struggle for women to obtain equality has continued as well.

And in more recent decades, the fight for equality for LGBTQ Americans has marched forward as well.

Women and minorities always struggle to obtain and maintain equal status. The open society we live in allows those struggles to continue, to grow, and to gain ground. This is why we are special relative to other countries. But we are far from perfect.

In the last hundred years of our country, we have seen women get the right to vote, laws passed to protect people from lynchings and other forms of persecution for their race, laws passed to protect women from violence, divorce become obtainable to anyone, electricity in every home, indoor plumbing in every home, cars in every drive-way (mostly), air conditioning for those who want it, air planes for average people to travel by, interstate highways connecting the country, the Internet connecting the world, cable TV (causing us to waste hours of our lives), a ruling that same-sex marriages cannot be treated as a lower class of family,  vaccines for previously deadly and debilitating illnesses, and thousands of other advancements to improve the quality and length of life. So with all this progress, WHY IN THE HOT HOLY HELL WOULD SOMEONE THINK THIS?

What's so great about Polio? Why would you long for segregation and lynchings? Who wants to live without electricity, indoor plumbing, air conditioning, and the Internet? Who could possible be nostalgic for outhouses, prohibition, and food poisoning from crappy refrigeration?

Ignorant people, that's who! It's people who cannot stand to see "others" getting an equal footing: African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, LGBTQ individuals are growing in numbers and in stature, and that makes some white men (and some white women) very nervous. Maybe it's the same reason a dirty cop never wants to go to prison. People who abuse power, then lose it, are reasonably fearful that the new people in power will enforce retribution. We'll see.

There will always be nostalgia for olden times, but America has never been a country that looks back; it has always faced the future and moved into it with grit and determination even if not always undaunted. These folks need to get Above Their Raisin' and stop dwelling in the fantasy past that they imagine existed. The past sucked. It sucked more for women and minorities, but it sucked for white men too. No one in this country, least of all that white dude on the tractor, has any reason to lament the future. You can still get your farm subsidy while decrying "welfare queens" and go home to your air conditioned home with your big-screen and watch satellite TV while simultaneously playing with your iPad using your WiFi Internet service. The big, scary Black man in the White House isn't going to take any of that away from you.

Ain't Nobody Got Time for That!

I saw this summary of the Top 10 right wing conspiracy theories. Reading this, I felt like I was reading a science-fiction book about some strange other species on a distant planet. Alas, these insane inanities come from my fellow Terrans. *sigh*

Apparently, there are Americans who fear the "New World Order" which, to them means (depending on which group of nuts you're talking about) Jews or Chinese or the UN or Europeans or Black Muslims or some group that is not them. They think there is a secret plot of overtake the US (either internally or with external powers) and do stuff they won't like or something. It's all very unclear to me.

"Put on yer gasmask, Bubba!
Them planes are tryin' to gas us again!"

The first wacky theory: visible moisture trails behind jet-liners are actually "chem-trails" of deadly or mind-control toxins. (Are they children? Or just brain damaged?) Imagination and fantasy can be fun, I get it, but write a screen-play and make some money. Don't swear allegiance to a swastika or a yellow snake flag or some other bizarre symbol that means you have to have your own dictionary (defining "Patriot" "New World Order" "chemtrails" "metropolitan government" "urban gangs," etc ) and camouflage wardrobe. That's just so much work. Ain't nobody got time for that!

"Stupid Americans!
You should have ALL joined the militia!
Now we can have our long-anticipated POLICE STATE!"

Next is the perpetual fear that the government is going to institute martial law! Something bad will happen, usually secretly set off BY THE GUBMINT, and that will be the excuse to form a permanent police state. Everyone is in on the conspiracy EXCEPT those whom they are confident won't be and will side with the Patriots. No criteria have been identified to decide which ones are part of the NWO and which ones aren't.

Do they not know how hard it is to maintain a police state? Small emirates and jungle countries can't do it all that successfully, and they don't have educated populations. Ain't nobody got time for that! And why would anyone want to set up a police state? For what possible incentive? Police states cost lots of money to maintain and all end in revolution. We're past that.

Third is one of my personal favorites: FEMA concentration camps. Mainstream GOP members have baited these "Patriots" by referencing these make-believe camps. The completely idiotic and made up purpose of these camps is to lock up Patriots who belong to militia groups after they have been rounded up by "urban gangs" (ie black people). While it might be karmically appropriate for black Americans to lock up some white folks, I have not actually ever heard of that happening. If the US government did not lock up militia groups after Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols (militia members) murdered hundreds of innocent Americans in OK City, I'm pretty sure it ain't gonna happen. And we don't need to anyway. These paranoid peeps are far too splintered from each other (some are NeoNazis, some are Aryan Nation, some are White Supremacists, some are just plain old anti-Semitic, some are anti-Muslim, etc) and way too dumb to pose a threat to our society. That's not to say they don't pose any threat at all. But no one's going to lock up cray crays just for being cray crays. Ain't nobody got time for that!

"Can someone come get Bart out of the razzor wire!
He was trying to get all artsy with the camera again!"

And you KNOW they check to make sure the tornado/hurricane/flood swept away their camo and Patriot Dictionary when FEMA comes by to decide how much tax-payer-provided free shit they will get. Because a militia Patriot is nothing if not a flaming hypocrite.

"No, really. It's me, Barack Obama!"

Next is paranoia bout foreign troops on US soil. Do you know how many foreign countries have US military bases IN them? Army: Bulgaria, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kosovo, Kuwait, South Korea. Marines: Afghanistan, Australia, Germany, Japan. Navy: Bahrain, Brazil, Cuba, Djibouti, Greece, Guam, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, South Korea, Spain, UAE. Air Force: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Germany, Greenland, Guam, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Netherlands, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, UAE, UK. And that list does not include the new base in Iraq.


If anyone should be afraid, it should be the people of Djibouti and Kyrgyzstan. Why would our government use foreign troops to take over anything? We already police the world! Ain't nobody got time for that!

"I wove the Second Amendment,"
he said in duck talk.

Next is Monsieur LaPierre's bugaboo: door-to-door gun confiscation. Thanks to the NRA feeding this craziness, the Patriots are convinced that the gubmint is gonna git thur guns. Well, after reading the crazy-ass shit they believe, maybe we should. But no one has yet, and no one in power that I've ever heard of has suggested it. It's just made up garbage. No one is going door to door in the swamps of Louisiana or the deserts of Texas or the jungles of Alabama to take away anyone's guns. Ain't nobody got time for that!

"False Flag"
(This was the actual caption on the pic when I found it online.) 

Ah, yes, 9/11 Truthers. They are on the far right AND the far left. Don't believe what your eyes see or your ears hear, imagine something a lot worse instead. Planes full of fuel hit buildings. Bin Laden bragging and laughing about it after. If you have doubts, read the book by the Popular Mechanics engineers debunking 9/11 myths. It's an easy read, but I'll summarize: science says to accept the explanation that requires the fewest number of assumptions. The planes OR a vast conspiracy involving thousands of people, dozens of agencies, and sinister motives of our own elected officials. (Hint: It was the planes.)

Conspiracies require groups of people to keep secrets and act smartly. Groups of people are rarely successful at either. Ain't nobody got time for that!

"Chocolate is not going to help you, now!"

Patriots also think the NWO is plotting sinister methods of population control like intentional outbreaks of disease and large-scale "accidents." Why? Because! It's so obvious! *smh Ain't nobody got time for that, or a motive for that!

"DUN DUN DUN
DUN DA DUN
DUN DA DUUUUN DUN"

This is one I'd never heard of: HAARP. It's apparently like a NWO Death Star and it is used to control weather, cause earthquakes in targeted places, spread mind-controlling or deadly chemicals. Apparently it's "fully operational" in addition to being COMPLETELY MADE UP! Ain't nobody got time for that!


The Federal Reserve is the fuel that burns the Jew-haters' engines. They think the FED is all about controlling markets, Jewish mustache-twisting conspiracies, and evil, bad Jewish people. Historically, the famous Henry Ford was an early adopter of this chicanery. Too bad, Henry. Like a key to the finish of your posterity.

"Oy vey!"

Having a monetary policy is not a threat to your liberty or your right to believe any cockamamie thing Alex Jones tells you on the magic radio machine. And just remember, hating Jews makes you very much like that short, loud guy who resembles a JC Penny teapot. And also, ain't nobody got time for that!

And finally, the dreaded North American Union or "NAU." Apparently there is a secret plan to merge the US with Canada and Mexico which explains why there is an also unheard of (because it's a secret!) plot to send as many Mexicans into the US as possible. Was there also a secret plan in the 1800s to merge the US and Ireland, which would explain the also secret plot to have lots of Irish people immigrate to the US? No?

"Whose side are the French on, really?
And WTH is a "huddled mass?"

Knowing a little history would go a long way. America is a nation of immigrants, and that is true even if some people are upset that more and more immigrants to this country have darker and darker skin.

More importantly, why would Mexico and Canada want to be a part of the US? Don't they love their country and culture as much as we love ours. And anyway, if a merger was planned, THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO IMMIGRATE! Ain't nobody got time for that! Though I have to say, I love me some maple syrup on my pork chimichanga.

For the Craziots, the lack of proof of any of this dark, weird fantasy PROVES that it's a secret conspiracy! And there's simply no arguing with that! But the point of this blog entry (if you haven't already picked up on it) is that these wacky theories would take lots of time, money, and effort, and there is no clear motive for any of it to happen. Smart, hard-working people can get very rich and powerful in Americay the way it is now. Why would a coup be needed? Ain't nobody got time - or money - for that!

I don't know how a person who commits to this line of delusional imaginings can ever get Above his/her Raisin'. I don't have a  lot of hope it will happen. But at least I get to write about it and we can all have a laugh at his/her expense.

Thanks for reading! Comments are my only compensation!

As a Post Script, let me add how EASY is was to find pictures for this blog, largely because of the many postings by the Craziots themselves. Thanks, Crazy People!

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.